Stephen wrote about Lauren Slater�s book *Opening Skinner�s Box*: >Of course that still leaves the accusations of misquotes and >misrepresentations in her book made by people who should know about >such things.
The following passage comes from the extract from Slater�s book, published in the Guardian in January: Spitzer pauses. "So how is David Rosenhan?" he finally asks. "Actually, not so good," I say. "He's lost his wife to cancer, his daughter Nina in a car crash. He's had several strokes and is now suffering from a disease they can't quite diagnose. He's paralysed." That Spitzer doesn't say, or much sound, sorry when he hears this reveals the depths to which Rosenhan's study is still hated in the field, even after 30 years. "That's what you get," he says, "for conducting such an inquiry." When I read the last sentence, my first reaction was one of disbelief, in spite of the quotation marks. First, I doubted that Spitzer would have such despicably malicious feelings, and second, if he had, I doubted even more that he would express them to someone who wrote books (and possibly articles � I don�t know, but she probably does, given the popularity of her Prozac book). We now have Spitzer�s emphatic denial, so whatever else one may say about what Slater writes on the work of famous psychologists, she is clearly not someone whose words one can rely on. And, as I wrote in a previous message, when I heard extracts from her book on BBC radio, I was unhappy about the degree to which she seemed to mix her own feelings and ideas in with her accounts, so that in the end I wasn�t sure how much was history, and how much her own imaginative interpolation. Stephen wrote: > From what I know of Harlow, her essay seems accurate, and it is written > in a > lively style. I've also received a note from a correspondent who > tells me he does book reviews for _New Scientist_ (our TIPS posts really > get > around, it seems), and he says Slater didn't describe the story about > Deborah in a Skinner box as true. He says Slater prefaced it with the > phrase "what we presume to know", and she ended by saying "It all seems, > without a doubt, good intentioned, if not downright noble, and sets > Skinner firmly in humane waters". He speculates that perhaps Deborah > didn't actually read Slater's book (and, of course, we didn't either, > shame on us). Judging by the five extracts from *Opening Skinner�s Box* on five different psychologists I heard on BBC Radio 4�s �Book at Bedtime� a few weeks ago, her style is too �lively� for me, in the sense that there was too much personal material interpolated into accounts of psychologists� life and work. It made for good listening/reading, but left me with a feeling of unease. I felt I couldn�t trust what she had written, even though I thought her conclusions about the material she was discussing were often sensible, even occasionally wise. Judging by the dubious passage reproduced above purportedly quoting Spitzer verbatim, and the letters from other psychologists denying they said what Slater claims they said, the cover of *Opening Skinner�s Box* should have a cautionary label: read with care and don�t assume the accounts and quoted conversations provided in this book are accurate. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 -------------------------------------- Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:49:40 -0500 Author: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Slater's book > Given the critical comments in this thread concerning the veracity of > Laura Slater's book _Opening Skinner's Box_, I thought people might like > to read a sample of her work. The Boston Globe has reprinted an adapted > version of her essay on Harry Harlow at: > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/081/focus/Monkey_love+.shtml > > (The Boston Globe is usually Beth's beat, and I hope I'm not stepping on > her toes by posting this or, even worse, repeating what she's already > said. Actually, the url comes from a posting from Ben Harris on Chris > Green's Cheiron list.) > > From what I know of Harlow, her essay seems accurate, and it is written in > a lively style. I've also received a note from a correspondent who tells > me he does book reviews for _New Scientist_ (our TIPS posts really get > around, it seems), and he says Slater didn't describe the story about > Deborah in a Skinner box as true. He says Slater prefaced it with the > phrase "what we presume to know", and she ended by saying "It all seems, > without a doubt, good intentioned, if not downright noble, and sets > Skinner firmly in humane waters". He speculates that perhaps Deborah > didn't actually read Slater's book (and, of course, we didn't either, > shame on us). > > Of course that still leaves the accusations of misquotes and > misrepresentations in her book made by people who should know about such > things. On the other hand, another Deborah (Blum, this time) has recently > come out with a well-received biography of Harlow, handy for basic facts, > and perhaps Slater allowed the Globe to publish her Harlow chapter as one > of the safer choices, unlikely to attract unfavourable criticism. And, of > course, Harlow is dead, and can't complain, unlike some of the others > quoted in her book (but I do recognize her Harlow quotes as accurate, > outrageous though they may be). > > BTW, our _New Scientist_ also expressed wonderment at our lack of concern > for libel laws, and he may have a point, if our posts are readily > available to the teeming Googlized millions. And it seems they are. I had > another private post yesterday from a Dr. Capozzoli who somehow noticed > that I cited his 1995 paper on crossed laterality in a post not too long > ago. He told me he still thinks he's right. > > Stephen Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:27:05 -0500 Author: "Beth Benoit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Slater's book > I join the ranks of those chagrined at the apparent mess Lauren Slater = > made of the Skinner story, but I'm still planning to read it. (I'll = > give a book report for TIPS if anyone is interested.) I've been a fan = > of her writing, though she does have some rather challenging ideas. Two = > of her books, Prozac Diary, and Love Works Like This: Moving from One = > Kind of Life to Another are both amazing reads. Another, Welcome to My = > Country: A Therapist's Memoir of Madness is on my list. She was one of = > the first people ever to take Prozac, and found the decision about = > whether to continue it while pregnant with her first child to be = > wrenching. Her severe and debilitating mental illness is richly = > described. I'm not letting her off the hook for possible breaches in = > her Skinner book until I've read it, but I don't hesitate to recommend = > the other two books as interesting reads. > > Beth Benoit > University System of New Hampshire Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:59:18 -0600 Author: "Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Slater's book > At 4:49 PM -0500 3/21/04, Stephen Black wrote: > >....and he says Slater didn't describe the story about > >Deborah in a Skinner box as true. He says Slater prefaced it with the > >phrase "what we presume to know", and she ended by saying "It all seems, > >without a doubt, good intentioned, if not downright noble, and sets > >Skinner firmly in humane waters". He speculates that perhaps Deborah > >didn't actually read Slater's book (and, of course, we didn't either, > >shame on us). > > I'm not sure that hiding behind statements like "what we presume to > know" when facts are easily checked (and the rumour long since > debunked) is much of an improvement. > All she had to do was go to the 'Snopes' Web site (my favorite for > checking urban myths): > http://www.snopes.com/science/skinner.asp > > -- > * PAUL K. BRANDON --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
