← Previous Post: | Next Post:


In recent years, psychologists have reported a raft of findings on race biases, brain imaging and even extrasensory perception that have not stood up to scrutiny.

… In a survey of more than 2,000 American psychologists scheduled to be published this year, Leslie John of Harvard Business School and two colleagues found that 70 percent had acknowledged, anonymously, to cutting some corners in reporting data. About a third said they had reported an unexpected finding as predicted from the start, and about 1 percent admitted to falsifying data.

The ruler of this universe seems to be ex-Harvard psychology professor Marc Hauser (scroll down), and his long slow downfall is certainly instructive; but really where is the American Psychological Association? UD gathers the APA is the official organization here… UD fears the APA has, at the very least, co-dependency and enabling issues.

A far more healthy research model is the open rollicking naughtiness of the American Psychiatric Association, with its Schatzbergs and Nemeroffs and Biedermans and all. The first APA is getting all weepy and neurotic; the second hums happily along.

Trackback URL for this post:

3 Responses to “APA research guidelines: Throw enough shit at the wall and some of it might stick.”

  1. Tony Says:

    More troubling for the American Psychological Association is their members’ participation in “enhanced interrogation techniques.” See here for a general overview. The APA has refused to launch any real investigation with real outside investigators into their members’ behavior and has simply wanted to turn a blind eye towards what some of their members did.

  2. Mike S. Says:

    Yea and Verily,
    Tony (above) has it correct on the matter of APA not investigating torture participation by members. I believe it also has been pathetically sluggish to issue statements condemning/forbidding future participation in such endeavors as well.
    Eventually they were shamed into changing their tune.

    And the APA wasn’t thrilled about Wikipedia putting the Rorschach blots online. They weren’t the most strenuous objectors, but I cannot take seriously the “executive director for science” at the APA who takes Rorshach seriously…

    The other APA (psychiatric) isn’t much better. Here you’ll find a nice bio (better: whitewash) of Cornelia Wilber, the woman who brought us “recovered memory therapy” and the consequent epic madness of a string of convictions of “devil worshiping baby rapers” during the late 80s and 90s, all in the face of zero physical evidence that any crimes had ever occurred.

    So when the GOP storms the Senate (and WH) in a year’s time, the recent travails of frauds like Hauser and Staples will provide a nice excuse to take an axe to funding research in psychology.


    […] Statement of Principles, she is bound to remind herself – and you, her reader – of what psychological studies are worth these days. In recent years, psychologists have reported a raft of findings on race biases, brain imaging and […]

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE