Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

December 11, 2012

Stapel meshuggenah: Many Little Pricks 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.
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.

In fact, this introduction is mostly the same as yesterday's review and translation of
Little Prick Rosewater Professor Van Kleef most honest most gifted prose, except that I have appended to the end of this introduction, that I retain to provide context, some text I also appended to yesterday's piece.

Let me start - for the convenience and amustement 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.
Literary note: "Stapelgek" is Dutch idiom that exists since long before the Stapel meshuggena Diederik became world famous; "meshuggenah" is the US spelling of the Yiddish word that the Dutch has as "mesjogge", and means what "gek" means: "crazy". Thus "stapelgek" means, since before Diederik Stapel was born, "completely crazy". (Nomen est  omen.)

And you'll find the explanation of "little prick rosewater" - Dutch: "lulletje rozewater" - in yesterday's Stapel meshuggenah: One Little Prick Rosewater. Enjoy!

As to intellectual and moral enjoyments:

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 asseets - as also will be seen below, though indeed more was at play, of a sexual and ethical nature, also explained  below.

Appended December 11, 2012, some text that I also appended to yesterday's review of professor Gerben van Kleef's LPR prose:

Note: 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:
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 the 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.

And now we move forwards to another bit of highly trained social psychologists's Professional Prose, this time by a whole Committee of Little Pricks Rosewater:



1. Many Little Pricks Rosewater


Yesterday I became aware that - of all folk - no less than
The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology also found inspiration in Little Prick Rosewater Van Kleef's immortal social psychological prose, and uttered forth likewise, fortunately in English, which avoids my having to translate it.

I'll reproduce the immortal wisdom of the - totally anonymous - brave great social psychologists' minds indented and in blue, and add a few comments, unindented and in black, but should make some preliminary points before starting on this exercise in mental hygiene:
  • I did not know that there was anything like the Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" [Dzerzhinskian note], but then I am not amazed there is such a thing.
  • I also am not amazed at the quality of their cogitations: It is evidently written by minds as gifted and as trained, and also as well paid, as Stapel (when he was a professor) and professor Van Kleef, who may be suspected of having a hand in the prose that follows, though I do not know this.
  • I am not going to confuse the issues as pomo social psychologists do: I do not pretend to know what social pschology is like in European countries that are not Holland - for all I know non-Dutch professors of social psychology all took degrees in pure mathematics + mathematical logic + physics before being allowed to study social psychology, which would be a very good idea, but which I don't know:
  • I am somewhat informed only about (social) psychology in Holland, England and the United States, and from textbooks in the subjects that were published since the mid-1970ies it seems only morons teach and study it since then - but I have been called "an elitarian" and "a fascist" before, in the University of Amsterdam, and I do realize that (lack of) intelligence is mostly genetic, hence no personal (demerit or) merit though I have been sanctioned many times in the psychology faculty profesor Van Kleef teaches in for holding such "an elitarian" and "fascist" idea as that intelligence is mostly genetic (for it was then taught in the very same psychology faculty profesor Van Kleef teaches in that, since all men are of equal value - you, Einstein, me, Von Neumann, Goebbels, Hitler and Van Kleef - it must follow that "intelligence is a choice": The 16 million Dutchmen who did not do what Einstein and Von Neumann did and could, only did not do what they did not do because they chose to follow soccer and internet-porn instead, while getting a degree in (social) psychology, and not because they might lack the native nous).
So... I'll try to keep the discussion on the topic of the merits, teachings and publications of Dutch social psychologists, though I must warn the reader that, in view of the eminently meshuggena positions the Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" takes, this will be a bit of a problem.

But let us see....

December 8, 2012

Dear friends and colleagues,
Hi mates, how r u? Made any good money lately? Groped a few hot  female students lately for pass marks?

Sorry if I offended you.... but then this is not an unfair question in the context of the University of Amsterdam: The professor of ethics of the University of Amsterdam professor Frans Jacobs did so for years, telling female students he lusted for (and I quote the professor on that very subject, of hot female students):
"Ik kan me best in de psyche van die lustmoordenaars indenken: zoiets fraais doet pijn aan je ogen, je kunt het maar het beste kapotgooien."
"I can easily imagine what the psyche of lust murderers is like: something as beautiful as that hurts your  eyes, it is best to destroy it."
And - for he published this in the faculty paper of the faculty of philosophy - so as to clarify the nobility of his motives:
"Die voldoende krijgt ze op de koop toe, als ze mij eerst neemt. Maar als ze niets van me wil weten, ben ik onomkoopbaar. Hoe maak ik dat haar duidelijk?"

"The pass mark she'll get for free, if first she does it with me. But if she doesn't want me, I cannot be bought. How do I make this clear to her?"
In the faculty paper of the faculty of philosophy of the Univcersity of Amsterdam, of course! (And no: It is most unlikely that professor dr. Jacobs had a mad crush, in view of the first quotation, also: He simply made it known he could be had, for study points, provided one was female, attractive and willing, and that he was a tough guy).

I found this not a little sick and sickening, and protested, but professor Jacobs was dean of the faculty, and out I went, with the glad consent of the Board of Directors of the University of Amsterdam, who must be assumed to be all sexually very satisfied.

Anyway, back to the noble European professors of
"The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" that start thus:
The scientific fraud committed by Diederik Stapel has been a major shock for all members of the social psychology community.  As a result, this community was keenly awaiting the publication of the final Levelt report — the coordinated report of the three committees that have investigated Stapel’s research activities in the three universities where he was employed over the course of his career. The report was expected to provide a complete account of the publications that should be retracted, but also to uncover the process by which Stapel was able to fabricate data and publish fraudulent research for more than ten years.
Like most totalitarian minds, professors of social psychologt love being individually unaccountable and irresponsible, which they do by hiding behind our "community", in this case "the social psychology community".

By the way, the reader should note that in this paragraph in fact at least four "
committees" play a role, while it is factually correct that the great professor Stapel, now presumably removed from "the social psychology community" indeed - in the 16 years before his removal, and while still being a prominent member of "the social psychology community", taught at three Dutch universities: The University of Amsterdam, the University of Groningen, and the University of Tilburg, where "his "sexy" little researches" - I quote the  great Dutch professor of social psychology Van Kleef LPR PhD - must have been duly weighed, researched and enthusiastically approved by quite a lot of Dutch professors and lecturers in the presumed "science" of (social) psychology, for one does not get elected as a professor in a Dutch university without being weighed by various committees.

As it happens, I have nothing to add to or detract from this first paragraph, though the mores and background committee-approved nomination of Dutch professors are relevant.

But in the next paragraph, the shit hits the fan, as the many Little Pricks Rosewater - I have learned "all human beings are of equal value", kind professorial colleagues of professor Van Kleef LPR PhD, and professorial colleagues of professor Stapel, until lately, so excuse my logical mind - of
the Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" start swelling in what they pretend is "justified" "anger":
The Levelt report1) was published on November 28, but instead of providing the expected closure and a welcome insight into one of the darkest chapters of the history of social psychology, it brings the discipline as a whole into disrepute. For, in addition to describing Stapel’s fraudulent activities, the report characterizes social psychology as a discipline with low academic standards and limited scientific integrity. This is a characterization that the Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology rejects completely. The present statement represents the Executive
Committee’s official reaction to the Levelt report.
O dear!

Instead of concluding that their former often published "near genius" of Dutch social psychology professor Diederik Stapel has brought "
the discipline as a whole into disrepute" they react like a whole Dzerzihnskian styled Executive Committee of social psychologists that feels very much "stepped on their pricks" (Dutch: "op hun pik getrapt" - Dutch idiom for "offended").

For why? For this:
For, in addition to describing Stapel’s fraudulent activities, the report characterizes social psychology as a discipline with low academic standards and limited scientific integrity.
O my! By golly! How dare they?!

Well,
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology": Let me add a few words in possible explanation:

When I read the first reactions to the fraud of Diederik Stapel, in late October 2011, it struck me that it seemed as if Dutch psychologists, about whose mores I may just be a little better informed than the
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" seemed to me to be trying to shift all of the blame fully to the Dutch professor in social psychology, the most learned most intelligent (it had seemed till then) Diederik Stapel, Ph.D. cum laude, if I recall well.

In fact, I wrote this, on November 1, 2011 after a fairly long but well written exposition of why I felt qualified to write about this subject:

Sixth and last, I may return to this, in Dutch, because the Dutch interim-report is quite interesting, and not quite honest:

The pretense is that it is all Stapel's fault, and everybody else is not to blame, since they all are, as the Dutch universities themselves, falsely, advertise their staff to be: "excellent scientists"; while the truth is that there has been a sick, degenerate, corrupt, political and unscientific climate in very much of the Dutch universities since decades, if only because ALL Dutch universities have been explicitly run - by law, also! - as if they were democratized Soviets from 1971-1995, thereby enabling for some 25 years the careerists from the Dutch leftist parties to be nominated in positions of power or as "scientific staff" in the Dutch universities.

And apart from the few studies that really require talent, these were nearly all political nominations of people with little or no interest in real science, and with strong personal and political interests in pseudoscience, bullshit, fake "science", and politicized "science".

They were and are truly excellent - as frauds, as liars, as deceivers, as parasites, as whores of reason, as political pseudoscientists, as fakers, as bullshitters and as very willing betrayers of civilization, of science, of truth and of morality.
Now I have no idea whether the Levelt Committee was inspired by this, for they never wrote to me, and I never wrote to them, and as the most learned most intelligent to me quite anonymous but obviously most courageous members of the Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" may learn from yesterday's disquisition, in Holland I happen to have the position of a mere sub-human who may be thrown from the University of Amsterdam because of his published ideas, and who may be gassed by the mayor and aldermen of Amsterdam, for the benefit of the Amsterdam drugs mafia, after which I may ask the worthies of both Amsterdam institutions for a quarter of a century for some sort of answer to my demands for damages, without ever receiving any reply that amounted to more than "Go fuck yourself, piece of scum".

Then again, my sites get several millions of hits each year; some psychologists of the Levelt Committee have known me personally; and certainly some more have read my satirical
for reason of which I again was informed, in the name of the scientific staff of the University of Amsterdam, in the year I was thrown out of the faculty of philosophy, and then gassed by my landlord because I could not be intimidated by his mafia drugs dealers, which the mayors and aldermen of Amsterdam must have thought just the right sort of punishment for one with my unique family background, that
"the scientific staff of the faculty of psychology of the University of Amsterdam likes to see Maarten Maartensz dead".
But OK... I do not know these nice moral norms and personal praises are practiced in European universities that are not Dutch, and indeed I much doubt anyone with my family background (other than my brother) ever attended any Dutch university, while I also do not know of any other Dutchman gassed by drugs mafiosi protected by mayors and aldermen. (If there are any, they probably did not dare to protest, but then I come from a family that is not easily intimidated by Nazi practices).

Another thing, before the
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" might ask or choose to pretend such a one as I does not exist:

Why did I not make publicity out of this? E.g. in the way professor and professor Stapelt and Van Kleef, LPR, PhD, are clearly trying to do?

First, my family name is not Stapel nor Van Kleef, and indeed not Maartensz either: I do not like publicity, and never did. If I am anything, by genetic predisposition, it is a scholar, a philosopher, an intellectual, and not a political activist, nor a lying careerist of the pomo kind, of which I have met or seen hundreds in the University of Amsterdam.

Second, I can not use my
family name because my former landlord, the mafia boss, has been looking for me, and told me so as late as 2007, by e-mail, having read my site.

Third, ever since I protested against the drugs mafia protected and maintained by the Amsterdam mayors, aldermen, district attorneys, policemen, and court, very many drugs related murders have happened in Amsterdam, that also never are solved, if indeed they are investigated at all by the anyway drugs corrupted Amsterdam municipal police.

Fourth, I have a serious illness since 1.I.1979, made much worse by what I had to go through to survive the Amsterdam drugs mafia, and I cannot flee Holland or Amsterdam

So the answer to "
Why did I not make publicity out of this?" is simply this: Because very probably I would disappear for ever i.e. get killed - as there are and have been many drugsrelated murders in and around Amsterdam. (Most Dutchmen don't care at all, as long as it does not happen to them, and as long as drugs are freely available and affordable, and both are the case, in large democratic majority also.)

I turn to the next paragraph of inspired social psychologists' prose:

Before delving into the reasons for our strong opposition to the conclusions about social psychology contained in the Levelt report, we must first acknowledge that the work which has gone into this report is extremely impressive in terms both of complexity of the task and the sensitivities of the subject matter. The three committees have worked for more than a year on the challenging task of reconstructing how each study in Stapel’s many publications had been designed, conducted and analysed. On this score, the first four chapters of the report are highly informative and allow us to understand the world of deception and influence that Stapel had set up around him and his collaborators’ research, and exonerate the PhD students from direct involvement in the fraud. This is a very important outcome of the report and the committees should be commended for this. There are also important problems in scientific research — within and outside our discipline — that this investigation has played an important role in clarifying.
As the reader may have gleaned, social psychologists united in a Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" do know how to use carrot and stick, aka honey and vinegar.

This is the honeyed part, and while I could criticize some, I will not, and straighaway continue with the next bit of inspired social psychologists' prose, for we have arrived at the wounded pricks of the
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology", that the Levelt Committee trod on, indeed possibly because of what I wrote, though I would believe that even if this is so, it is not likely to be admitted.
The following two chapters, however, represent a defamatory attempt to present social psychology as a discipline that has facilitated, through its flawed research culture, Stapel’s scientific misconduct. Chapter 5 reviews in some details the verification bias that can be consistently found when analysing Stapel’s research; however, before doing so, the report attributes this bias to the whole discipline of social psychology: ”The discovery of the methodological defects, which constitutes an unintended and unexpected finding of this inquiry, did raise the crucial question for the Committees as to whether this research culture, which is described in more technical detail below, is
also rife throughout the field of social psychology, nationally and internationally. Could it be that in general some aspects of this discipline’s customary methods should be deemed incorrect from the perspective of academic standards and scientific integrity?”
(p. 47). This is presented as a question, but its illocutionary force is quite clear.
O dear! O my! By golly! How dare they?! Let's see:

The first sentence is of truly dialectical PR depth, which make interesting reading for legalese minds, also:
The following two chapters, however, represent a defamatory attempt to present social psychology as a discipline that has facilitated, through its flawed research culture, Stapel’s scientific misconduct.
For look at the dialectics of it:

First, isn't it "
a defamatory attempt" to represent something as being "a defamatory attempt"?!

I am merely asking, and leave the answer to the courts, though I much doubt it will come as far (while I am alive and free to comment, at least), but it is a logically interesting point, also because the undoubtedly prodigiously gifted
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" is precisely making the manner of complaint against the Levelt Committee that they here, dialectically, in the best and most learned Stalinist tradition, commit here.

Second, as truly Marxist dialectics, look at what the offended 
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" gets worked up about:

That the Levelt Committee asked - having realized a fraud does not publish 150 papers as a social psychologist, and does not make a career as a social psychologist outside a context of colleagues, peer reviewers, committees that lifted him to his professorial eminence, that mostly must be social psychologiststs - the following question:
”The discovery of the methodological defects, which constitutes an unintended and unexpected finding of this inquiry, did raise the crucial question for the Committees as to whether this research culture, which is described in more technical detail below, is
also rife throughout the field of social psychology, nationally and internationally. Could it be that in general some aspects of this discipline’s customary methods should be deemed incorrect from the perspective of academic standards and scientific integrity?”
It seems quite a fair question to me, having noted that in fact hundreds of European social psychologists must have admired, helped and peer reviewed professor Stapel for some 15 uears before he was discovered to be a fraud, but then I don't make any money teaching social psychology, and never did - and surely the  Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" will not begrudge me the right of thinking they "are only in it for the money" (Frank Zappa) and would live on the Bahamas if they were millionaires, instead of merely quite well off wealthy professors of  social psychology, but then maybe I am just a bit elderly, cynucal and unimpressed by the field of (Dutch) (social) psychology as a real science, rather than as a pseudoscience:

                              Click image for the full picture of "Pseudoscience"
But a scientific committee investigating a scientific fraud by a social psychologist may not ask such a question, if that is up to the very acme of European social psychologists, that Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology".

For why? For this Van Kleefian (LPR) sounding reason:
This is presented as a question, but its illocutionary force is quite clear.
You can find out what "illocutionary force" is by way of the internet, but I'll explain it for dummies:

If your career does in fact involve a lot of weasel words, of equivocations, of innuendos, of slippery language, as do all pseudosciences, from psychiatry to social and clinical psychology - yes,
Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee", that's what I do believe, but then I also do have an excellent M.A. in it and know more philosophy of science and mathematical logic than any psychologist I ever met (and very probably: than is alive) - then you are very sensitive to the ways and abuses of words, and how this may be used to further your career, and blacken others, and getting away with it.

And therefore social psychologists and such know a lot about "
illocutionary force":

Misleading others is the basis of most
pseudosciences, apart from stupidity and ignorance, of course, for indeed one should realize that not all pseudoscientists are frauds: Some professional mandarins in pseudosciences - quite a few indeed - merely have an IQ in the UvA-approved range, and are true believers.

Then again, I am kind enough not to believe
that Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" is quite as stupid as that, and turn to their next paragraph's first part:
Interestingly, just a few lines later, the report notes that ”The Committees are therefore unable to make any statement on these grounds about social psychology as a whole.” (p. 48). But they immediately make the comment, no less effective than a statement: ”It would nonetheless be simplistic to dismiss the findings given below as merely a local aberration. Mr Stapel worked in too many different places and in too many different capacities to support that view” (p. 48). The reader will understand that if it cannot be a local aberration, then it has to be a general problem.
I am very probably handicapped by a logical intellect that does not handicap social psychologists, but logically speaking it seems to me that the Levelt Committee (I should not be suspected of harbouring great sympathy for) is beyond fair reproach here: While not wanting to impugn "social psychology as a whole" they do suggest, not at all unfairly, there is, as the wise Solon Asch said, the point that
“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)
But the Dzerzihnskian styled "The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" does not want to know.

Instead, they get on with their "
illocutionary force" bit:
This interpretation is reinforced by the following lines: ”Furthermore he published in nearly all the respected international journals in his field. It was extremely rare for his extraordinarily neat findings to be subjected to serious doubt, even in the doctoral boards of ‘his’ doctoral candidates, even in the international review procedures, and even where the fraud was blatant. Taken together all of the above reinforces the picture of an international research community of which Mr Stapel, his PhD students and close colleagues were part, and in which the customary research methods and associated standards and values were mutually shared.” (p. 48).
Let me help the Executive Committee a bit:

It's true that the Dutch - a nation of traders - are masters of equivocation, innuendo and suggestion (aka: salestalk) - called "schipperen" in Dutch - and also true that it is not quite clear how the Levelt Committee would be partitioning the responsibilities for blaming Mr Stapel's fraud:
  • Is it just Mr Stapel, as they in 2011 suggested?
  • Is it Mr Stapel plus the not really attentive colleagues of his at the three Dutch universities his very succsessful and widely admired and praised career (until the end of 2011) took place?
  • Is it both of the above plus the not precisely very good peer review practices of hundreds of his peers in social psychology (until the end of 2011)?
Then again, it seems quite clear that the Levelt Committee - aside: Is there anything any (social) psychologist can do outside "a committee"? - thinks of all three, with good reasons also.

Almost spitting with indignation (this learned psychologist surmises) the
Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" concludes:
The clear implication is that our international community shares its research methods and associated standards and values with fraudster Diederik Stapel.
"Off with Stapel's head! But keep away from our sins, ommissions, failing, shortcomings, and oceans of bullshit! We are Professional Scientists!" - must be the "illocutionary force" of their anger.

Well, dear "
Executive Committee"... : If a highly successful social psychologist has turned out to be in fact a scientific fraud of some 15 years standing, in the supposedly "scientific" field of social psychology, does it not stand to reason that it is quite likely that "something is rotten" in the supposedly "scientific" field of social psychology?

Or should professor Alan Sokal have committed fifteen years of fraud, in at least 55 papers, in
the supposedly "scientific" field of postmodernistic "Social Texts" before he was allowed to even think of the possibility it might not be as "scientific" as the pomo frauds pretended it to be? Here are the references for readers who missed this gem of social psychological science, established by a mere mathematician and physicst:
Apparently professor Sokal should have, in the eyes of the Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology". Look at how they continue:
The Executive Committee of EASP vehemently rejects this conclusion — believing it to be defamatory, unfounded, and false.
O dear! "vehemently rejects"! "defamatory, unfounded, and false"! Off with professor Levelt's head! Off with the heads of the members of the three or four Committees that did the Stapel Investigation!

Or would merely burning them alive suffice? If you think I am exaggerating, the ire of the
the Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of EASP" (gasp!) is extreme:
The report’s specification that ”(...) the Committees are not suggesting that unsound research practices are commonplace in social psychology.” (p. 48) does not mitigate the picture, on the one hand because the suggestion has indeed been made,
... there is that "illucutionary force" one should only use - the "illucutionary force" of the EP of the EASP prose suggests - if it serves the interests of the EP of the EASP, but never ever if it is against their interests, as they perceive them: Clearly, social psychology is blameless and perfect, all professors, lecturers and students of social psychoogy are blameless if not called Stapel...
 and on the other hand because the report immediately continues by repeating the same discipline‐encompassing remark: ”The Committees are unwilling or unable to make any statement about social psychology in general, although they consider the findings of this report to be sufficient reason for the field of social psychology in the Netherlands and abroad to set up a thorough internal inquiry into the state of affairs in the field.” (p. 48).
Now I would tend to say that this is, under the circumstances - in the context, says social psychologist Solomon Asch - fair and kind enough.

NOT SO! The fuming
Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology", specialists on "illucutionary force", have the subtlety of mind of a male rapist: If a committee - that is not named just as " Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" - insists it is (bolding added)
"not suggesting that unsound research practices are commonplace in social psychology.”"
" The EC of the EASP, trained to the limit of their cognitive powers in "illucutionary force" just knows it is "suggesting" just that, and when the same sinful Dutch Committee (or set of four of that ilk) insists that it is (bolding added)
unwilling or unable to make any statement about social psychology in general,
that "Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee" just KNOWS it is
making a "
statement about social psychology in general".

As far as that fine 
"Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology", you're damned if you do and damned if you don't: The Gods of "illucutionary force" are on their side, as they once were thought to be on the side of schizophrenogenic parents. (Social psychologists who miss my learned allusions: Try Bateson and Laing.)

If my patient readers thought the
Dzerzihnskian Committee was done, they don't know pomo social psychologists who have been throd on their pricks, and hence scream like demented banshees:
Moreover, although one might argue that the above is intended to urge a reform of the field rather than to denigrate it, the concluding section of Chapter 5 is utterly insulting: ”A ‘byproduct’ of the Committees’ inquiries is the conclusion that, far more than was originally assumed, there are certain aspects of the discipline itself that should be deemed undesirable or even incorrect from the perspective of academic standards and scientific integrity.” (p. 54).
Golly! That "utterly insulting", that "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt Committee - reader: these are the humane, polite, scientific conversational styles of (social) psychologists discussing epistemological and methodological issues - whose utter lack of humanity has been laid bare by the powers of "illucutionary force", has dared to suggest - presumably: after discovering Stapel's very many frauds in the field of social psychology, in view of "far more than was originally assumed" - that "there are certain aspects of the discipline itself that should be deemed undesirable or even incorrect".

Mildly phrased, one would assume, as a merely rational mere bystander. But then one has not considered the lenght and sensitivity of the pricks the Levelt Committee throd on:

The Executive Committee of EASP denounces the above attacks against social psychology as unwarranted and unscientific.
Note the very Dzerzhinskian "denounces", next to "unwarranted and unscientific", and not to forget the "utterly insulting", the "defamatory, unfounded, and false" allegations of those evil meanies of the Levelt Committee! O horrors!

Then, ever little pricks rosewater who have been throd upon, they use the same scheme of reasoning as that great Dutch social psychologist Gerben van Kleef LPR PhD: They pretend to be reasonable and disappointed - and I add my stresses so that the reader does not miss the
"illucutionary force":
The report, with the wealth of informationn it has gathered, could have represented a forceful case study likely to contribute to an epistemological reflection of all scientific disciplines on important pervasive matters such as peer reviewing, the nature of proof, the role of methods, the importance of trust, the pressure to publish, and so on. Crises appear in a cyclic way in all scientific disciplines, and sharing information and experiences across disciplines appears to be an invaluable form of cooperation, one that the final Levelt report could have offered to the scientific community at large.
Mommy and Daddy Dzhersinky are so said you gave away the game, and don't want to play ball on Van Kleef's line! If only just that one  evil meanie Stapel would have been decapitated! Publicly if possible! But no ... these three or four Dutch committees are going on and on about - of all things! - science! And integrity! WTF do they know about making a living! Civil servants all, in the crazy Dutch schema of nominating incompetents and frauds for life, if possible at age 25!
Instead, the report argues that the discipline of social psychology has a specific problem because its journal editors, reviewers, grant committees, doctoral committees, senior scholars who have been involved in the assessment of Stapel’s work failed to detect his ”sloppy science” and fraud.
I'd say: That stands to reason. But then I don't earn nor ever expect to earn, a single penny with social psychological blathering! Nor does my mind have the required degree of dimness that seems to be a necessary condition for becoming a professor in that field of pseudoscience. And it seems I may not have the requisite subtlenes to equivocate all moral and scientific values until they are only useful in cases that serves my interests.

As to logical capacities in professional social psychologists in
Dzerzhinskian Committees, there is this liberating bit:
We agree with the committees that in Stapel’s case the fraud has been going on for too long.
You see, that "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" knows enough about their own motives and talents, and those of other social psychologists, to kindly permit some fraud, by some, for some years. We are dealing with human beings after all. The flesh is weak, and the financial and ego-interests strong. So some fraud is quite permissible to that most honest, reliable and logically and scientifically competent "Executive Committee of EASP". As long as it has not
been going on for too long
See? Here is a further example of the great gifts of logic and equivocation of that morally and scientifically o so very competent "Executive Committee of EASP":
This, indeed, is why we are shocked by the results of their investigations. But, to be able to draw conclusions about a whole, international field of scientific research, one should not focus on the scientific practices and publications associated with one author. Moreover, one should not focus on only one specific sub‐discipline, but compare the research culture of this discipline with the research culture in other sub‐disciplines before drawing comparative conclusions.
You see, as comrade Van Kleef LPR PhD has already insisted: One should not look at "one specific sub‐discipline", even if that seems to have been either corrupt or incompetent for some 15 years, in ways very few disciplines - if any - have been shown to be corrupt or incompetent.

No, no! One should pull in plenty of "
sub‐disciplines", and sciences and universities, and - unflinchingly, possessed of the full powers of social psychological "illucutionary force" - insist that all these other  disciplines, sub-disciplines, sciences and universities are all just as incompetent, fraud filled or corrupt as the field of social psychology seems to be (for folks who don't make lots of money in that very field, to be sure),
before drawing comparative conclusions.
For look you, idiots who are not blessed with a social psychologists' immeasurable brighness, integrity, honesty, and schooled in the refined practices of "illucutionary force":
The report does not provide this analysis, and hence itself seems to be an unfortunate example of the verification bias that it seeks to criticize. 
First investigate the (hitherto unproven, unexisting or far lesser) failings of others - mathematicians, sinologists, linguists, sociologists, theologians, philosophers, chemists, biologists, and so on - as Committee of psychologists before you ever dear cast any aspersion on any professor or lecturer or student of the Holy Mother Church of Sainted Social Psychology! Even if they are proven to be pedophiles - fraudulent social psychologists. And even further: Especially if they are and have been proven massively fraudulent social psychologists!

Here is the style of proof the sainted and highly gifted
Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology
has to offer:
Underlining this point, a recent article by Stroebe, Postmes and Spears in Perspectives on Psychological Science (2012, vol. 7) reveals two significant truths: first, that other sciences have a higher incidence of fraud cases than (social) psychology, and, second that across science as a whole it is very rare for fraud to be detected as a result of peer review.
So there, you "unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt-Committee! Take that! That's worth 10 Stapels and 550 frauds by social psychologists!

Look you: "
other sciences have a higher incidence of fraud cases"! There are more burglars of offices in China than in Holland so before discussing a known burglar in a known office in Holland, Dutchmen should first research the burglars of China!

And look you: Everywhere "
it is very rare for fraud to be detected as a result of peer review"! There are very probably no more burglars than are detected by the Dutch police! Believe the sainted and super competent Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology! So why worry about burglary, especially in Holland, if you are Dutch?!

Trust the
Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology:
In this article, 40 major scientific fraud cases have been considered, and a look at the results show that only few of them were in psychology.
Proof positive all things are dandy in psychology! Especially in social psychology! For, look you"unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt-Committee, with your fanatical investigations of Stapel's fraud:
When considering the cases closest to the Staple case, those of rising stars in the bio‐medical sciences or physics who published at an incredible pace data that were ”too good to be true”, Stroebe and colleagues found that the review process almost never helped to detect the fraud. Thus, importantly, not detecting fraud through the reviewing process is not a peculiarity of social psychology.
So there! One of us may have been a baddie, but there are others, in other sciences than (social) psychology who may be just as bad. Therefore - o you "unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt-Committee - it is your beholden effing duty as psychologists to first investigate all the frauds in all the other sciences than the saintly field of social pschology, before imputing anything to the saints and geniuses of the European Association of Social Psychology: Ask the saintly and prickly genius of Gerben van Kleef, LPR, PhD!

And listen, o you
"unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt-Committee: Learn at long last to shovel red herrings by the ton, by the trawler, by the kiloton (bolding added for full appreciation of "illocutionary force":
Scientific misconduct, then, is a phenomenon that concerns all disciplines. Tackling it also requires the cooperation of the wider scientific community.
See?! Keep your dirty hands away, "unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt-Committee, from our saintly persons of good will, integrity and incredible intelligence!

The
Levelt-Committee ("unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false") - the the saints and geniuses of the European Association of Social Psychology have just proved to their own immense satisfaction - has bitterly failed no less than the "scientific community" at large:
We believe that the final Levelt report had the additional opportunity to provide the scientific community with an important basis for reflections on scientific misconduct, a problem that causes a great deal of harm to people and institutions in terms of loss of scientific credibility and public reputation.
As the patient reader may remember, this is just the bitter complaint of the sainted prick Van Kleef, PhD - as is what follows (with "illocutionary" bolding added):
Indeed, rather than focus on the problems of a specific discipline, it might also have reflected on the corporate practices and cultures that put pressure on academics to produce results, and that reward certain models of ‘success’ rather than others.
Well... having a logical mind I may as well spell it out for all the yokels: That sainted European Association of Social Psychology that earlier argued, in the best traditions of the Holy Mother Church, that a little fraud is permissibe, knows about "corporate practices and cultures" that - as Stapel himself has repeatedly stressed in public - put pressure on academics to produce results: because they "reward certain models of ‘success’ rather than others"!

That
("unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false") Levelt-Committee just forgot, in the wise Bertrand Russell's socially relevant words, "the advantages of theft over honest work"!
Unfortunately, this opportunity has been missed.
And it is not just that! O no! Look at the poor children! Save the poor babies, the toddlers, the youths, the very future of Mankind:
Likewise, the report misses the opportunity to provide inspiring, not condescending, guidelines and hope to a whole generation of young scientists in social psychology. Their confidence in their discipline has been battered by the ”Stapel case” and it needs to be repaired through the provision of considered guidance, not rash generalization.
They had all been dreaming to be socially successful followers of that bright start of Dutch science, the most excellent Diederik Stapel! And now see what the "unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" Levelt-Committee has done!

Wasted their futures! Destroyed their chances! Ruined their hopes! And so young! So idealistic! As honest, as good, as sincere, as capable, as competent, as scientific as that epitome, that acme, that zenith of (Dutch) (social) psychological science as the great Gerben van Kleef, LPR, PhD!

Imagine how sad you evil meanies of the Levelt Committee -
"unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" - must have made poor, young, noble, honest Gerben! And then to be savaged by a proven fascist terrost like that incredibly inhuman Maarten Maartensz!

It is a great shame, an immeasurable blot on the honest face of the honest science that is the daily concern of the saintly set of geniuses that are proud to form the - scientific, laudarory, constructive, founded, truly true, correct, appropriate and socially relevant - 
Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology!

For which reasons these saints of science, these epitomes of rationality, these paragons of reason of that saintly committee suggest the -
"unscientific", "utterly insulting", "defamatory, unfounded, and false" - Levelt Committee To Do The Right Thing:
The three committees would be wise to amend the final report so as to redeem the impression that they have made a scapegoat of our discipline in order to avoid some of these more difficult issues.  As a community, we repudiate ‘sloppy science’ in all its forms, and, for that reason, we find the conclusions about social psychology contained in the final Levelt report to be unacceptably flawed.
The Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology
1) The Levelt report is available on: http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws‐en‐
agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf


Maybe that'll teach them - e.g. why

"the scientific staff of the faculty of Amsterdam likes to see Maarten Maartensz dead"
as I quoted these saintly persons above. But no matter - for the moment I leave it at this, having done - in my own not so very humble estimate - more than the Levelt Committee could and would do, to reply their saintly colleagues, of the Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology", but then I am considered to be a most inferior sort of person, not worth more than minimal dole, no help in spite of medically supported serious illness since 1989, and fully worthy to be kicked from the University of Amsterdam's faculty of philosophy "because of your publicly outspoken ideas about the level of its directors, level of education, and research in this university" and "in spite of your illness the severity of which we in no way underestimate ", to quote the same Board of Directors of the UvA that the previous year had let disappear 65 million guilders, i.e. at the very least, in current terms, 30 million euros.

Since which time - almost 25 years ago - I have been ill in the minimal dole in Holland, without any help, and without any rational or polite answer to any of my complaints.

I will now upload this, and see if I can puke, and take care of my sore eyes. This text probably will need some corrections, and I will return at least once more to the level of moral integrity and intellectual talent of the Dutch universities, but meanwhile this should make it clear why, as far as I am concerned, the many poor in Holland - I have to live from 7 euros a day, after paying for rent, health care (I hardly get), and energy for heating, and have done so for decades - could profit considerably if the departments of social science and psychology in the Dutch universities were closed; the staffs put in the dole; and only the real sciences - where folks are bright enough for mathematics - be allowed in the Dutch universities: It would void the need to lower pensions, healthcare, and raise taxes, all supposedly necessary in Holland in order to pay off the debts created by a handful of fraudulent and lying incompetent bank managers, at the cost of several handfuls of fraudulent lying incompetents, mostly quite stupid and thoroughly dishonest, that got themselves firmly ensconced in the universities their intellectually inferior kind should not have been admitted to start with.

What to do about the social sciences? Lets start by allowing only professors, lectures and students with IQs above 130 or 140: It would surely brighten the future of these supposed sciences enormously, and simultaneously get rid of an enormous lot of frauds, phoneys, and masters of bullshit and deception!

Of course, a high IQ guarantees little, but requiring it does get rid of the utter idiots now ruling the social sciences, at least in Dutch universities, and would raise the level of intellectual competence considerably.

Then again - I have lots of experiences that warrant the inferences - such "gifted" folks of the
Dzerzihnskian styled "Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology" would find lots of reasons why that would be most unfair to their noble kind!

But as good old Abe did not quite say:

“You may fool all the psychologists some of the time, you can even fool some of the  psychologists

all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the

psychologists all the time.”
-- Lincoln

Except in Holland, at least for 15 years or more, and that by a fairly stupid and ignorant person like Diederik Stapel! So why waste lots of money on a small band of totally ungifted major frauds?

------------------


[Dzershinskian note]: I quote from the article "Cheka" - and note "Commissions" and "Committees" tend to be - extraordinarily - hard to tell apart:
Cheka (ЧК - чрезвыча́йная коми́ссия chrezvychaynaya komissiya, Extraordinary Commission , Russian pronunciation: [tɕɪˈka]) was the first of a succession of Soviet state security organizations. It was created on December 20, 1917, after a decree issued by Vladimir Lenin, and was subsequently led by aristocrat-turned-communist Felix Dzerzhinsky.
These good folks surely executed a lot!

----

P.S. The final version - corrections made, links inserted - will probably not be ready before tomorrow (12.12.12) but this will do for the moment. There will be then also versions of the pdfs of the English and the Dutch report and the above most compellig reasoning of that greatly gifted lot from
Executive Committee of the European Association of Social Psychology.

For now this is the best I can do, in one day, at 62, ill and with sore eyes, unpaid, and indeed less apable than 25 years ago, which was again less capable than before I fell ill at 28: For folks like me, the Dutch have no place in a university, and as I have explained on December 1, I should count myself lucky to be alive.

That - as the drug criminals of Dutch Labour love to assure me - is what your family fought for against the Nazis (Dutch: "Dat is waar uw ouders en grootouders hun leven veil voor hadden tegen De Mof"): That you may be gassed and discriminated by the criminals and frauds of the
Dutch Labour Party that rule Amsterdam for their own benefit and that of the drugs mafia. (And yes, I grant it makes a lot of money: At least 10 Billion euros a year since I complained 24 years ago! Think of how many very profitable industries elsewhere the noble families of the Labour Party that rule Amsterdam may have started from that! Or from even a small percentage of that!)

Update 12.12.12: I have done an editorial check, and corrected typos and links, notably to fallacies and pseudoscience, because I missed quite a few typos (having sore eyes) and indeed do believe social psychology in Holland is more of a fallacious pseudoscience than anything else.

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