Home | Psychology |     Share This Page
Asperger's By Proxy

Copyright © 2005-2019, Paul LutusMessage Page

Reader Feedback Page

Click here for the (preferred) PDF version of this article.

Most recent update:


This article evaluates modern psychological theory and practice. It explains how opportunistic psychological diagnoses are created and destroyed, fueled by public credulousness and the absence of scientific discipline within psychology. A case history is included to show the consequences of these trends and practices.


1  Science
     1.1  Age of Enlightenment
     1.2  Royal Society
     1.3  Dictionary versus Encyclopedia
     1.4  Science Defined
     1.5  Pseudoscience
     1.6  Science Litmus Test
     1.7  Dried Gourd Science
     1.8  Contrast Between Science and Pseudoscience
     1.9  Magical Thinking
2  Psychology
     2.1  Theoretical Unification
     2.2  Historical Highlights
          2.2.1  Drapetomania
          2.2.2  Lobotomy
          2.2.3  Homosexuality
          2.2.4  Refrigerator Mother
          2.2.5  Recovered Memory Therapy
          2.2.6  Asperger Syndrome
          2.2.7  Not Otherwise Specified
          2.2.8  Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
     2.3  Psychology's Critics
          2.3.1  Sigmund Freud
          2.3.2  Sigmund Koch
          2.3.3  Richard P. Feynman
          2.3.4  Ronald F. Levant
          2.3.5  Thomas R. Insel
     2.4  Psychiatry
     2.5  Neuroscience
3  Case History
     3.1  Introduction
     3.2  First Meeting
     3.3  Starting Out
     3.4  Factitious Disorder/Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
     3.5  The Family Outing
     3.6  Hell Hath no Fury
     3.7  The M-Word
     3.8  The Plea
     3.9  Dangerous Lies
     3.10  Double Down
     3.11  Visiting the Grown-Up's Table
     3.12  Individuality
     3.13  Coda

List of Figures

1 The “Family Outing” site

1  Science

Before discussing psychology's relationship with science, we must first define science.

1.1  Age of Enlightenment

In a period now called the “Age of Enlightenment”1, European intellectual activity turned away from a view of reality based on tradition and authority, toward one focused on direct and dispassionate observations of nature and the shaping of falsifiable theories to generalize those observations.

1.2  Royal Society

The Royal Society2, the oldest scientific institution in the world (founded in 1660 CE), chose as their motto “Nullius in Verba” or “Take nobody's word for it”. The society explains their motto this way:

It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.3

This addresses one of the more pervasive public misunderstandings of science — that it relies on authority and expertise. This is quite false — as shown in the above quotation, science explicitly rejects authority. About this issue Richard P. Feynman4 said, “Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”

Another way to express this idea is to say that the greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

1.3  Dictionary versus Encyclopedia

Students and others are warned against seeking formal technical definitions of words (like science) using a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. A dictionary's purpose is, not to define words, but to describe how people use words, dispassionately and without rancor. Consequently, as just one example, many dictionaries list “literally” as synonymous with “virtually”5, even though these words are antonyms. The reason? That's how people use the word.

Consistent with its descriptive purpose, a dictionary defines science as knowledge6, which is (a) how people use the word, but (b) technically inaccurate. By contrast, an encyclopedia defines science as a disciplined way to acquire knowledge7. About this issue Carl Sagan8 said, “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.”9

To summarize, a dictionary describes, an encyclopedia prescribes.

1.4  Science Defined

In its entry for falsifiability, the Britannica encyclopedia defines a critical element of science:

Criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, [is] a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false.10

As it relates to science, the falsifiability criterion cannot be overemphasized. It says that scientific theories must be testable against nature, against reality, and if the tests fail, such theories must be abandoned.

This criterion means theories that cannot be empirically tested and potentially falsified, regardless of their persuasiveness or elegance, aren't scientific.

1.5  Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience11 superficially resembles science but lacks one or more essential ingredients. A pseudoscientist might perform experiments (descriptions) but never shape falsifiable theories (explanations), he might assume a hypothesis to be true before any supporting evidence, he might require others to provide contradicting evidence instead of accepting his burden of positive evidence, and so forth. In many ways defining pseudoscience is more difficult than defining science, but a key property is that one starts with a focus on a preferred result and only seeks evidence supporting that outcome.

1.6  Science Litmus Test

A concise science filter might distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific fields by asking these questions12:

  • Is the field defined by one or more empirical13 theories?

  • Do the theories agree with each other, with theories of other scientific fields, and with nature?

  • Are the theories testable against nature in practical experiments?

  • Can experimental outcomes falsify the field's theories?

  • Would falsification of the field's theories cause abandonment of the field?

  • Can experimental outcomes be replicated in independent laboratories?

  • Do the theories successfully predict phenomena not yet observed?

The meaning of this filter is that, if all the criteria are present (meaning 1 and 2 and 3 etc.), the field may meet the modern consensus definition of science, but if any of them aren't present, the field is pseudoscience, i.e. a field with an external similarity to science but without some essential ingredients.

1.7  Dried Gourd Science

Readers unfamiliar with science may question whether the above requirements are too strict — aren't we defining science too rigidly? Might we sometimes throw away useful observations and theories by applying overly strict rules? To answer, let me offer my cure for the common cold.

In my cure I shake dried gourds over the cold sufferer until his symptoms abate. The cure might take three days, maybe a week, but it always works. It's 100% effective, it's repeatable with different subjects and different gourds, it can be replicated in different laboratories, it's empirical, it might have been falsified but wasn't, so where's my Nobel Prize?

Here's another question — what's wrong with this cure? Here's a short list:

  • The cure's description lacks essential elements: skepticism and critical thinking. A skeptical thinker might wonder whether the treatment has anything to do with the outcome, and how we might find out.

  • It's only a description, not an explanation (a theory). Science requires theories, generalizations that explain observations and predict phenomena not yet observed.

  • Because I don't try to explain my miracle cure (i.e. by crafting a theory), I'm relying on a shallow observation of its apparent effectiveness without wondering whether I'm overlooking other possible reasons for the experiment's outcome.

  • Scientific theories must be falsifiable in principle. If a particular experiment fails, that's not a falsification, it's a contradiction, because a third experiment might contradict the second, ad infinitum. Falsification means conclusively proving a theory false, not simply contradicting an earlier observation.

  • The null hypothesis14, an essential element in modern scientific discipline, is missing from this experiment. If it were present, I would be obliged to make the default assumption that there's no connection between the treatment and the outcome until persuasive evidence suggests otherwise.

About the class of pseudoscience described here, Richard P. Feynman4 said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”15

This pseudoscience example is meant to show how an absence of theory, skepticism and critical thinking can lead to perfect nonsense masquerading as science — just as with psychology.

1.8  Contrast Between Science and Pseudoscience

A key distinction exists between science and pseudoscience:

  • A scientist assumes his theory is wrong until it's supported by evidence (the null hypothesis14), and accepts his burden of evidence.

  • A pseudoscientist assumes his theory is right until it's proven wrong by others.

The problem with the pseudoscientist's default posture is that many ideas cannot be proven wrong. Let's say we're testing the theory that Bigfoot16 exists, hiding in some dark forest.

  • A scientist assumes Bigfoot is a myth until evidence proves otherwise.

  • A pseudoscientist assumes the opposite — Bigfoot exists until it can be proven not to exist.

But proving Bigfoot's nonexistence would require proof of a negative, an impossible evidentiary burden and a logical error called argument from ignorance17. This immunity to disproof means the pseudoscientist is secure in his belief in Bigfoot or anything else he cares to believe in. He's completely isolated from reality-testing and, therefore, from reality.

When reality-testing proves a theory wrong, a scientist abandons the theory, but a pseudoscientist abandons reality.

1.9  Magical Thinking

Let me connect the above points to two modern social problems — magical thinking and phony victimization.

  • In medieval times, what we now call pseudoscience ruled supreme — claims that couldn't be proven false were true. This idea, now called “magical thinking”18, was the foundation for religious and authoritarian rule.

  • In modern times and since about 1600 C.E., science is the new evidentiary standard, which means claims that cannot be proven true are false. This standard applies to both intellectual activities and law (innocent until proven guilty19).

I ask my readers to remember this distinction between magical thinking (true until proven false) and scientific thinking (false until proven true) for examples that follow in which people seek victim status by describing imaginary crimes.

2  Psychology

Human psychology is defined as study of the mind and behavior20. This represents a serious obstacle to meaningful science, because the mind is not a thing, it's an idea, consequently it cannot be a source of empirical evidence. This, in turn, means psychology must get along without falsifiable theories — or, for that matter, any empirically testable theories at all.

In an informal ranking of sciences based on scientific substance, psychology lies between biology21 and astrology22. Biology has empirically testable, falsifiable theories like evolution23 and natural selection24, so it's firmly based in science. Astrology has testable theories, but they've been proven false, so astrology might be described as a failed science — unless someone takes it seriously, in which case it's a pseudoscience. Because psychology has no testable empirical theories it cannot be described as a science, but because of its many avid practitioners and followers it has acquired a wholly undeserved scientific reputation.

Another way to say this is that, because it cannot craft or test scientific theories, psychology is forced to operate at the dried-gourdDriedGourd level of science — it thinks its methods work, but it cannot test this assumption using reliable science.

2.1  Theoretical Unification

Readers may object that all of psychology shouldn't be judged by the dismal state of clinical psychology and psychiatry, that using a single word to describe them all is misleading. But when applied to a science, a single word is sufficient. If an airplane disintegrates in flight, an investigation might discover that its designers ignored theories from aeronautics' parent field (i.e. physics), or that the accident reveals a new physical principle that theoretical physics needs to accept (like the role played by metal fatigue25 in the in-flight failure of the deHavilland Comet aircraft26).

Because physics is a science, its empirical, falsifiable theories unify the field and its applications. Physical theory and practice are joined — a new theoretical finding has immediate effect on practice, and unexpected results arising in practice have an effect on theory.

In the same way, because biology is a science (because scientific biological principles unify theory and practice), new theoretical findings like epigenetics27 inform all of biology as well as coordinating theory and practice.

In medicine, clinics cannot apply treatments that haven't been tested for efficacy and safety or that don't conform to medical and biological theories. This is possible because modern medicine is an application of biological science.

The above principles would apply to psychology except for the fact that the mind cannot be a source for reliable empirical evidence, so psychologists cannot create scientific theories about it and the unifying effect of theory is absent. This theory vacuum explains why there are so many small divisions within the field — the American Psychological Association (APA)49 lists 54 divisions — that's more divisions than an ice cream store has flavors.

2.2  Historical Highlights

Because psychology can't craft or test empirical theories, a review of its history shows an aimless drift from one fad to another, each abandoned after either inspiring public outrage or proving itself to have no practical value. Here are some highlights:

2.2.1  Drapetomania

Before the U.S. Civil War psychologists invented Drapetomania28, a mental illness diagnosis that presumed to explain why slaves ran away from their masters. Drapetomania was used to justify the racist policies of the era and force free men and women back into the hands of their “owners.” There was no corresponding mental illness to explain why slave owners believed it was moral to own a human being, but the slave owners, not the slaves, paid the psychologists. Unlike the other examples in this list, psychologists now accept that Drapetomania was pure pseudoscience.

Outcome: abandoned.

2.2.2  Lobotomy

In the 1930s psychologists invented a simple procedure that greatly improved the behavior of mental patients. Before the procedure, patients might rant and yell for hours, making life miserable for everyone. After the procedure, patients became much more docile and manageable. The procedure involved inserting an icepick into the patient's prefrontal cortex and moving it around, slicing through brain tissues. This produced a dramatic improvement in behavior, but as a side effect the patient lost any resemblance to a human being. Called “Lobotomy”29, the procedure reached its peak popularity in the 1950s, was eventually applied to 40,000 people, but has since been abandoned. The Wikipedia Lobotomy article29 includes this quote: “The purpose of the operation was to reduce the symptoms of mental disorder, and it was recognized that this was accomplished at the expense of a person's personality and intellect.”

Outcome: abandoned.

2.2.3  Homosexuality

In the mid-20th century homosexuality was formally identified as a mental illness and various treatments were devised including chemical castration. Since then two things have changed: the public has begun to accept homosexuality, and even psychologists realized their “treatments” weren't working. Eventually homosexuality was removed from the DSM30, psychology's standard diagnostic manual, but this hasn't prevented some psychologists from offering ineffective and harmful Conversion Therapy31 treatments. Because of its potential for harm this therapy has been declared illegal in many regions32.

Outcome: abandoned.

2.2.4  Refrigerator Mother

Over the decades some organic ailments have been misidentified as mental illnesses amenable to psychological treatments, among which were the various forms of autism. At the height of psychology's popularity, autism was widely blamed on “refrigerator mothers”33, emotional cripples unable to bond with their children. Fortunately for many innocent and caring parents this fad didn't last and autism was eventually identified as an organic, not mental, ailment.

Outcome: abandoned.

2.2.5  Recovered Memory Therapy

In the 1990s a fad psychological treatment called Recovered Memory Therapy34 (hereafter RMT) became popular. In this therapy, psychology clients “remembered” being victims of horrible crimes that were supposedly suppressed from the conscious mind. Recovered memory therapy seemed to bring hidden traumatic memories into conscious recall, but the role of fantasy and invention — in both therapist and client — seems not to have been adequately guarded against. The result was that many people were accused of imaginary crimes.

The apparent goal of RMT was to confer victim status to people who, for one reason or another, couldn't function in modern times — people who demanded sympathy and money for imagined wrongs. But to work as intended, RMT relied on a pseudoscientific standard of evidence — claims were assumed true until proven false. Unfortunately for the phony victims, this collided with today's scientific and legal standard in which claims are assumed false until proven true (innocent until proven guilty).

The legal system required some time to awaken, but before too many lives were destroyed, it caught on. About the time virgins began reporting imaginary rapes35, the courts realized they were being played, the wrongly accused were released, the phony victims got no more attention and the therapy lost its popularity.

Outcome: abandoned.

2.2.6  Asperger Syndrome

Even though it's been abandoned, Asperger Syndrome36, also known as “Asperger's”, is regarded by many as the perfect mental illness diagnosis. With a minimum of acting ability nearly anyone could get the diagnosis, it produced sympathy, special education funds and attention, and a number of important historical figures (Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein and Bill Gates among others) were assigned the diagnosis. These factors made Asperger's the first genuinely attractive mental illness, it resulted in an epidemic of phony diagnoses and nearly bankrupted some school districts who were obliged to provide special education funds for the victims of this cruel ailment.

Asperger's was popular with overcontrolling parents, who would assign it to their above-average children in order to shame them into acting more “normal.” But it was also popular with youngsters — after all, wouldn't you like to have the same mental illness as Albert Einstein or Bill Gates?

In resonse to public outrage, and to limit further damage to psychology, Asperger's was removed from the standard diagnostic manual (the DSM30), but because psychologists aren't obliged to honor the DSM's contents, Asperger therapy, like Conversion Therapy32 and others, might reappear as public tastes change.

Outcome: abandoned.

2.2.7  Not Otherwise Specified

Until recently the DSM30 contained a catch-all “diagnosis” of Not Otherwise Specified (NOS)37. Psychologists applied it to people who couldn't be easily assigned another diagnosis. Its apparent purpose was to avoid ever having to tell someone, “There's nothing wrong with you — go home and enjoy your life.”

Imagine an actual medical doctor telling his patient, “You have a bad case of Not Otherwise Specified. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.”

In the most recent DSM (version 5) (2013)38, examples of “Not Otherwise Specified” have been either dropped or renamed “Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC).”

Outcome: abandoned/renamed.

2.2.8  Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy39 (hereafter CBT) is a widely practiced therapeutic method in psychiatry and clinical psychology. In spite of its questionable evidentiary basis it's been a mainstay of psychological practice for many decades. Many therapists are confident that CBT is effective and distinct from other therapies, in spite of the many studies that contradict this belief. In a recent meta-analysis40, CBT and other therapeutic methods were carefully compared but no statistically significant difference was detected between them. In another study41 CBT was broken down into its component parts to see which were most effective. This study showed a similar result — the separately applied components produced nearly identical clinical responses, and more important, the responses appeared before any of the tested components should have been able to distinguish themselves.

Faced with these outcomes, a skeptical scientist would suggest that these therapies represent examples of the Placebo Effect42, where any plausible faux therapy might produce the same result, but psychologists seem unwilling to consider this possibility.

Outcome: still widely practiced.

The events described above arise primarily from the fact that there's no theoretical foundation within psychology, a fact that's becoming a matter of public debate43. Psychologists observe and describe, but they don't — and can't — craft testable theories about what they've observed. Notwithstanding that practical limitation, in reading the above list one can see evolution at work — it seems psychologists learn from their mistakes. Asperger Syndrome2.2.6 represented a more attractive project than, say, Recovered Memory Therapy2.2.5 (RMT), but its attractiveness eventually led to an epidemic of meaningless diagnoses and forced its abandonment. One could say RMT was abandoned because of too many failures and Asperger Syndrome was abandoned because of too many successes. In a larger sense they were both abandoned for lack of a theoretical framework to either explain or justify them.

2.3  Psychology's Critics

Among the psychologists who have analyzed their own field, the views expressed in this article are by no means out of the ordinary. Starting with Sigmund Freud and extending to the present, many critics have made the same points in different ways. Here's a representative sample:

2.3.1  Sigmund Freud

In his 1895 unpublished work “Entwurf einer Psychologie” (draft of a psychology), later translated to English as “Project for a Scientific Psychology”, Sigmund Freud44 reluctantly came to the conclusion that the chasm separating the mind from physical reality could not be bridged, and therefore that psychology could not become scientific. About this effort Freud later said, “Why I cannot fit it together [the organic and the psychological] I have not even begun to fathom.”45

Aware of the negative implications of this work for his field and his personal standing, Freud directed that the book not be published during his lifetime, so its release was delayed until 1950.

2.3.2  Sigmund Koch

A notable psychology critic and philosopher of science, psychologist Sigmund Koch46 was selected to edit a major work titled “Psychology: A Study of a Science” (Koch, 1959-63)47, which became a six-volume series. About this work, Koch came to these conclusions:

The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science.

The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion46.

2.3.3  Richard P. Feynman

Well-known for his irreverence and wit, Nobel Prizewinner Richard P. Feynman4 often criticized psychology for its scientific pretensions. In a now-famous address entitled “Cargo Cult Science”, Feynman said:

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.48

2.3.4  Ronald F. Levant

While president of the American Psychological Association49, Ronald F. Levant50 began an initiative to move clinical psychology toward an evidence-based practice model and away from its reliance on anecdote and narrative. It seems psychologists weren't ready for this change — about their response, Levant said:

Some APA members have asked me why I have chosen to sponsor an APA Presidential Initiative on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Psychology, expressing fears that the results might be used against psychologists by managed-care companies and malpractice lawyers.

To respond, I would start by drawing attention to the larger societal context in which we live. The EBP movement in U.S. society is truly a juggernaut, racing to achieve accountability in medicine, psychology, education, public policy and even architecture. The zeitgeist is to require professionals to base their practice to whatever extent possible on evidence. Thus, psychology needs to define EBP in psychology or it will be defined for us. We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.51

Levant's critics were right — modern psychological practice is entirely unscientific and an initiative such as he proposed would only have focused public attention on that fact, with significant legal exposure and little compensating advantage. So Levant's initiative failed.

2.3.5  Thomas R. Insel

While director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)52 (2002-2015), Thomas Insel advocated for a shift toward science-based mental health treatments. About the version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)30 that had just been released (version 5), Insel said:

The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity.

Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders deserve better.53

Over time, as serious problems with the new DSM version became more apparent, the NIMH ruled that its categories would no longer be accepted as the basis for scientific research proposals,54 for the reason that the DSM has no scientific content.

Insel's predecessor at the NIMH (Steven E. Hyman55) and his successor (Joshua A. Gordon56) both also advocate for a transition to science in psychology.

2.4  Psychiatry

Those in psychology who proclaim a scientific standing for their field are misleading the public, but psychiatry57, by crafting a deceptive association between psychology and medicine, is particularly deplorable. Psychiatry (both training and practice) seems designed to misleadingly suggest that the mind can be treated using reliable, evidence-based medical methods. But this is false — psychiatry is not a legitimate field of medicine, and contrary to all appearances, there are no mind doctors. Psychiatrists are psychologists who have acquired a medical degree.

2.5  Neuroscience

Over time psychology will be entirely replaced by neuroscience58, the scientific study of the brain and nervous system. By studying tangible physical things neuroscience has the enormous advantage over psychology that it can produce reliable empirical evidence and falsifiable theories. It has the drawback that the human brain is very complex, such that a deep understanding of its workings may be decades away.

I imagine a scene in a future applied-neuroscience clinic. A patient appears for treatment and says, “Let me say what I think is wrong with me.” The clinician replies, “Please don't — these instruments will provide an objective diagnosis, and anything you say will only confuse the process. Remember psychology?”

3  Case History

3.1  Introduction

I include this section for two reasons:

  1. It shows how psychologists can be maneuvered into supporting/enabling the activities of sociopaths and psychopaths.
  2. It shows the harm psychology can create in the lives of individuals and families.

This first-person narrative provides a real-life account of psychology's terrible effect on the people it's meant to help, by enabling bad actors and by burdening children with bogus diagnoses and treatments.

I'm the first-person in this narrative. In my adventure-filled life I've been in danger any number of times — an armed standoff with pirates in the Indian Ocean during my solo world sail59, many grizzly bear close encounters during Alaska expeditions60, and a few close calls during my years as a stunt pilot. But my most dangerous personal experience resulted from naively accepting a housewife's plea that I befriend her intelligent son. In retrospect I would prefer to meet a grizzly bear in a dark wood — even if the bear tore me to pieces, at least I would understand his behavior.

Although this account is true, for legal reasons all names and some events are changed.

3.2  First Meeting

Among other things61 I'm a successful computer programmer, author of some well-known programs62. This means parents, usually mothers, sometimes contact me to ask for advice and guidance for their children. Over decades I've become less enthusiastic and more guarded about this sort of cold contact — parents tend to have unrealistic assessments of their childrens' intellectual abilities and to be frank, some women have motives apart from enriching the lives of their children.

The woman I will call Joan (all names are changed) contacted me and asked me to befriend her son, whom she described as very bright, misunderstood and isolated. I was immediately skeptical — what kind of mother calls a perfect stranger and, with no preliminaries, encourages him to befriend her son? And how often is a son accurately described by his mother? I declined Joan's request and closed the contact.

This only increased Joan's fervor. For the next few months she contacted me repeatedly, by telephone and email, and I declined repeatedly. I would have demanded that she stop contacting me but we had a mutual acquaintance I didn't want to offend.

Seven months later, on the occasion of a public appearance, Joan showed up and presented her son Jim (all names changed), who turned out to be very bright after all, but entirely isolated. We immediately began discussing some pretty advanced topics — logic, mathematics, computer programming.

In retrospect I should have noticed some weird aspects of the situation — how was such a bright, personable kid so completely isolated? Bright kids his own age, interested in technical activities, would have been a much better choice than me.

3.3  Starting Out

In a conversation about the outdoors Joan said something I found strange — she said, “I don't like the desert.” I have a hard time imagining someone not liking the desert, but I didn't understand what she meant until much later.

Jim and I began to enjoy each other's company, for a number of reasons including the fact that until we became friends Jim had never been treated with understanding and respect. During this phase it came out that Joan was fully immersed in psychology — therapists were wise guides in the trackless wilderness of adult life, psychology explained reality, that sort of nonsense.

But Joan didn't just read the trash pop-psychology books that lined her shelves. When something controversial came up that Joan didn't understand, she would call a therapist and get a ruling. On one particularly stressful occasion she called two therapists, then announced the outcome as though a scientific discovery had been made. It never occurred to her that because she paid the therapists and telegraphed her preferred outcome in advance through various unsubtle mechanisms, the outcome was entirely predictable.

Some of my readers may anticipate the next revelation — Joan acquired bogus mental illness diagnoses for each of her children, forced them into therapy and spent much time discussing psychological ailments and therapeutic methods. Jim got an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis — a diagnosis, now abandoned63, that could be applied to any bright kid. As bright as he was, he didn't see through the psychology charade, consequently he saw himself as defective, in need of mental correction. This resulted partly from his loyalty to his mother, partly from inexperience with basic life issues.

For Joan, psychology wasn't about understanding or self-improvement, it was about authority and control, and in an earlier era religion would have served the same purpose1. By acquiring pseudo-medical diagnoses for her children, Joan created a control strategy unavailable to parents who expect to interact with their children through reason and mutual respect. If Joan saw a behavior she didn't like, it was a symptom of mental illness. Her children didn't have the life experience required to see though her machinations and over time they became her emotional hostages.

My friendship with Jim changed all that. He knew I respected him, admired his intellectual ability, and this began to undermine Joan's authority-based control scheme. John, Jim's father, saw a change in Jim but didn't fully grasp its implications, saying in an email, “During this one year of your interaction, [Jim] has grown up from a child to a teenager, and I credit you with part of his positive outlook on life today.”64 By contrast, as she saw her faux authority wither away, Joan began a slow burn.

About this time Joan wrote me, saying, “It's nice that my son has a friend who understands the words he uses.”65 Well, in fact it was nice — but over time, less so for Joan.

3.4  Factitious Disorder/Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

I've already described how Joan acquired diagnoses for each of her children and consulted with therapists about pedestrian issues, but as time passed I began to see more peculiar behaviors. One was the enthusiasm with which Joan described her childrens' psychological diagnoses and symptoms, another was her recitations of their “medical plans”. I resisted explaining to Joan that psychology isn't a medical field and doesn't have medical plans.

Even more oddly, when her children drifted away from the aberrant behavior she expected, behavior consistent with their diagnoses, if they instead showed normal behavior, Joan became anxious, as though something had gone wrong. In other words Joan exhibited the opposite of neurotypical parental behavior — for some dark personal reason and oblivious to how she looked to outsiders, she pushed her children toward abnormal behavior.

About this time, in a conversation with a doctor and without revealing any identities, I described Joan's behavior. The doctor promptly said, "That's Munchausen66, and it's dangerous." I decided to look into this. According to the Wikipedia entry:

Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA), also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP)2, is a condition where a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person, typically their child. This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. They then present the person as being sick or injured. This occurs without a specific benefit to the caregiver. Permanent injury or death of the child may occur.

The cause is unknown. The primary motive may be to gain attention.66

In old-style MSP, a mother3 would use poison to induce symptoms in her children and gain attention. In modern MSP, psychological diagnoses often stand in for poison: “In factitious disorder imposed on another, a caregiver makes a dependent person appear mentally or physically ill in order to gain attention.”66

It won't surprise my readers to hear that psychologists have a diagnosis for this behavior — the title of this section — but in spite of how dangerous it is (“MSP isn’t just a condition; it’s child abuse and it’s a crime.”67), the diagnosis is rarely assigned to anyone. Health practitioners have no problem identifying MSP (as was true in this case), but psychologists are reluctant to make it a formal diagnosis. The reason? In modern times most therapists are women, and an even higher percentage of therapy clients are women. If word got out that therapists were willing to diagnose MSP, clinical psychology would collapse. Another reason is once the diagnosis is made and because of the danger, many jurisdictions require a police report.

Perhaps more important, mental health practitioners are sometimes maneuvered into assisting MSP perpetrators: “... unique to this form of abuse is the role that health care providers play by actively, albeit unintentionally, enabling the abuse.”66 This means the mental health business to some extent relies on “diagnosing” factitious disorders in their clients' children.

At this point readers might wonder, given how much weirdness I was seeing, why didn't I just withdraw? Easily answered — everyone could see Jim was benefiting from my friendship and I didn't want to abandon him, allow him to fall under Joan's spell once again. But in retrospect, I underestimated how dangerous Joan would become once Jim began to doubt his diagnosis.

3.5  The Family Outing

John, Jim's father, was approximately as dysfunctional as Joan but in a different way. One day he proposed a family outing that included climbing a hill. By that time I had begun to doubt everything about these people, so I visited the site in advance and discovered a nearly vertical cliff, a technical climbing site equipped with a safety line (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The “Family Outing” site

This was the first serious disagreement. I showed Joan and John a picture of the cliff and argued that it wasn't remotely appropriate for a family outing — the climb's advanced physical demands would place the children in danger. I wasn't just speculating — I have a lifetime of outdoor experience and some knowledge of technical rock climbing68 — the parents should have listened to me. The ascent was too steep for normal hiking and required climbers to ascend and descend by gripping a safety line.

Joan and Jim refused to reconsider the outing, for reasons I couldn't fathom at the time — the outing was to go forward. I went along, not because I had changed my mind about the danger, but because I knew I would be the only person with the skills required to rescue someone on a steep slope.

My plan was to stay below the children for the entire ascent and descent. During the descent, as I dreaded, Jim lost his grip on the safety line and fell. I had been maneuvering to stay below the children and happened to be perfectly positioned to grab Jim out of the air as he sailed past.

Those with little life experience might think, “Wow! Thanks for rescuing my son!” would be an appropriate response, but this isn't what happened — in fact Joan was barely able to conceal her resentment. After some thought I was forced to the conclusion that my rescuing Jim thwarted Joan's twisted plan to create an injured or permanently handicapped child, one who would never escape her orbit.

One more thing — to rescue Jim, I had to touch him, and Joan noticed. Why do I mention this seemingly unimportant detail? Read on, pilgrim.

3.6  Hell Hath no Fury

This section will only make sense if I explain that in Joan's world, there was no visible daylight between “I want” and “I deserve.” There's a common psychological term for this that I'll resist using.

Some time after the cliff rescue (which was never mentioned again) it came out that John was having an affair, which precipitated in Joan what can only be described as a full break from planet Earth. Joan's grip on reality had never been that secure, and this revelation caused her anchor to come loose. But even while drifting in a parallel universe, Joan continued to scheme.

In her twisted mind Joan had begun to see me as a replacement for her unfaithful mate, and the news about the affair only served to thrust this fantasy into the foreground. Moving beyond her increasingly affectionate emails, Joan chose a moment sitting next to her husband to announce she loved me, in a manner and tone of voice that could only sanction an equally overwrought reply. Instead I replied, “Thank you, that's very nice.”

My goal was to clearly say I wanted to be friends with Jim and everything else was background noise I would happily do without. Expressed another way and for me, the only interesting thing that issued from Joan was her son. I could satisfy Jim's voracious intellectual curiosity4, validate his identity as a person, and see the world through his eyes. Any of these would have justified our time together, but together they produced friendship.

I wasn't unaware of the risk in clearly expressing myself — as a single man I've been in any number of hell-hath-no-fury69 episodes with women who expected to be able to change my marital status. But I had failed to take into account the possibility that Joan was a psychopath.

3.7  The M-Word

Made furious by my rejection and oblivious to any other issues, Joan decided to drive me away in such a way that Jim wouldn't be able to figure out why I had withdrawn. In this plan Joan managed to underestimate both Jim and myself.

At that point Joan's imagination began writing checks her intellect couldn't cash. In an email she encouraged me to remain friends with her son as long as I liked, then expressed her belief that a child sitting on an adult's lap constituted molestation in and of itself.

When I read Joan's claim equating lap-sitting and molestation, I saw at once that she intended to apply magical thinkingMT to acquire for herself the coveted status of victim, using her son as a proxy. Joan had missed out on the Recovered Memory Therapy2.2.5 era, where this kind of fantasy temporarily made its way into courtrooms, and it seems she wanted to resurrect that unfortunate era.

I took a deep breath. Entirely out of touch with reality, Joan had introduced the M-word into our written communications and, despite that it was part of an absurd claim and bore no relevance to my friendship with her son, I had no choice but to withdraw.

In the weeks after my departure Joan put on a show of trying to get me to resume my friendship with her son, saying things like, “Your continued presence in his life is more than welcome.”70 But that wasn't going to happen — I had begun to realize how dangerous she was.

3.8  The Plea

In a heartbreaking episode, after realizing I would no longer be visiting Jim called me on the telephone and asked for a resumption of our friendship. His plea was perfectly logical: there was nothing inappropriate in our friendship, we both benefited from it, therefore it should continue.

By then I knew what was at stake. If I withdrew, Jim would have to sit alone in his room and doubt his sanity and personal value, and resent my having abandoned a valuable friendship. If I didn't withdraw, Joan had clearly telegraphed that she would make a false and dangerous accusation of wrongdoing with a child. But instead of revealing these details, I explained to Jim that Joan's life was ruled by belief, not evidence, and some of her beliefs were dangerous5.

I quoted Joan's lapsitting-as-molestation belief and explained what the word “molestation” means to an adult — how dangerous it is when spoken in malice by an irresponsible person.

Until that conversation, my interactions with Jim had been informed by a high regard for truth and candor, mutual respect, and logic. But this conversation represented a sudden descent into the messiness and uncertainly of adult life, and Jim began to panic. He said there was no way his mother would do something so terrible as lie about a crime, therefore I was acting irrationally and throwing away our friendship for no reason. I realized that, because of his limited life experience, I wouldn't be able to explain the situation to him, so I said something I hated hearing when I was Jim's age: “When you're older, you'll understand.” I made it clear to Jim that I valued our friendship, but Joan was dangerous.

After a long, quiet pause, Jim and I switched to a more pleasant topic — we discussed the Riemann Zeta Function71 for a few minutes, then signed off just as though we would be speaking the following day (when in truth, it would be five years before our next contact).

On hearing of our phone conversation and still hoping to get me to reverse my decision, Joan emailed an objection, saying, “You've said I have told [Jim] you have intentions about him that will/can harm him [...]. That's your own imagination, not my position.”72 Thinking this message might prove particularly useful, I added it to the Joan archive.

I imagined that would end things, which meant I still didn't understand Joan.

3.9  Dangerous Lies

It soon came to Joan that, despite her campaign of narcissistic fury and righteous entitlement, I wasn't coming back. So she executed her backup plan — she swore out a civil court petition, making the exact accusation I had expected based on her M-word email6. That was the day I realized Joan was a textbook psychopath — malicious, indifferent to anything but her immediate twisted needs, profoundly dysfunctional, and unable to imagine the consequences of her actions.

When I received her petition I wondered whether Joan knew the difference between criminal and civil law — that people who make criminal accusations in civil court only make themselves look opportunistic and ignorant. And she clearly didn't realize I had archived her emails.

Joan's primary error was to assume that, because she discarded emails once read, therefore others did the same. That was naive — on witnessing her behavior, a rational correspondent would archive every word she put in writing. In this case, those emails proved she was mentally unbalanced and a transparent liar.

It was a short hearing — I testified that I possessed a complete archive of Joan's emails and those written messages flatly contradicted her statements under oath. I had prepared some examples, but on hearing about the email archive, Joan fell silent. The Court realized she was lying and ruled accordingly. Elapsed time ninety seconds.

3.10  Double Down

Joan hoped to keep Jim in the dark about the hearing, but by applying a bit of computer expertise he thwarted her childish scheme and uncovered the truth. On seeing the written record of Joan's treachery and betrayal, Jim's perception of his mother changed immediately and permanently. His idealism now in tatters, he resolved never to speak to Joan again. He realized I had been exactly right about Joan and that my withdrawing was the only choice. This was Jim's first step into adulthood.

After the hearing I ordered a criminal background check and discovered Joan had accused other men in much the same way — she had a history of lying under oath about sex crimes7. On reading the report I felt perfectly stupid for not ordering an advance background check and for trusting someone so obviously untrustworthy. As to the details of Joan's sordid past, I would like to have gotten them into the public record so others would be forewarned, but I'm not one of those people who thinks instituting legal actions is a good idea, so I let it pass.

As things turned out Joan took that step for me. Six months later, still furious at me for rejecting her romantic overtures, Joan swore out a new civil court petition that tried to blame me for destroying her relationship with her son. It appears to have escaped Joan's attention that her son's astonished reaction to the first hearing proved the falseness of her original toxic accusation. That logic was too subtle for Joan, but not for the Court.

Joan also objected to an earlier version of this all-names-changed article, which detailed her toxic behavior to a wide Internet audience. But her argument was a courtroom classic, known to all legal professionals — in order to object to this fictional-names article, Joan would have to argue that it was about her, while arguing that it wasn't about her. She clearly hadn't given this any deep thought, which in her life was a recurring theme.

It seems Joan's past victims had been reluctant to publicly expose her false testimony under oath, which although understandable, only encouraged her to choose another victim. I understood these issues as I wrote this article, and I published it as a matter of principle. My point? When Joan lied about me, she chose the wrong victim.

In my prepared remarks I explained that Joan spent months trying and failing to get me together with her son, then brought him to a place she knew I would be. After I became Jim's friend she drove me away by trying to move things in a romantic direction, then insisted that I resume my friendship with her son. When I refused she accused me of something vile and false, under oath, in a claim flatly contradicted by her prior written words. I added that Joan had a past history of lying under oath about sex crimes, and she was severely dysfunctional.

Joan had been served with my remarks in advance and could have offered any defense she cared to, but it seems she got some sage legal advice from an unknown source. Apparently Joan was warned not to object to being described as severely dysfunctional. The reason? By objecting to that description Joan would make it material to the proceeding, on that basis I was ready to present expert testimony that she was a Munchausen by Proxy66 perpetrator, a danger to her children, and she would likely lose custody (Child Protective Services was investigating Joan at the time). If she instead stood mute, her dysfunctions would become a stipulation74 (an issue on which both sides agree) and she would no longer be able to enter into legally binding contracts. Both were bad outcomes, but the second less so.

And to think — Joan could instead have hired an attorney who would have reviewed the facts, then warned her what would happen if she filed another petition.

But I digress. In a repeat of the first hearing, after my testimony Joan fell mute (thus accepting all my claims) and the Court once again realized she was lying. He congratulated me on my presentation, dismissed her petition and gaveled the hearing to a close8.

As I left the courtroom I remembered that Joan once said, “I don't like the desert.” I finally understood what she meant — someone told her you can't sue nature.

3.11  Visiting the Grown-Up's Table

To a degree I had never seen before, Joan didn't live in reality, and rarely visited. In her plastic-teacup world she paid therapists to accept anything she cared to say, like the virgin rape victims in Recovered Memory Therapy2.2.5 — “Yes, dear, whatever you say, dear.” But in her courtroom appearances, including those revealed by the criminal background check, grown-ups found no connection between Joan's words and reality.

In the two hearings I witnessed, the Court listened to her claims, then waited for Joan to back up her words with evidence. But after briefly speaking Joan stood smug and content, expecting her fantasies to stand on their own, as they did with her therapists. The core problem was that Joan didn't do reality, she did psychology, and therapy means paying someone to be on your side.

The courts always ruled against her, but to Joan, courtroom appearances represented a victory for the sort of intellectual mediocrity psychologists dispense to people trapped in perpetual infancy. Do you have a child intelligent enough to move out of your understanding or control? No problem — we'll say he's mentally ill and needs therapy — therapy often paid for with public funds. Does your son's face light up when visiting a friend? And do they touch each other9? Maybe it's molestation — it can't possibly mean mathematics is interesting, or that mutual respect is its own reward.

I'm a seasoned world traveler59, but despite my wide experience Joan was the vilest organism I've ever encountered — predatory and parasitic in equal measure. She was a textbook psychopath — she would repeatedly engage in the most destructive behavior with her children and with people in the community around her, then complain about how unfairly she was treated by her victims.

One could say that Joan, a pseudoperson with no reliable principles, found herself attracted to psychology, a pseudoscience with no reliable theories. They were made for each other.

I imagine a scene in Joan's elementary school. Each girl is asked to describe what she wants to be when she grows up. Joan's classmates express their ambition to be astronauts, explorers, scientists. Now it's Joan's turn — she stands up and says, “I'm going to tell horrible lies about men and make them give me money ... wait, why are you all looking at me that way?”

3.12  Individuality

A philosophical digression. One doesn't become an adult by watching a calendar — if that were true Joan would have become a grown-up instead of a parasite. But in fact, because of many tempting diversions and obstacles, most people never achieve true individuality. At risk of oversimplifying a complex topic, I see three primary groups:

  • Drones. On a circuitous path toward individuality, toward self-determination, these people are waylaid by one or another belief system that offers to do your thinking for you. Religion was once the primary trap, but in modern times, and for those offended by religion's crude methods, psychology offers the same kind of empty shrink-wrapped moralizing, with the added enticement that it pretends to be based in science. It's important to say this class includes people who, like Joan, couldn't possibly have become adults for constitutional reasons.

  • Seekers. While maturing, these people become aware that the point of adult life is to think for oneself, to reason, to make personal choices based on the best available information and a unique perspective. These people don't follow a path created by experts, instead they discover who they are and act on what they find. Over time they become adept skeptics and critical thinkers, then venture into the torrent of adult events. They don't want or need the advice of priests or therapists.

  • Adults. So few of these exist that it's almost not worth including a separate category. In any case, by definition one cannot say what they are, only what they aren't, and I've already done that.

If we weren't meant to be individuals, procreation wouldn't exist — nature wouldn't waste the energy. So we may choose to learn what's already been discovered, discover something new, and share it with others. Or not — some may want to become another Joan. It's a free choice in a morally neutral universe.

3.13  Coda

In spite of Joan's fervent wishes and valiant efforts, Jim grew up and left her house. In time he contacted me and we resumed our friendship.

Jim now writes computer programs, something I've done in the past62. We share an enthusiasm for logic and mathematics75. Where we differ is that Jim expects psychology to produce something worthwhile. I think in time he'll grow out of that.

I might have helped a little, but as a child Jim rescued himself from Joan's toxic fantasy world by learning logic and mathematics, which among other things represents a source of certainty in an uncertain world. In psychology, you're right because you pay a therapist to agree with you, but in mathematics, you're right because you've turned a conjecture76 into a theorem77 (a true statement). The difference? In psychology, as in religion, to stay right you have to pay more money. In mathematics, a useful theorem speaks truth to the ages.

Jim has more or less patched up his relationship with his mother. He can visit her house and be civil, but he doesn't have unrealistic expectations.

As for Joan, she's been told that, despite her obvious mental defects, if she makes another false accusation under oath, she'll be prosecuted and/or committed — she must curb her dangerous impulses or she'll be taken off the streets.

As for myself, when people call and ask me to meet their children, I tell them to read this article.

So based on these events my question is, “How does modern psychology represent an improvement over old-style religion?”


  1. People attracted to psychology tend to be too smart for religion but not smart enough for science.
  2. Some sources use the abbreviation MSbP, some use MSP, I've chosen the shorter of the two.
  3. 95% of MSP perpetrators are women.
  4. Only because of his age and inexperience, certainly not as the adult he became.
  5. I didn't reveal the MSP diagnosis, knowing that would only make things worse.
  6. This kind of behavior is typical of MSP perperators73.
  7. These earlier events took place at a time when Jim was too young to understand what was happening.
  8. In civil court, lying under oath is rarely prosecuted. Instead, judges rule against the liars.
  9. A fact proven by the cliff rescue.


1 Age of Enlightenment (Wikipedia), an intellectual and philosophical transition from emphasis on tradition and authority to an open and dispassionate examination of nature.
2 Royal Society, the oldest scientific organization in the world, dating to 1660 CE.
3 Royal Society : History — includes an explanation of the Society's motto.
4 Richard P. Feynman — scientist and philosopher of science.
5 Merriam-Webster : Literally — lists “virtually” as a synonym.
6 Science (dictionary) — essentially defined as knowledge.
7 Science (encyclopedia) — defined as a disciplined way to acquire knowledge.
8 Carl Sagan — scientist and philosopher of science.
9 Carl Sagan : Science — “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.”
10 Britannica : Criterion of falsifiability — “a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false.”
11 Pseudoscience (Wikipedia) — defined as statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
12 Science Litmus Test — a concise description of a scientific field's essential properties.
13 Empirical Evidence — evidence derived from direct observation of nature.
14 Null Hypothesis — an essential element in modern scientific discipline and experimental design.
15 Cargo Cult Science — Richard P. Feynman's 1974 Caltech commencement address.
16 Bigfoot — mythical hairy creature, example of pseudoscience.
17 Argument from Ignorance — a logical fallacy that asserts something to be true for lack of contradicting evidence.
18 Magical thinking — in psychiatry, an irrational belief that thinking about something makes it true.
19 Presumption of innocence — the modern legal standard of evidence that resembles science.
20 Psychology — study of mind and behavior.
21 Biology — the study of life and living organisms.
22 Astrology — a pseudoscience that claims to divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.
23 Evolution — the theory that species evolve by means of natural selection.
24 Natural selection — a theory describing the mechanism by which evolution works.
25 Material Fatigue — the weakening of a material caused by repeatedly applied loads.
26 de Havilland Comet — a notorious example of metal fatigue leading to an in-flight failure.
27 Epigenetics — the study of heritable phenotype changes that do not involve alterations in the DNA sequence.
28 Drapetomania — a faux mental illness diagnosis that presumed to explain why slaves ran away from their masters.
29 Lobotomy — a now-infamous invasive procedure meant to treat mental disorders.
30 DSM — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychology's “Bible”.
31 Conversion Therapy — a discredited and dangerous clinical practice meant to change a person's sexual orientation.
32 House Democrats seek to ban gay conversion therapy nationwide
33 Refrigerator mother — a phony psychological diagnosis.
34 Recovered Memory Therapy — a bogus therapy that claimed to uncover what were often fantasy memories.
35 Family Airing Its Trauma to Aid Others — an account of the Beth Rutherford virgin-rape episode.
36 Asperger Syndrome — an abandoned pseudoscientific diagnosis.
37 Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) — a mental illness “diagnosis” that was applied when no more specific description seemed appropriate. Its apparent purpose was to avoid having to tell people they weren't mentally ill.
38 DSM-5 — the current DSM version at the time of writing.
39 Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy — a very popular form of talk therapy.
40 Cognitive-behavioral therapy versus other therapies: redux. — a meta-analysis that finds no difference between CBT and other therapies.
41 A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression — this study found no difference between separately applied elements of CBT.
42 Placebo — a discussion of the Placebo Effect, in which an ineffective agent produces measurable results.
43 A problem in Theory (PDF) — a critique of psychology that deplores the absence of theory.
44 Sigmund Freud — very influential founder of psychoanalysis.
45 Metapsychology — a study of psychological theory as opposed to psychology itself.
46 Sigmund Koch — Psychology's Antihero — an influential psychology critic and philosopher of science.
47 Psychology: A Study of a Science — editor: Sigmund Koch
48 Cargo Cult Science — a now-famous address by Richard P. Feynman about psychological and other kinds of pseudoscience.
49 American Psychological Association — a professional psychological organization.
50 Ronald F. Levant — past president of the American Psychological Association, critic of psychology's unscientific practice.
51 Evidence-based practice in psychology — Levant, 2005.
52 National Institute of Mental Health — the primary U.S. government agency with responsibility for mental health issues.
53 Transforming Diagnosis — Thomas R. Insel, former NIMH director.
54 NIMH funding to shift away from DSM categories — an important change in the NIMH's attitude toward science.
55 Steven E. Hyman — NIMH director (1996-2001).
56 Joshua A. Gordon — current (at time of writing) NIMH director.
57 Psychiatry — a specialty that tries to build a bridge between psychology and medicine.
58 Neuroscience — the scientific study of the nervous system.
59 Confessions of a Long-Distance Sailor — an account of my four-year solo sail around the world.
60 The Day of Seven Bears — a rather dangerous encounter with seven Alaska brown bears all in close proximity.
61 Biographical Note — my brief C.V..
62 Apple Writer — my best-known program, an early word processor.
63 A Powerful Identity, a Vanishing Diagnosis — about the abandonment of Asperger Syndrome.
64 Personal written communication, 12.15.2004.
65 Personal written communication.
66 Factitious disorder imposed on another, also known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSP).
67 Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy : “MSP isn’t just a condition; it’s child abuse and it’s a crime.”
68 Climbing — one of my rock climbing articles.
69 Hell Hath No Fury — an abbreviation of the famous line “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” by William Congreve (1670-1729), an English playwright and poet.
70 Personal written communication, 12.15.2004.
71 Riemann zeta function — a fascinating topic, but a bit technical.
72 Personal written communication, 01.20.2005.
73 MSP : Warning Signs — a list of the behaviors typical of MSP perpetrators.
74 Stipulation — an agreement between parties in a legal dispute.
75 Introduction to Calculus — my tutorial for beginners.
76 Conjecture — in mathematics, a proposition for which no proof or disproof has yet been found.
77 Theorem — in mathematics, a statement that is formally proven based on other statements, theorems and axioms.

Home | Psychology |     Share This Page