There seem to be many links towards the end of this website that address many of the issues.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/paper-on-psychopaths-delayed-by-.html Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [email protected] ________________________________________ From: Lilienfeld, Scott O [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:23 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Legal Fight Delays Paper on Psychopathy Scale 3 Years - NYTimes.com 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=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=3065 or send a blank email to leave-3065-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- 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=3067 or send a blank email to leave-3067-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
