Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

December 10, 2012

Stapel meshuggenah: One Little Prick Rosewater


"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 reprobate."
-- Hazlitt
“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  (social psychologist)   



Sections
Introduction   
1. Lulletje Rozewater Van Kleef/
    Little Prick Rosewater Van Kleef
2. Many Little Pricks Rosewater
About ME/CFS


Introduction:

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 the majority of his Dutch colleagues in the social sciences, described quite cleary and quite fairly, in a 9-point characteristic.
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 careerists all):
 


Scientific  realism Postmodernism


Properties

Assumption:   There is an independently existing reality that is best known by means of scientific methods and is best explained by and written in mathematics.
 
Both inside and outside the academic world careers, position, power and status are reached most easily by pretentious poses, moral delusions and general - cultural - relativism.
End:   Empirically 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.


Methods

Cognitively:  1 realism relativism
 2 probabilistic totalitairian
 3 objective ideological



Morally:  4 personal emancipation social levelling
 5 change freedom/empowerment (soi-disant)
 6 personal and a-political political en politicised



Practically:  7 technologically oriented power oriented
 8 scientifically oriented media oriented
 9 individual thinking groupthinking

Note that professor Van Kleef, like professor Stapel, received almost undiluted postmodernism 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”
-- Solomon Asch  (social psychologist)
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 to:
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 reprobate."
-- Hazlitt
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 all postmodernists:
Egoism and stupidity are the roots of all vice
-- Buddha.
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 otherwise avoided):
It were those awful questions that did it: One must not question anything any pomo bully blandly asserts - as also will be seen below.



1.
Little 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.

Google 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 professor 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 fashionable glasses.

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 Little Prick Rosewater (here after LPR, that - by chance - also happens to abbreviate "Lying Public Relationist"), that
"everybody knows that truth does not exist"
"everybody is of equal value"

and that
"all morality is wholly relative"
and 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 should 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 wholly relative.

Besides his lovely, proud, manly, superbly intelligent face, the visitors of Professor Liittle Prick Rosewater's personal pages will find  carefully crafted PR-prose like this:

Gerben van Kleef's primary 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 organizational contexts.
It 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...
It is 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 eye is not on 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.
( On Bullshit, Harry Frankfurt )
... of the vaguely grandiose purple 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 lie  commit 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:

'Vertekend beeld van 'sexy' onderzoekjes met flitsende conclusies is onterecht'

'Misdrawn image of 'sexy' little investigations with flashy conclusions is not right'

Since you might lack the mighty intellect that is required for being or becoming  a social psychologist, you just might have missed that what is misdrawn is not right, so our little UvA-prick (undoubtedly very well paid) has it in a headline.

What does he mean?
OPINIE - Gerben van Kleef − 04/12/12, 12:33

opinie De flutstudies waar nu om wordt gelachen, werden eerst enthousiast breed uitgemeten in de media, schrijft Gerben van Kleef, hoogleraar sociale psychologie.

opinion The bullshit studies people now are laughing about, were earlier  enthusiastically presented on a large scale in the media, writes Gerben van Kleef.

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.

Got it? It's not social psychology or social psychologists that are to blame, nor the parasitical and politicized climate for highly paid utterly corrupt fraudulent
bullshit that pervades all faculties of all social sciences in Holland.

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 same paper three days later: "Stapel werd niet door de media bewierookt.

Little Prick 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:

Journalisten van kwaliteitsmedia moeten ernaar streven dergelijk gedegen onderzoek voor het voetlicht te brengen, in plaats van geinige effectjes zonder theoretische fundering of maatschappelijke relevantie.

Journalists of 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 that are 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 and 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 "science", the "science" that finances LPR Van Kleef so very well. 

Van Kleef LPR PhD's message 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 that the 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: "BUT 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 these 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 intelligent professor:

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.

Former professor social psychology 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 Committee. The 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 more 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 me explain:

"more stringent data protocols": If you want to use fraudulent data, do not avoid to do the research: First do the "research", and then bake the data on your computer. (If you can 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, at least he must have collected data, before cooking them, and not leave out the collecting step, which ommission did Diederik Stapel in.)

"central data storage": This is mere theatrics, but I agree it looks 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 "more 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 one's colleagues 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 experiments in 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 the 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 is 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 legalese mind from the Dutch Labour Party, after which indeed almost always everything gets obfuscated, falsified, derailed, lied about, made into a 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 en overlegorganen 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 wetenschappelijk onderzoek.

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 scientific research.

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 teaches me 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 psychology:

Step 1 (possibly too difficult for many professors of social psychology): Learn to program well, and learn something about 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 of social 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 likely the 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:

Aantoonbaar onjuist
Provably incorrect

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 "provably untrue": "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 effected completely in the University of Amsterdam 3 years after that most learned, most able most honest, most honorable Gerben van Kleef got born. (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 exist: 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 prose of 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:

Unfortunately, in 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 Kleef!

... also some unfounded and 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.

...that 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 disinterested way!

Thus the media incorrectly made the impression that (social) psychology is more prone to be fraudulent than other sciences.

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 one of major frauds in the history of science, this may say something about Dutch (social) psychology!

It is evidentially very seductive to look upon the fraud of an individual as exemplary for a whole professional group.

(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 mathematics or physics, for these have strict mathematical proofs or repeatable objective experiments.

Besides.... I have followed this Stapel case now for over a year and have not seen any journalistic report on it that bears out what the most homorable palpably very honest professor Van Kleef LPR claims.

Unfortunately, it is just this kind of sweeping statements that prevent a constructive debate about the improvement of the quality of scientific research.       

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.

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 start to 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 (en 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:

 Fraudepreventie
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.

Even so, the honorable Little Prick Rosewater has managed to throw around a bucket full of red herrings, that he now is going to abuse, after having said nothing informative at all
Wel is het belangrijk om deze fraude 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 situatie.

But is is important to see this fraud in the proper perspective...
as provided by that most honourable colleague of Diederik Stapel (until a year ago)
... and to broaden the discussion...
so as to avoid speaking about fraudulence of (Dutch) (social) psychologists
... so that not only social psychology but also other fields of science can come to profit from this situation.
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.

The reputation of science is falling.
And that is your fault you expletive deleted journos! Your misdrawing, your misrepresenting, your incorrect, inappropriate, socially irrelevant reporting!

Trust the honest and learned professor Van Kleef LPR!
Nu 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 fraudepreventie.

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 universities 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 journalists!

Vleeseters

Meat eaters

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.
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 are bastards", for example - this is bullshit and pseudoscience!

Listen to the (Dutch) professor of (social) psychology to acquite A Coreect Perspective:
Het meeste onderzoek in de sociale psychologie

Most research in social psychology
Social Psychologists Of All Countries Unite, and learn!:
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.

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.
It takes a socially relevant mind of the stupendous size of  Van Kleef LPR to detail "Most research in social psychology" in one sentence, that ends with "just to name a few things", but that is a mere point of logic, a discipline social psychologists' brains are - it would seem - genetically unfit for.

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, discrimination, 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 degelijke, 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.

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.
Note the PR techniques of Gerben van Kleef, LPR PhD: Nobody claimed that Stapel's research - diminutive or sexy or neither - are "a good representation of social psychology as a field of science."

Then again, he did get a paper in Science, and Gerben the Great LPR 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 heard "in social psychology" (followed by my contemptuous laughter, because having 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 "sexy" little researches of Diederi Stapel" by - it must be - at least several hundreds of his very peers, for peer reviews, that several hundreds of 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 nieuws halen.

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.
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!)

Our great (Dutch) (social) psychologists' mind has more:
Over gedegen, theoriegestuurde onderzoeksprogramma's die vele jaren of zelfs decennia omspannen en vaak (te?) genuanceerde conclusies opleveren, wordt in de media veel minder bericht.

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.
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! - in social psychology, but of "research programs that take many years or even decennia" in social psychology I have never heard.

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, theory directed research" while it is my distinct impression that much of the research in Dutch social psychology in fact is propaganda for the Dutch Labour Party - which is no doubt an explanation for the coincidence noted above.

But the great and honest mind of professor Van Kleef thunders on and on:
Zodoende 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.

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.
Let us see.

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 professor Stapel 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 in (social) psychology who passed all those " "sexy" little researches 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 to mind.

BUT:

(1) their work was done before the birth of that astounding intellect 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 political ideology.
(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 Labour 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 just that.

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 "(Dutch) (social) psychologists" than journalists - rationally speaking, after the fact, having wasted years on a study that consisted mostly, if indeed not wholly, of "
bullshit subjects", years that I could have 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
Samenwerking
De huidige crisis biedt een uitgelezen kans om dit patroon te doorbreken.

Cooperation
The current crisis provides an excellent chance to break through this pattern.

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.

Perhaps that is because he is in fact a politician pretending to do science:
Ook hier is samenwerking geboden, ditmaal tussen wetenschap en journalistiek.

Here too cooperation is necessary, this time between science and journalism.
The previous time, the reader may recall, it was cooperation between "fields of science" and "universities", essentially to serve as a shoal of red herrings on top of the field of (Dutch) (social) psychology.
Onderzoekers zouden het als hun verantwoordelijkheid 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.
Researches should see 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 seriously concerned 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" - whatever those may be - with their readers and viewers.

And indeed that is not what the public media are for: At best, such 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 PhD!)

Next, in bold, because it was earlier set apart in bold:
Journalisten van kwaliteitsmedia moeten ernaar streven dergelijk gedegen onderzoek voor het voetlicht te brengen, in plaats van geinige effectjes zonder theoretische fundering of maatschappelijke relevantie.
Journalists of 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 all the journalists' fault.

Not Diederik Stapel's. Not Gerben van Kleef aka LPR (in my psychological household). Not the hundreds of (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 " funny little effects without any theoretical foundation or social relevance" aka ""sexy" little researches with the flashy conclusions that make it the media".

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) psychologist) ideas.

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.

Because t
he bullshit studies people now are laughing about, were earlier  enthusiastically presented on a large scale in the media.
See? And our noble professorial mind also has a moral to finish his tale:
 Slodderwetenschap en 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 all of (social) psychology) - but fuck logic and reason:

Gerben van Kleef is hoogleraar sociale psychologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Gerben van Kleef is professor of social psychology in the University of Amsterdam.
2. Many Little Pricks Rosewater

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 later :
-Next


[*] 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 in it.

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 clarifying bullshit and made some corrections.

Contextualist explanation: Thanks to the UvA and the mayors and aldermen of Amsterdam, I can get no help - for 34 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.

About ME/CFS (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:
1. Anthony Komarof

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)



       home - index - summaries - mail