Hi Jim et al.:
I'm not an attorney (thank goodness for that), but it seems to me that there
are at three separate issues here: (1) is the Skeem and Cooke article
defamatory - which was the basis for Hare's lawsuit (and I've seen the original
documents, which leave no doubt in this regard); (2) do Skeem and Cooke (S & C)
somehow distort Hare's posiiton; (3) are Skeem and Cooke's arguments re:
psychopathy based in good logic and good science. It's crucial, I think, to
keep these three issues straight.
Re: (1). Jim Clark is right that it's probably impossible to fully
evaluate the lawsuit claim without seeing the original version of S & C. I
read the original version (I was asked to comment on it by Jen Skeem, and
offered many suggestions, some of which they took, some of which they didn't),
and I found absolutely nothing in the manuscript that was remotely defamatory.
The original manuscript, like the published version, focused entirely on
substantive, not personal, issues, and whatever issues they raised were of
interpretation. I frankly find Hare's claim in this regard to be patently
absurd, and that is being about as charitable as I can be. Moreover, it's
worth noting that S & C asked Hare to identify what aspects of their manuscript
was in fact defamatory, and he (or more accuately, Hare through his lawyer)
refused. If something was clearly defamatory, Hare should have been able to
point S & C to such material. He did not. I would assume, incidentally, that
nothing prevents S & C from making the original version of manuscript available
to interested parties, and I would hope they do. It is extremely similar to
the final published version with the exception (if I recall correctly) that a
few quotations that were the subject of dispute (with Hare claiming they were
taken out of context) are now qualified more explicitly. By the way, my
understanding is that Hare refused to withdraw the lawsuit threat even after
seeing the final (published) version of the S & C manuscript, so readers of
this article should still be able to judge at least some the merits of Hare's
claim.
Re: (2). If I had a buck for every time I thought someone distorted my
position on psychopathy, EMDR, harmful psychotherapies, the Rorschach,
pseudoscience, etc., etc. (I'm reviewing an interesting manuscript on
psychopathy right now that I'd put in this category, and that's fine...it's all
part of the academic give and take), I could safely retire tomorrow. Academics
have claimed that "my views or quotes were taken out context" (which Hare has
claimed Skeem and Cooke did) for time immemorial. Hare claims that S & C
confused "criminal behavior" with "antisocial and criminal behavior and other
wrongdoing" (S & C say that Hare's measure is largely confounded with a focus
on criminality, and Hare disagrees, saying his measure's focus is broader than
criminality per se) a distinction that I find rather trivial. But even if Hare
has a valid point, I find the idea that this would the basis of a legitimate
lawsuit to be remarkable. The debate here is a matter of interpretation, in
part of disputes about data, in part of disputes about operationalization of
constructs.
Re: (3). S & C raise a large number of conceptual and methodological
issues, some of which I find compelling, others of which are more arguable.
Jim Clark raises a valid point re: reification, and points out that the issue
here may not be all that different from the quasi-equation of the construct of
intelligence with scores on the WAIS-III, a logical sin that is venial but
widespread. I agree partly with Jim here, although I'd argue that the factor
structure of psychopathy is even more muddled and controversial than the factor
structure of intelligence (if that's possible). In the intelligence domain,
there is now pretty good agreement about the existence of g, although there is
certainly vigorous disagreement about (a) its meaning and (b) whether there is
more to intelligence than g (or analytical intelligence or whatever one chooses
to call it). I don't wish to minimize such disagreement.
But in the psychopathy area, there is not even agreement about whether
psychopathy can be represented by a higher-order factor at all. Some people,
including me, are skeptical that psychopathy is even a coherent higher-order
syndrome at all, and suspect that it's instead a configuration of quite
divergent (and in some cases, largely uncorrelated) attributes. Psychopathy
emerges as a higher-order factor with some measures (e.g., PCL-R) but not with
others (e.g., PPI-R, a measure I've developed). Others disagree, and believe
that psychopathy is in fact a coherent higher-order syndrome composed of
correlated lower-order dimensions - although even here, there is a great deal
of disagreement about which of these dimensions "belong" in the construct. So
one might contend that the reification problem is even more worrisome in the
psychopathy area than in the intelligence area. Moreover, in the IQ area,
correlations among well known measures of general intelligence tend to be quite
high (total scores on the WAIS are very correlated with total scores on the
Stanford-Binet), whereas in the psychopathy area, the correlations among widely
used measures are often rather modest, frequently only in the .4 or .5 range.
So again, the dangers of equating measure with construct are even greater in
the psychopathy area than in the intelligence area.
But even if one disagrees with this line of reasoning, this (and all of
the other issues raised by Skeem and Cooke) are interpretational differences
that form the basis for healthy scientific debate and discussion. I do not see
or understand how they can possibly form the basis of a legitimate defamation
claim. I find it interesting that in the recent article in the news section of
Science (which I'm not sure has yet been posted on TIPS, although I'm losing
track because I've been following the issue on multiple listervs), even Hare
admits that he may have gone off "half-cocked" in his lawsuit threat. Perhaps
he is now having second thoughts.
Sorry for the loooooong message, all. ....Scott
________________________________________
From: Jim Clark [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:54 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Legal Fight Delays Paper on Psychopathy Scale 3 Years -
NYTimes.com
Hi
Speaking as a relative novice on psychopathy (some reading on it because of my
interest in inhibition and my wife being a psychologist with Correctional
Service of Canada), it appears from the actual papers (Skeem & Cook original,
Hare response, and rebuttal) that the debate about the nature of psychopathy
has been going on for some time and now has been raised to something of a
meta-debate level (e.g., have Hare's measures become so popular as to impede
progress in the area).
With respect to the lawsuits and delays in publication, it is difficult to say
how warranted they might have been without seeing earlier versions of the
manuscript. Certainly Hare's reply indicates that even now (presumably after
revisions?) he feels that his views are misrepresented. One would hope that
competent editorial processes would avoid gross distortions of people's views?
I can't say I found the Skeem and Cook paper that compelling, especially on the
general point (which I think was central to them) that the PCL has impeded
progress in understanding psychopathy and its relation to criminal behavior
because of its purported emphasis on criminal activities, its failure to
distinguish between traits and behavioral manifestations of traits, and its
overall success. I did not see any mention in their paper of actual barriers
to them and other researchers developing better measures and carrying out
whatever research they thought best to further our understanding of
psychopathology. It seemed analogous to someone complaining that Wecshler's
tests have become so dominant in the field of intelligence as to interfere with
our understanding of the construct. And I'm not sure that a sharp distinction
between traits and manifestations is always that easy to maintain (which does
not mean that one should not try). For example, can one even talk about a
trait like dishonesty without alluding to behaviors such as lying, stealing,
cheating, ...?
I'd be interested in other's reactions, especially far more knowledgeable
people like Scott, who has worked in the area and published with Skeem. I was
motivated to read the material because the idea of Hare suing to stop
publication seemed quite discrepant with his public persona (very congenial)
when he presented last week in accepting an award from the Canadian
Psychological Association.
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[email protected]
>>> "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> 12-Jun-10 11:11:25 PM >>>
Bob Hare has threatened a lawsuit to prevent the APA from publishing a
scholarly article that is critical of (the impact of) his psychopathy
scale.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/health/12psych.html?hpw
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-2100 ex. 66164
[email protected]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==========================
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=3055
or send a blank email to
leave-3055-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=3059
or send a blank email to
leave-3059-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3065
or send a blank email to
leave-3065-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
