|"If mankind had
wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago. The theory
is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work
|“Most social acts
have to be understood in their setting, and lose meaning if isolated.
No error in thinking about social facts is more serious than the
failure to see their place and function”
-- Solomon Asch
1. Lulletje Rozewater Van Kleef/
Little Prick Rosewater Van Kleef
This continues the series on the
failings of (Dutch) (social) psychology, Diederik Stapel, and the Dutch
universities, which are interconnected for a reason the wise Solomon
Asch gave in my opening quotations.
Let me start - for the convenience and amusement of my readers -
with a list of previous files on the subject - and I shall
not give all, but do suggest that the one on scientific realism and
postmodernism is highly relevant: There you'll find the mind set of
professor Van Kleef - a (Dutch) (social) psychologist whose immortal
prose is the subject of this Nederlog - which also is the mind set of
majority of his Dutch colleagues in the social sciences, described
quite cleary and quite fairly, in a 9-point
In case you missed Scientific Realism versus Postmodernism, here is at least the defining
table - amd you'll find me on the left, and Stapel, Van Kleef, and
very many Dutch social scientists on the right (where
they tend to pretend to be leftists, which they are not: they are
|| There is
an independently existing reality that is best known by means of
scientific methods and is best explained by and written in mathematics.
inside and outside the academic world careers, position, power and
status are reached most easily by pretentious poses, moral delusions
and general - cultural - relativism.
tenable testable rational explanations of natural facts,
that may be used to relief human suffering and satisy human desires.
| Cant, waffle, purple prose and moral postures that may be
used to further a career for the propounders by way of the media,
politics or bureacracies.
|| personal emancipation
|| social levelling
|| freedom/empowerment (soi-disant)
|| personal and a-political
|| power oriented
|| media oriented
Note that professor
Van Kleef, like
professor Stapel, received almost
as "scientific education"
in the University of Amsterdam,
which may, perhaps, serve as some sort of "excuse":
"Most social acts have to be
understood in their setting, and lose meaning if isolated. No error in
thinking about social facts is more serious than the failure to see
their place and function”
Then again if you
teach the youth of a country in pomo tradition, you can be sure you are
poisoning civilization, and liberating the many evils man is heir
-- Solomon Asch
If mankind had
wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago. The theory
is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work
And the "place and
function" of publications like those of Stapel and Van Kleef is
selfserving, at others' costs, while both seem to me also to illustrate
Buddha's saying very well, that also covers all of postmodernism and
and stupidity are the roots of all vice
In case you want to know more about the
postmodern joys of the University of Amsterdam, where Diederik Stapel,
Gerben van Kleef and Maarten Maartensz were "educated", and whence
Maartensz was removed (briefly before taking his M.A. in philosophy,
which is what forced him to take an an M.A. in psychology, that he had
It were those awful questions that did
it: One must not question anything any pomo bully blandly asserts - as
also will be seen below.
Prick Rosewater Van Kleef
First a terminological explanation,
namely of the apt Dutch term "little prick rosewater".
Being 62 I do
not know whether this term is still in current Dutch usage - I hope it
is, but postmodern Dutch is a lot poorer than Dutch was when children
were somewhat properly educated, while all spontaneous usage of Dutch
has been poisoned by media styles, by several successive generations
educated by TV, rather than by books, their parents or their peers, and
undone by pretentious and grandiloquent PR-talk
- but the term
was used to refer to somewhat effeminate male hypocrites.
translate offers "wiener rosewater" - which when understood as
"saccharin whining hypocrit" is fair enough.
I arrived at the term, that I haven't heard myself in Dutch usage
for decades, when looking at the personal pages of
Diederik Stapel's colleague
Little Prick Rosewater Van Kleef, at the University of Amsterdam.
What I saw was a
sanctimoniously and sickly smiling face with his chin on his folded
hands, under an exceedingly carefully coifed hairdo, and in a pair of
Some sensitive souls might object to my spontaneous evaluation of what
the gentleman himself no doubt will want to see described as "the manly
superintelligent face of a near genius of Dutch social psychology", but
then this is not really relevant:
Since I was taught in the University of Amsterdam - my alma mater
meretrix, no less! - like everybody else, including Gerben
Prick Rosewater (here after LPR, that - by chance - also happens to
abbreviate "Lying Public Relationist"), that
that truth does not exist"
"everybody is of equal value"
"all morality is wholly relative"
also (in the faculties of philosophy and psychology) that the
Soviet Union is an equally valid (Dutch: "gelijkwaardig")
attempt to build a society as is the
Dutch society, while Marxist Togo and Communist Cuba were regarded by
Board directors of the University and by student leaders -
dialectically, no less! - as
being of the same value and better than the rest, my readers
believe me if I say that I believe truly that professor Gerben van
Kleef is a man of equal value (Dutch: "gelijkwaardig") as
former professor Diederik Stapel,
except that each is even better than the other, while this is all
Besides his lovely, proud, manly, superbly intelligent face, the
visitors of Professor Liittle Prick Rosewater's personal pages will
carefully crafted PR-prose like this:
research interests revolve around emotion, power, and conflict. In
studying these topics he looks at basic social psychological processes
and effects, and explores their implications for organizational
behavior and society. His research on emotion centers around the
interpersonal effects of discrete emotions in various social and
sounds impressive, if you don't know what social psychology is; if you do
know what it is, or your IQ is considerably above the UvA mandatory
limit of 115, you know it is bullshit...
impossible for someone
to lie unless he thinks
he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.
A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that
extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only
what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the
bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side
of the true nor on the side of the false. His
the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest
in getting away with what he says. He does not care
whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks
them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
... of the vaguely grandiose
obfuscated kind: Little Prick Rosewater's mighty mind's "interests revolve around", and "explores implications"; his refined
UvA-approved intellect "centers around"
nothing less than "the interpersonal effects of discrete emotions" in - you
guessed it - "contexts".
If that ain't clear, nothing is clear. Then again, our Little Prick
Rosewater professor Van Kleef can
self serving PR with the best, and so he wrote almost a week ago
a piece of lying self serving cant that I have
taken the trouble to translate and comment below.
It starts with the following crafty bullshit
title, and will in what
follows quote by indentation and make my English translation blue:
beeld van 'sexy' onderzoekjes met flitsende conclusies is onterecht'
Since you might lack the mighty
intellect that is required for being or
becoming a social psychologist, you just might have missed that
is misdrawn is not right, so our little UvA-prick (undoubtedly very
well paid) has it in a headline.
'Misdrawn image of
investigations with flashy conclusions
is not right'
What does he mean?
See? It's really the media's fault.
Honestly! It's these stupid
journalists that fall for "sexy"
publications by professors who do bullshit
research! If only media had not written so extensively
and so enthusiastically about bullshit studies, there would
have been no problem, according to the mighty and most honourable mind
of that great UvA thinker, the noble little prick rosewater Van Kleef.
flutstudies waar nu om wordt gelachen, werden eerst
enthousiast breed uitgemeten in de media, schrijft Gerben van Kleef,
hoogleraar sociale psychologie.
studies people now are laughing about, were earlier
enthusiastically presented on a large scale in the media, writes Gerben
Got it? It's not social psychology or social psychologists that are to
blame, nor the parasitical and politicized climate for highly paid
fraudulent bullshit that pervades all faculties of all social sciences
O no! It's the messengers who are to blame, and their
extensive and enthusiastic writing about bullshit studies by little
prick rosewater's colleagues.
Now... this may seem like an original idea to social psychologists'
tiny minds, but it also not true at all, says an editor of the
paper three days later: "Stapel
werd niet door de media bewierookt."
Rosewater Gerben - LPR - Van Kleef, with that mighty mind of a -
gasp! - Social Psychologist simply
lied - o no,
sorry: perish the thought:
I should say that this most honorable, this most honest, this most
deserving, this never ever lying, deceiving or posturing, very well
paid Professor Van Kleef, LPR cum laude, Ph.D. cum laude, surely
knows as well as I do that - in the UvA -
every professor knows truth
does not exist, except if it is in their personal
interest (don't you dare half their incomes!): Gerben the
Great just made up a nice PR-story to cover his ass and to try to undo
the damage to the bullshit study of social psychology.
What does the magisterial mind of the
little prick want? This, printed
bold in the paper I copy it so that you won't miss it nor its nice S.M.
tendencies nor its solid appreciation and understanding of the duties
of - mere, lowly - journalists and of Genuine Professors Of The
University Of Amsterdam:
ernaar streven dergelijk gedegen onderzoek voor het voetlicht te
brengen, in plaats van geinige effectjes zonder theoretische fundering
of maatschappelijke relevantie.
quality media must
strive to bring proper research into the limelight, instead of funny
little effects without any theoretical foundation or social relevance.
See? It's the journalists
again to blame! They
refuse to do what they MUST do! The journalists should
know what is bullshit and what is not; what is theoretically founded
what not, in social psychology as in quantum mechanics, in physics as
in medicine and astronomy, in biology and mathematics, as in
philosophy, history, and
any other science, and especially so in that most scientific
the "science" that finances LPR Van Kleef so very well.
Van Kleef LPR PhD's
order to the Dutch papers is:
Journalists "must" sort out
the bullshit, the fraudulent, the false, and the unfounded, while professors
of Dutch universities cannot possibly be expected to speak the truth,
for they all have learned they all know it doesn't exist, and anyway
the social sciences in Holland since 30 years exists
only to produce bullshit for a parasitcal class of whores of reason
excuse me: to produce PR for
the personal benefit of superminds who are
professors in social psychology and such, and the political parties
they belong to or that pay them.
By the way: "social relevance"
is the cant term
destroyers of the University the
ASVA-terrorists [*] introduced: For
decades, as soon as
they disapproved of something - anything whatsoever - they started
screaming, in the University- or Faculty Council they anyway had the
majority from 1971-1995, preferably in two or threes and in series:
THAT IS NOT SOCIALLY RELEVANT!!!!"
The Dutch Labour Party, the protectors
of the Amsterdam and Dutch drugs
mafia, likewise used the term for 25 years. I tended to believe
days the favourite cant of Dutch Labour is "BUT THAT IS NOT OF THIS
TIME!!!" or "BUT THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE!!!" so I am glad to
see that the eminent mind of Little Prick
Rosewater Van Kleef Ph.D, still knows the tradional bullying PC pomo
lingo of his very
own kind of pomo careerists.
Traditions have been passed on!
We return to more of the prose of the most honorable, most honest, most
Voormalig hoogleraar sociale
psychologie Diederik Stapel
heeft op grote
schaal fraude gepleegd met onderzoeksgegevens, zo blijkt uit het
grondige rapport van de commissie-Levelt die de fraude onderzocht. In
het rapport worden diverse zinnige voorstellen gedaan om de kans op
dergelijke fraude te verkleinen, zoals stringentere dataprotocollen,
centrale dataopslag, meer aandacht voor replicatie, vollediger
rapportage van onderzoeksprocedures, meer controle door collega's en
het instellen van onafhankelijke universitaire vertrouwenspersonen.
Diederik Stapel had committed fraud
on a large scale with his research data, as us evident from the
thorough report of the Levelt Committee that investigated the fraud. In
the report several sensible proposals were made to lessen the chance
that such fraud occurs, such as more stringent data protocols, central
data storage, more concern for replication, more control by colleagues,
and the creation of independent university Persons Of Trust.
If my English is no good, the reason
is that I translate
Dutch that is no good. Let me briefly consider these bits of choice bullshit:
Of course, the honorable, honest,
highly gifted Professor
Van Kleef, LPR, PhD, agrees verbally with the Levelt
reasons are that the members of the committee are not journalists and -
most importantly, since
truth or science has nothing to do with it - that they are considerably
powerful in the Dutch academic world than Professor Van Kleef, LPR etc.
In fact, the Levelt
Committee is a
blessing in disguise
for all social psychologists, and indeed for all social scientists: It
tells them how they should commit fraud and not be found out.
Knowing a lot about methodology, let
"more stringent data protocols":
If you want to use
fraudulent data, do not avoid to do the research: First
"research", and then bake the data on your computer. (If you
program well, this is
extremely easy to do in a most convincing manner, but professor Van
Kleef, LPR etc. now has learned that if he does want to cook his data,
least he must have collected data, before cooking them, and not
out the collecting step, which ommission
did Diederik Stapel in.)
"central data storage": This is mere theatrics, but I agree it
good to hand over your data, once you have pretended to gather them in
fact, then cooked them in private, to A Central Data Storage. It may
take in some yokels, and even some journalists.
"more concern for replication": Actually, this is a topic of
concern" in psychology since the 1930ies or 1940ies,
the problem being that "research" in psychology is rarely replicated,
for three reasons mostly: First, colleagues find it offensive to be
controlled, investigated, yea possibly found out, and one depends on
foremost, and would not want to offend them. Second,
it is considered to be a sign of an inferior second rate mind if one
tries to find out whether published research (by one's very own dear
colleagues, if not now then possibly in ten years, if not offended!)
does stand up in repeated trials, for which reason such research is
rarely funded. Third, the actual statistics and methodologies that are
used are often so flaky, shaky, shady, obscure, imprecize, and useless,
that any real replication is quite impossible: In many
psychology, there are often no good ideas about which factors in the
context of the experiment are relevant to what extent, and besides,
nearly all research in psychology is done with first year students of
psychology, since these can be pressurized to do such things for free.
"more control by colleagues": What the mega-intelligent mind of
professor Gerben van Kleef, LPR etc. does mean is in fact along the
following lines (though I just might - it is possible! - overestimate
mightiness of his intellect), that indeed are probably those of the Levelt Committee:
We psychologists should follow the teachings and
examples of the Holy Mother Church, that show that one can for at least
a hundred, possibly a thousand years repress all evidence of any priest
committing pedophilia by letting priests have "more control by colleagues",
investigate complaints about their loving and beloved
colleagues, etc. That is so enormously effective!
"the creation of independent university Persons Of Trust": In
Holland, this is a favorite gambit of the Dutch Labour Party: As soon
as something has to be obfuscated, falsified, derailed, lied about,
made into a proper PR-propaganda
piece, or made totally forgotten, it
proposed that some "independent Persons Of Trust" - or A Committee of
them, all very well paid of course - gets nominated who - you
will be amazed - always are some highly media-trained often
from the Dutch Labour Party, after which indeed almost always
everything gets obfuscated, falsified, derailed, lied about, made into
proper PR-propaganda piece, or made totally forgotten.
After these brief methodological excursions, we return to Gerben LPR
van Kleef's honorable honest manly and brave prose, who gave birth to
the following piece of PR:
In alle mogelijke commissies
binnen de psychologie in
binnen- en buitenland wordt ondertussen nagedacht over de implementatie
van maatregelen ter preventie van fraude. In die zin belooft het
rapport een positieve invloed te hebben op de kwaliteit van
In all possible committees and organs
of policy in psychology, in this
land and outside this land, meanwhile there are thoughts going on about
the implementation of measures to prevent fraud. In that sense the
report promises to have a positive influence on the quality of
First, if my English is no good, the
reason is that I
translate Dutch that is no good.
Second, I am glad to read that "there
are thoughts going on", possibly
in the heads but certainly in In "all possible
committees and organs of
policy in psychology", which my mathematical knowledge
means that there are - Professor Gerben van Kleef LPR PhD cannot
possibly lie! - a true infinity of infinities of "all possible
committees and organs" in the supposed "science" of psychology.
I am so
glad to learn it!
Third, I have just outlined, in my small methodological excursion, that
the blessed Levelt Committee has established for once and for all how
to commit fraud and not to be found out.
Here is an easy five step instruction plan for committing fraud in
Step 1 (possibly too difficult for many professors of
psychology): Learn to program well, and learn something
statistics. If you have acquired both pieces of knowledge, you can
falsify all data to produce any desirable outcome with a modern
computer, in such a way that this can never be
found out, as Sir Cyril
Burt was found out, before the days of PCs and
Macs paid by the tax money for such mighty minds as professor Gerben
LPR van Kleef. (Professors of social psychology who can't program well,
can mail me.)
Step 2 (certainly very much easier for most professors
psychology than anything involving maths, but indeed a bit laborious): Really
do your data "research". That was Diederik
Stapel's fatal flaw: He did not do the research and then falsified
that: he only produced data
with his computer, and lied about doing research. (Very stupid, but
then the man was a social psychologist.)
Step 3 (very easy after steps
1 and 2): Take your PC to a
private place and generate the outcomes you want, for your own
spectacular success like a true Stapel, before he was found out.
(Remember: You can be hailed as a genius too, even if your IQ is 115 or
lower, as is mandatory in the University of Amsterdam, or at least
consider necessary, so as to avoid "elitarianism").
Step 4 (may be laborious
again, but is less so if you
prepare the paper tests for your research in such a way that these can
easily be tampered with): Carefully exchange the research data with the
data you produced on your PC. (Note for the wise: If you are clever,
you need to make only a relatively small number of changes. Besides if
the "more stringent data protocols" spoken of above are such
as to be not really stringent, as will be very
case - for which colleague will wish to irritate or oppose a colleague?!
step 4 may be wholly unnecessary. (For readers of Dutch: See "Hoe word
ik een Topambtenaar?")
Step 5 (easy, may be followed by
a drink or a meal with colleagues,
which solidifies one's relations): Hand over your data to "central
data storage" or perhaps also to one of those sainted creatures who
infallibly are Persons Of Trust in Holland, and publicly
announce to your colleagues, with a trained gleam in your eyes and a
nice smile, how very glad you are that "we all know
that fraud is no longer possible".
I return to the immortal prose of my honest prof:
This is the honorable Van Kleef's
terminology and being a
PC pomo and real LPR PhD he would not want to write such things as
"We all know" in the social sciences in Holland "that truth does not
exist": It has been replaced by any or all of "correct", "appropriate"
and "socially relevant", which blessed change already was
completely in the University of Amsterdam 3 years after that most
learned, most able most honest, most honorable Gerben van Kleef got
(Which is why almost everyone who discussed things with me in the UvA
called me a fascist, because I had the politically incorrect, morally
inappropriate and socially irrelevant idea that truth does
See The Dutch
Universities since 1971: "Chaos on Bullshit Mountain".)
Back to the never
mawkish ever completely
unhypocritical most correct, most appropriate, ever socially relevant
Gerben The Great (LPR, PhD):
Helaas zijn in het mediacircus
rondom en na de
presentatie van het
rapport ook enkele ongefundeerde en aantoonbaar onjuiste conclusies
getrokken, die een vertekend beeld schetsen van de aard en kwaliteit
van sociaal-psychologisch onderzoek. Zo werd in de media ten onrechte
de suggestie gewekt dat de (sociale) psychologie fraudegevoeliger is
dan andere wetenschappen. Het is blijkbaar erg verleidelijk om het
bedrog van een individu als exemplarisch te beschouwen voor een hele
beroepsgroep. Helaas zijn het juist dit soort sweeping statements die
een constructief debat ter verbetering van de kwaliteit van
wetenschappelijk onderzoek belemmeren.
I'll translate bit by bit, to comment
bit by bit, and supply ellipses to make this clear:
the media circus
around and after the presentation of the report...
It's the journalists' fault! The
messengers did it! Like clowns in a circus! Trust Gerben LPR van
... also some
provably incorrect conclusions were drawn...
Professor LPR van Kleef PhD only
acknowledhes (in)correct, (in)appropriate and socially (ir)relevant
conclusions: For him real truth only enters where his own personal
interests and salary are at issue.
sketch a misdrawn image of
the kind and quality of social psychological research.
How could that be possible?! If only
the journalists reporting on it had asked Professor Van Kleef LPR etc
to correct their reports, in a manly honorable totally objective and
media incorrectly made the
impression that (social) psychology is more prone to be fraudulent than
Look at these stupid journalists!
Look at all the fraudulent publications in mathematics, physics,
chemistry and engineering the most honorable professor has ready for
showing! Trust the Great Gerben LPR if he provides no evidence! How
illogical and immoral of Dutch journalists to dare to even provide an
impression that if a Dutch (social) psychologist has been shown to be
major frauds in the history of science, this may say something about
Dutch (social) psychology!
It is evidentially
to look upon the fraud of an individual as exemplary for a whole
(Social) psychologist like Honest
Smart Gerben van Kleef LPR never reason that were there's smoke there's
fire, nor do they ever consider contexts where this
is against their
interests, nor do they see that (social) psychology happens to be a
science in which it is very easy to commit fraud, unlike
physics, for these have strict mathematical proofs or repeatable
Besides.... I have followed this
Stapel case now for over a year and have not seen any
report on it that bears out what the most homorable palpably very
honest professor Van Kleef LPR claims.
The astute reader should notice the
range and clarity of vision of (social) psychologists of the Van Kleef
LPR qualities of mind and morals: It is "the sweeping statements" in
the media that prevent the rational debates among scientists
the quality of scientific research.
it is just this kind
of sweeping statements that prevent a constructive debate about the
improvement of the quality of scientific research.
Next, the very kind, very honorable, most intelligent professor Van
Kleef LPR starts providing a whole paragraph of red herrings,
consisting of frauds who are not (social) psychologists, that readers
may use google.translate for, because it is fallacious from
finish, except in such refined and honest minds as become professors of
(social) psychology in Holland:
Feit is dat fraude voorkomt
in alle takken van wetenschap
daarbuiten). De natuurkundige Sch÷n leek hard op weg de Nobelprijs te
gaan winnen voor zijn onderzoek in de deeltjesfysica totdat bleek dat
hij vele tientallen artikelen had geschreven op basis van verzonnen
gegevens (waaronder acht in Science en zeven in Nature). De bioloog
Woo-Suk claimde in Science dat hij menselijke stamcellen had gekloond.
Ook hier bleek sprake te zijn van gefingeerde data. De Rotterdamse
hoogleraar geneeskunde Poldermans werd onlangs ontslagen wegens fraude
en onzorgvuldige omgang met patiŰntengegevens. Gezondheidsonderzoeker
Dipak Das van de universiteit van Connecticut leek te hebben aangetoond
dat rode wijn de kans op hartklachten verkleint, tot bleek dat hij in
145 artikelen had geknoeid met onderzoeksgegevens.
Having skipped translating this -
summary: do not, I repeat do not look at frauds of Dutch (social)
psychologists until after having looked at all frauds of all non-Dutch
non-(social) non-psychologists, the honorable Van Kleef LPR insists to
Dutch journalists - I turn to his next paragraph:
Even so, the honorable Little Prick
Rosewater has managed to throw around a bucket full of red herrings,
now is going to abuse, after having said nothing informative at all
Dat fraude in alle takken van wetenschap voorkomt, maakt het gedrag van
Stapel vanzelfsprekend niet minder ernstig en het belang van
fraudepreventie niet minder groot.
Prevention of fraud
That fraud occurs in all branches of science, of course
does not make the behavior of Stapel less serious not the importance of
fraud less great.
Wel is het belangrijk om
in het juiste perspectief te zien en de discussie breder te voeren,
zodat niet alleen de sociale psychologie maar ook andere
wetenschapsgebieden uiteindelijk hun voordeel kunnen doen met deze
as provided by that most honourable
colleague of Diederik Stapel (until a year ago)
But is is important to see this fraud
in the proper perspective...
... and to
so as to avoid speaking about
fraudulence of (Dutch) (social) psychologists
that not only social
psychology but also other fields of science can come to profit from
Don't you dare look at (Dutch) (social)
psychologists, Dutch journalists! They have just been safely covered by
a ton of red herrings! Look at fraudulence in "other
fields of science"!
For look, you anti-scientific Dutch journos, and listen closely to
Gerben the Great's wise words:
Het aanzien van de
wetenschap in het algemeen is tanende.
And that is your fault you
The reputation of science is falling.
deleted journos! Your misdrawing, your
misrepresenting, your incorrect, inappropriate, socially irrelevant
Trust the honest and learned professor Van Kleef LPR!
is het moment om hard te werken aan het terugwinnen van het vertrouwen.
Daarbij is het aan te bevelen dat verschillende disciplines en
universiteiten de handen ineenslaan en gezamenlijk werken aan
Now is the moment to work had to
regain trust. Therewith it is to be
recommended that the different disciplines and universities go hand in
had and to work together to prevent fraud.
See? If there is one (Dutch) (social)
psychologist who provably is a major fraud, the genius of the learned
and honest (Dutch) (social) psychologist Gerben The Great LPR
insists that all Dutch journalist must write as if now is the time to
cover all fraudulence of (Dutch) (social) psychologist with tons
of red herrings and act as if lots of other disciplines and many
ought to band together so as to prevent the specific investigation of
or concern about the fraud(s) of (Dutch) (social) psychologist(s).
O these (Dutch) (social) psychologists!
So smart! So honest! So concerrned about "science"! So nice to
Trust the most honorable, most honest,
most learned professor of (Dutch) (social) psychology LPR Gerben van
Kleef PhD to castigate Dutch journalists for things they did not do.
Gerben van Kleef PhD never lied in his life! Trust me! Also: Blame
(Dutch) journalistst to report on "mediagenic
studies"! The stupid
fools! How could they have failed to see that it if a (Dutch) (social)
psychologist presents a study to the media - "meateaters
bastards", for example - this is bullshit and pseudoscience!
Een tweede probleem is dat in de berichtgeving over de zaak ten
onrechte de indruk wordt gewekt dat de mediagenieke studies van Stapel
('vleeseters zijn hufters') en zijn frauduleuze praktijken
representatief zouden zijn voor de sociale psychologie als geheel. Dit
is een ernstig misverstand.
A second pronlem is that in the
reporting about the case quite
incorrectly the impression was made that the mediagenic studies of
Stapel ("meateaters are bastards") and his fraudulent practices could
be representative of all of social psychology.
Listen to the (Dutch) professor of (social) psychology to acquite A
Het meeste onderzoek in de
Social Psychologists Of All Countries
Unite, and learn!:
Most research in social psychology
richt zich op relevante
maatschappelijke kwesties als
stereotypering, discriminatie, integratieproblematiek, machtsmisbruik,
agressie, conflict, terrorismebestrijding, gezondheidsvoorlichting en
de rol van sociale factoren bij herstel en ziekte, om maar een paar
dwarsstraten te noemen.
It takes a socially relevant mind of the
stupendous size of Van Kleef LPR to detail "Most
social psychology" in one sentence, that ends with "just to name a few
things", but that is a mere point of logic, a discipline
psychologists' brains are - it would seem - genetically unfit for.
is directed at socially relevant
issues like stereotyping,
discrimination, problems of integration, abuse of power, aggression,
conflict, war against terror, health education, and the role of social
factors in recuperation and disease, just to name a few things.
Then again, it is interesting to
see that "Most research in social psychology",
all over the world, is
done in the fields of the honest professor van Kleef LPR Ph.D. himself
- abuse of power, aggression, conflict -
and besides in all the themes
the Dutch Labour Party is wedded to: stereotyping,
problems of integration, war against terror, health education, and the
role of social factors in recuperation and disease.
What an amazing coincidence!
Het is onzinnig om al dit
theoretisch onderbouwde werk over ÚÚn kam te scheren met de 'sexy'
onderzoekjes van Diederik Stapel. Die vormen geen goede afspiegeling
van de sociale psychologie als wetenschapsgebied.
Note the PR
techniques of Gerben van
Kleef, LPR PhD: Nobody claimed that Stapel's research -
sexy or neither - are "a good representation of
social psychology as a
field of science."
It makes no sense to treat all this
solid, theoretically founded work
as if it were similar with the "sexy" little researches of Diederik
Stapel. These are not a good representation of social psychology as a
field of science.
Then again, he did get a paper in Science, and Gerben the Great
did not; until late last year even I had heard Holland boasted "a near
genius", which made me almost suffocate in my coffee, until I
social psychology" (followed by my contemptuous laughter,
studied psychology at the same university as professor Stapel, I know
one could reliably bet the most stupid students of psychology studied
social psychology, just as the most neurotic ones invariably turned out
to study clinical psychology).
Again note the PR techniques of Gerben van Kleef, LPR PhD: He has
merely listed topics of research in the previous paragraph, and
promotes in this one, without a shred of evidence, as
"all this solid,
theoretically founded work".
Being capable of logical thinking, I must infer that it follows from
the acceptance over a hundred of " the
researches of Diederi Stapel" by - it must be - at least
hundreds of his very peers, for peer reviews, that several
the professional colleagues of that most intelligent LPR Gerben van
Kleef PhD must be at least as incompetent as all the journalists Gerben
has been blaming and castigating for praising it.
But the new Dutch Newton of social psychology has an explanation:
De oorsprong van dit
vertekende beeld is eenvoudig aan te wijzen. Het
zijn vooral de 'sexy' onderzoekjes met flitsende conclusies die het
Blame the messenger, is one of professor
dr. van Kleef LPR favourite logical principles of proof. Then again,
being a (Dutch) (social) psychologist, he lacks the wit to realize
these "sexy" little researches with the flashy
conclusions must have
been approved by hundreds of his peers. (Oops!)
The source of this misdrawn image is
easy to point to. It are
especially the "sexy" little researches with the flashy conclusions
that make it the media.
Our great (Dutch) (social) psychologists' mind has more:
theoriegestuurde onderzoeksprogramma's die
vele jaren of zelfs decennia omspannen en vaak (te?) genuanceerde
conclusies opleveren, wordt in de media veel minder bericht.
Well... I don't want to impugn the
honesty of such a noble and great mind as that of Gerben van Kleef LPR
PhD, and I have the M.A. degree in psychology, if not - God forbid! -
social psychology, but of "research programs that
take many years or
even decennia" in social psychology I have never heard.
About the solid, theory directed
research programs that take many years
or even decennia and often produced (too?) nuanced conclusions,
there is far less in the media.
So I am not amazed "there is far less in the media"
of these - to the
best of my knowledge - chimaeras, and feel again journalists, who just
may not have studied (social) psychology, haven't reported them,
What I am amazed about, having read and translated this far, is that
professor dr. Van Kleef LPR, speaks of "solid,
research" while it is my distinct impression that much of the
in Dutch social psychology in fact is propaganda for the Dutch
Party - which is no doubt an explanation for the coincidence
But the great and honest mind of professor Van Kleef thunders on and on:
krijgen televisiekijkers en krantenlezers een uiterst selectief en
vertekend aanbod aan sociaal-psychologisch onderzoek voorgeschoteld en
ontstaat ten onrechte de indruk dat de sociale psychologie zich alleen
bezighoudt met flutonderwerpen.
Let us see.
Therefore the viewers of television
and the readers of papers receive
an extremely selective and misdrawn image of research in social
psychology and there comes to be an incorrect impression that social
psychology is only concerned with bullshit subjects.
First, it is self-evident that "the viewers of
television and the
readers of papers" are all very well informed about mathematics,
physics, chemistry, and other sciences, but that it is only about
(Dutch) (social) psychology that they have been deceived by "the "sexy"
little researches with the flashy conclusions that make it the media."
Second, this is clearly the fault not of that great and fair
mind that is professor Van Kleef LPR's, and also not the
fault of all those enormously well-trained and refined minds that do
the peer reviewing in the journals
and professor Van Kleef publish in, but the fault of all these
mindless, lazy, or intentionally misleading folks who are journalists.
Third, a mind like that of professor Van Kleef LPR is far
less concerned with the views of the hundreds of his fine peers
(social) psychology who passed all those " "sexy"
with the flashy conclusions that make it the media."
Fourth, as to "bullshit subjects". I do
know some research in
social psychology that seems to make sense: Milgram, Asch and Festinger come
(1) their work was done before the birth of that
that is professor Van Kleef LPR PhD
(2) the "social psychology" I was served in the
University of Amsterdam
when that astounding intellect was toddling was utter bullshit:
complete crap, ill reasoned, ill written, badly presented, and totally
useless for understanding anything, except how not to do a real science.
(3) "social psychology" seemed to be the study that
the most stupid
stuidents of psychology chose, who often also did so because of their
(4) it is my strong impression that these
days, and the last four
decades, in Holland social psychology in the universities is in fact
working as a tool to generate the kind of conclusions the Dutch
Party wants to see supported, and indeed:
(5) professor Diederik Stapel did a lot of research -
judging by the
titles I read, and judging by the politicians that used it - that was
And I am not a journo who wants to please his readers of
viewers with " "sexy" little researches with the
flashy conclusions that make it the
media", and know rather a lot more about
psychologists" than journalists - rationally speaking, after the
wasted years on a study that consisted mostly, if indeed not
"bullshit subjects", years that I
used much more profitably and usefully
on a real science.
I am glad to announce we are at the last paragraph of the great prose
of the noble and honest mind of Van Kleef LPR - who plays a final
gambit in red
herring, confusion, confabulation and impertinence:
concerned with the views of "the viewers of
television and the readers of papers" - and
That is, one must infer: The pattern of
misinformed viewers of television and readers of papers that the
honorable Van Kleef LPR PhD is so much concerned about, as if he is a
Stalinist politician rather than a scientist.
De huidige crisis biedt een uitgelezen kans om dit patroon te
The current crisis provides an excellent chance to break through this
Perhaps that is because he is in fact a politician pretending to do
Ook hier is samenwerking
geboden, ditmaal tussen wetenschap
The previous time, the reader may
recall, it was cooperation between "fields of
"universities", essentially to serve as a
shoal of red herrings on top
of the field of (Dutch) (social) psychology.
Here too cooperation is necessary,
this time between science and
Onderzoekers zouden het als
moeten zien om juist de conclusies uit hun gedegen, langlopende
onderzoeksprogramma's over wezenlijke onderwerpen via de media met het
grote publiek te delen, ook al laten de bevindingen zich misschien niet
samenvatten in smeu´ge oneliners.
it as their responsibility to share precisely the conclusions
from solid, long lasting research programs about essential subjects by
way of the media with the public at large, even if their findings may
not be summarizable in tasty onelines.
If the (Dutch) non-(social) non-psychologist
who reads papers at this point is
about the mental health of professor Van Kleef LPR PhD, this
psychologist can only admit they have a point: The Dutch papers and
Dutch TV rarely if ever "share precisely the
conclusions from solid,
long lasting research programs about essential subjects" -
those may be - with their readers and viewers.
And indeed that is not what the public media are for: At best,
things happen incidentally in scientific conferences and scientific
journals reporting on these: That is what these are for, after all.
(But try telling that to a mind like that of professor Van Kleef, LPR
Next, in bold, because it was earlier set apart
kwaliteitsmedia moeten ernaar streven dergelijk gedegen onderzoek voor
het voetlicht te brengen, in plaats van geinige
effectjes zonder theoretische fundering of maatschappelijke relevantie.
strive to bring proper research into the limelight, instead of funny
little effects without any theoretical foundation or social relevance.
See? It's all the journalists' fault.
Not Diederik Stapel's. Not Gerben van Kleef
aka LPR (in my psychological household). Not the hundreds
(Dutch) (social) psychologists' colleagues of highly trained
supremely gifted social psychologists' mind who promoted and supported
Stapel. Not hundreds of peer reviewers that peer reviewed these
little effects without any theoretical foundation or social relevance"
aka ""sexy" little researches with the flashy
conclusions that make it
It's the effing journalists' fault
that the Dutch public now harbours
delusions about "(Dutch) (social) psychology"
- or that is the summary
of the great professor Van Kleef LPR PhD ((Dutch) (social)
Perhaps you want a reason, reader? Here it is:
Want de flutstudies waar nu
(soms terecht) lacherig over wordt gedaan,
werden eerst enthousiast breed uitgemeten in diverse media.
See? And our noble professorial mind
also has a moral to finish his tale:
Because the bullshit
studies people now are laughing about, were earlier
enthusiastically presented on a large scale in the media.
broddeljournalistiek gaan hand in hand en houden
elkaar in stand. Hier kan alleen weerstand aan worden geboden als zowel
wetenschappers als journalisten de verleidingen van de 'sexy' effecten
weten te weerstaan.
Bad science and bad journalism go
hand in hand and keep each other in
existing. This can only be resisted if both scientists and journalists
can resist the temptation of "sexy effects".
That have been approved and
published by hundreds of peer reviewers (most or all (social)
psychologists), in tens of "scientific journals" (most if not
(social) psychology) - but fuck logic and
2. Many Little
psychologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Kleef is professor of
social psychology in the University of Amsterdam.
There's more to follow,
I found today:
There seem to be whole cohorts, whole hordes of Little Pricks
Rosewater: His friends and colleagues of - no less than - The
Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology
utter forth in the same tones, accents, postures and stances.
Fortunately for me, they put it all in English, so at least I can avoid
the nausea of translating Dutch pomo bullshit into English idem - and
as it happens, the Dutch language has a nice saying about this too:
It's a whole Executive Committee of social psychologists that feels
"stepped on their pricks" (Dutch: "op hun pik getrapt" - offended).
I do hope I will not be castigated for "sexism", and I'll see
what I can do for a whole congregation of little pricks rosewater: More
[*] It seems some Dutch yahoos find my
terminology offensive. Well... I have been called "a
fascist" from 1977 - 1987 by the yahoos of the Asva, because I did not
believe their lies that they were "Marxists", nor
their lies that they were "revolutionaries": Being the oldest son of two heroes of the
Dutch resistance against Nazism, both sincere communists, I do not appreciate
being slandered and defamed by a choice set of careerist
degenerates, liars, imposters and yahoos, who destroyed the
Dutch universities so that their kind could play professorial whore of reason
Dutchies who disagree should consult Dutch author Gerrit Komrij
on what he called, in his optimism, "My generation of traitors",
namely: Traitors of civilization, traitors of education, traitors of
science,n traitors of morality:
Dec 11, 2012: Added a quotation
and made some corrections.
Contextualist explanation: Thanks to the UvA
and the mayors and aldermen of Amsterdam, I can get no help -
years now - while being
seriously ill (for my inferior sort of human being that is no
Dutch Labour Pary supporter deserves none). Besides, I have trouble
with my eyes, and must live - eat, clothe, buy books and computers,
live my life of "equal value" as that astounding mastermind Van Kleef -
from a $ 7.50 a day, since the money that is
saved on human trash like me can be safely spend on professorial near
geniuses of the
Stapel/Van Kleef variety.
There may be more corrections and links, since I have to do this
piecewise, in view of my sore eyes, and
also neither the Municipality of Amsterdam nor tje University of
Amsterdam nor the Dutch state will supply me with html-editors for
free, as they do for the ▄bermenschen - superhumans - of the
UvA-approved make and value of Stapel and Van Kleef: These are the men
with then morals and the minds the UvA and the Dutch state approves and
nominates for professors. Untermenschen of my kind of background are
systematically removed from the UvA, and gassed
in Amsterdam for the benefit of the drugs mafia.
I doubt not professor Van Kleef LPR PhD can explain why this is good
for the Dutch economy and how this expresses Dutch moral values at its
very best, for he is a most honorable most gifted man, in the Dutch
schema of values, where only ordinary men
are morally approved, and made into professors in the social sciences.
Update 12 dec 2012: And did another editorial check,
and added some links, notably to "fallacies" in my Philosophical
Dictionary, to explain "red herrings" - which is the fallacious
core of LPR Van Kleef's argumentation.
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: