It seems that this has not been forwarded to TIPS yet, so here it is. Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 03:27:51 -0500 From: Robert Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Richard J. McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Elizabeth Loftus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Letters to WW Norton & Company from Robert Spitzer and Elizabeth Loftus
Richard, I would appreciate your putting both my email and Elizabeth Loftus's email to the president of Norton & Company on the SCCPNET list serve. Thank you. Bob Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. ------------- College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University | New York, N.Y. 10032 Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. Unit 60, 1051 Riverside Drive Professor of Psychiatry Tel: (212) 543-5524 Chief, Biometrics Research Department Fax: (212) 543-5525 New York State Psychiatric Institute E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] February 21, 2004 Drake Mc Feely, President, WW Norton & Company W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, INC. 500 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10110 Dear Mr. Mc Feely, In the third chapter of Lauren Slater's new book, Opening Skinner's Box - Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, she has extensive quotes from a telephone conversation that we had several years ago. Several colleagues who have read the book have asked me if the quotes are accurate, since they found it hard to believe that I had actually made so many outrageous statements. The quotes of me that appear in the book are either outright fabrications or represent what Slater imagines I could or would say. It is of note that Slater could have - but did not - record our conversation. Here are some of the statements that Slater claims I made and why I am sure I never made them. 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 paralyzed." 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." (p. 68) I never said this. I would certainly not have gloated over Rosenhan's illness. Spitzer says: "The new classification system of the DSM is stringent and scientific." (p. 80) You can search all of the many papers I have written about DSM-III. I have never said it was "scientific" or "stringent." DSM-III facilitates scientific study but it makes no sense to say that it is itself "scientific." "Stringent" is a word I never use and incorrectly characterizes DSM-III. "I'm telling you, with the new diagnostic system in place, Rosenhan's experiment could never happen today. It would never work. You would not be admitted and in the ER they would diagnose you as deferred.". "No," repeats Spitzer, "that experiment could never be successfully repeated. Not in this day and age." (p. 80) I would never have referred to Rosenhan's study as an "experiment" nor would I talk about it being "successfully repeated." Slater seems to be saying that I claimed that now, with the DSM, psychiatrists would not diagnose a pseudopatient as having a mental disorder. I would not make such a claim. If there were no reason to suspect the pseudopatient of malingering, I guess that most psychiatrists now would also make an incorrect diagnosis - just as the psychiatrists in Rosenhan's study did. It would not make sense for me to have made a blanket prediction (twice!) that it could never happen now. Since DSM-III was published in 1980, why would I have referred to it as "the new diagnostic system?" This is a serious matter. As a reputable publisher you have an obligation to investigate this matter and take appropriate action to stop these damaging misrepresentations by your author. I am enjoying reading Slater's book, Lying: A Metaphorical Memoir (Penguin Books, 2000). I am up to the part where she describes how she went through a period of her life when she was a compulsive liar. I look forward to hearing from you. Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. Professor of Psychiatry ----------------------- University of California - Irvine IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697-7085 Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D. (949) 824-3285 (TEL) Distinguished Professor (949) 824-3002 (FAX) Psychology & Social Behavior E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Criminology, Law & Society February 21, 2004 Drake McFeely, President, WW Norton & Company W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, INC. 500 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Mr. McFeely, I am writing to inform you about a number of factual errors and serious misrepresentations in Lauren Slater's book Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. Her Chapter 8, en-titled "Lost in the Mall", is about my research. The chapter is riddled with errors - some minor but others extremely serious. Moreover, quotes are attributed to me that I have never said, nor would ever say. Here is a sampling of some of Slater's errors: p. 183: Slater quotes me as saying that Ted Bundy "was wrongly identified in a kidnapping charge." I have never said that Bundy was wrongly identified. During his trial I pointed to some of the difficulties with the identification. However, I never said he was wrongly identified. p. 184: Slater quotes me as saying that 25% of the sample is a "statistically significant minority." I have called this figure a significant minority of the sample, but would never say something so scientifically improper as to call it a "statistically significant minority." p. 184: I am also astounded that Slater would refer to my sometime co-author and ex-husband, Professor Geoffrey Loftus, as "Gregg." One would think that someone who sets out to publicly explain and review a scientific literature would be familiar with the names of its major contributors. Lest you think that this sloppiness with names is an isolated case, let me quote from a published review of Slater's book in the London Mail on Sunday (February 15, 2004): "It does not boost one's confidence in her judgment, for instance, that within the space of two lines she manages to spell the names of two famous psychologists wrong: Thomas Szasz she spells 'Sasz' and R. D. Laing she spells 'Lang'. She also writes 'per se' as 'per say', which makes you wonder if she knows what it means." p. 185: I did not claim that George Franklin's daughter went to "some new-age therapist who practiced all sorts of suggestion." I did not make subjects in the lab think that red signs were yellow. I did not say, as to Eileen Franklin's memories, "Untrue. All these details Eileen later read about in newspaper reports." The details included in Eileen Franklin's account were in fact available in newspapers, television accounts, and other public places. As to where she might have been exposed to them I cannot say, since I never interviewed her. p. 191: Slater has a long quote attributed to me that uses words that I would never have said. It beings: "The real facts are sometimes so subtle as to defy language." - I'm not ever sure I can even figure out what this means. p. 192: Slater refers to "the woman who yelled 'whore' [at me] in the airport a few years back". No woman has ever yelled "whore" at me in an airport. p. 192: Slater refers to "the egged windows of her home, the yolks drying to a crisp crust". No one has ever egged my home or its windows. p. 193: Slater's account of the Paul Ingram case is sloppy to the point of leaving the reader with completely incorrect impressions. For example, Slater writes of me "when she heard about this case, and the kind of questioning Ingram underwent. She got in touch with her friend and cult expert Richard Ofshe, who trundled down to see Paul in his jail cell." Contrary to the impression conveyed by these words and those that follow, namely that I had played some role in connecting Ofshe with Ingram, or in Ingram's subsequent decision to recant his confession, the truth of the matter is that Ofshe had been working on the Ingram case and meeting with Ingram in his jail cell, and Ingram had recanted his confession, years before I had ever met Dr. Ofshe or had become involved with the Ingram case at all. I first became interested in the case years after these events occurred, when a television reporter who was suspicious about the case asked me to help examine transcripts. Dr. Ofshe, and not I, deserves the sole credit for his innovative work in this case. p. 196: Slater makes a point of the fact that "..by the end of the interview, I know not only Loftus's shoe size but her bra size too." The reason Slater knows that is that she explicitly asked me for each of those pieces of information. It makes me wonder what questions she asked of her other interviewees. p. 202: Slater claims that I slammed the phone down on her. I have no recollection of ever slamming the phone down on anyone, let alone her. If there was an accidental disconnection that occurred I would have explained or apologized. As you will become aware when you hear from other scientists and scholars, there are additional serious factual and scholarly errors in other chapters of Slater's volume. Historically, W.W. Norton's publications have been known for matching the highest standards of factual accuracy of any scholarly publisher, but I worry that lately these standards may have slipped. Could you either confirm that my impression is accurate, or else let me know what steps Norton will be taking to correct the factual error it has published in Slater's volume? Sincerely, Elizabeth Loftus Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D. =========================================== Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:38:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard J. McNally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: SSCPNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] November 4, 2003 Letters to the Editor Magazine The New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, N.Y. 10036 To the Editor: Lauren Slater got it precisely backwards (The Cruelest Cure, November 2). Anxiety disorders themselves are cruel; treating them effectively is not. Sincerely, Richard J. McNally, Ph.D. Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University 1230 William James Hall 33 Kirkland Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3853 ===================================== Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:17:06 -0500 From: "John W. Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To the Editor, Lauren Slater (Nov. 2) wrote a passably even-handed story about David Barlow and exposure therapy. There were a few errors of fact, spin and selection of sources which I am sure others will point out to you, but those are not my main concern. It is the headline that I find most objectionable. "The Cruelest Cure," clearly implies that the cure about to be described is in fact cruel. Had it read "The 'Cruelest' Cure" (with quote marks around "Cruelest"), the reader would have been primed instead for a balanced or even favorable article. Headlines create what psychologists call primacy effects -- first impressions that can make a material difference in how articles are understood. Please try to be more careful with them when the well-being of a great many people is at stake. John Winston Bush, PhD Chairman and Executive Director New York Institute for Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies 207 Berkeley Place Brooklyn, NY 11217-3801 Telephone: 646 267-7630 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
