Hello Dr. Yes,
And FWIW I read either his M.A. or his Ph.D. thesis 20 years ago, which was such stupid sickeniing ill-written drivel that I gave up there and then (it was before the internet) my attempts to read "science" with regards to ME. His specialism is clinical psychology i.e. what relates to psychology as psychiatry relates to medicine.
In my time as a student, students of clinical psychology were typically persons with evident personal problems and issues they hoped to solve that way.
I do not know the man personally, but indeed from his pictures he is quite ungainly and from his writings a pinhead - but this manner of "man" were the people who made careers in Holland then. Also, since he had the same sort of "education" I had, he doesn't know any real science, for he did get hardly any of that in his university courses, and doesn't have the brain to acquire it himself. He never would have gotten into any decent university which require some proof of intellectual competence for a scientific education (SAT-score, IQ-test) but at the time he and I studied such demands were decried in Holland as "fascistic".
As to the study of medicine in Holland at the time: There were far more applicants than positions for students, so yearly lotteries were organised which explicitly ruled out of consideration the scores which one had in schools, for this also was considered "unfair". Thus, I know of one young woman with an IQ over 150 and only straight A's at school, who failed to pass that lottery for a place to study medicine three years in a row (and then emigrated). It may be safely assumed that a guy like Jos van der Meer (or his equivalent) got her place instead, and surely he is not of that level of scholastic aptitude.
O, in case one would ask: I am Dutch, I am a psychologist, but I am not going to read or translate Bleijenberg's miserable prose and stupid reasoning, for it is utterly worthless, and by a man who is totally unfit for any real science, and would not have gotten in any decent university that required prior proof of intellectual competence.
There still is intellectual talent in Dutch universities, but mostly or only in disciplines that require some real talent, like maths, physics or sinology.
In medicine for some 25 years special care has been taken that mostly the averagely gifted passed the lottery I mentioned; psychology was an utter mess tailored to IQs of 115 already 25 years ago. For readers of Dutch, see
Title: Mandarijntjes met een IQ van 118
Title: Hoeren van de rede (Whores of reason)
Both published in 1988-9, as is the mostly English
Title: Yahooisme & Democratie
THAT is the Dutch situation, that for 25 years also had a very peculiar set-up of the universities, Soviet-style almost, with a University Parliament where students had the majority always, and those students were in majority always postmodern leftist types with a political program and a personal agenda (viz. to get a university job, which in Holland is in fact the job of a high-ranking civil servant a.k.a. bureaucrat, with a guaranteed position for life, regardless of scientific work, publications or talent).
And indeed many of these postmodern leftist types did become professors, and still are, except that they trimmed their leftism, which was the fashion in Holland when they studied, to whatever political public position that suits their personal interests. (Until the economical crisis, many pretended to be neo-conservatives (Dutch sense, unlike the US sense)). In any case, both leftism and rightism were pretense in nearly all cases: public poses and conformism rather than real conviction.
Ca 1980 - when I studied, and Angela Kennedy may be glad to hear it - one could get academic degrees in sociology, political science or philosophy by course points given for squatting and for political activism. Intelligence was by almost everyone in the universities called "a personal choice", and people like me who held that it must be for the largest part genetical were publicly decried as "fascists". It was regarded as highly immoral to be more intelligent than others, and any genetical explanation of anything whatsoever was denied, and easily publicly styled and decried as "fascistic", so very few people dared protest. As it happens, my parents and grandparents were revolutionary marxists and anarchists, and heroes of the Dutch resistance, and I had given up their intellectual convictions age 20, i.a. because the student leaders of the time - Daniel Cohn Bendit, Rudi Dutschke - were moral and intellectual lightweights and phonies compared to my father, so people with leftist leanings on the forum should be careful in assigning me to the political right. (There is in Holland a loony left and a loony right with spineless careerists inbetween. I have not even voted since 1971, since I don't want to vote for loonies or liars, and the only thing on offer that may fail on either count are pretty extremist Christians, and I am an atheist and dislike their political positions.)
So, to turn back to my brief sketch of the madhouse that were the Dutch universities between 1971 and 1996... that is the sort of background in which a Bleijenberg could become professor of clinical psychology, and in which I was removed from the university three times for protesting this mockery of science; forbidden to take the M.A. in philosophy; and why it was made impossible - in spite of an M.Sc. in psychology with only A's - for me to take a Ph.D.
I merely sketch in some Dutch background, which I know is hard to believe, but the Dutch universities from 1972-1995 were totally unique world-wide, being ruled by a University Parliament in which politically allied students always had the formal majority all the time on all issues, and the universities were run Soviet-style by 5 year plans, with central aims like this, for the years 1982-1987 (I translate from The Development Plan for the University of Amsterdam for those years)
- to further the interests of the trade union
- to further the interests of the women's movement
- to further the interests of the environmental movement
Everything and everybody in the University of Amsterdam in those years was judged in those terms. Very few protested, for the professors all were civil servants for life already, and the students were young and naive, and besides it all was presented as highly moral, highly desirable, and politically most correct.
Nearly everyone in the universities collaborated (just as the vast majority of Dutchmen collaborated in WW II with the Germans, with better excuse, since not doing so easily led to a concentration camp, as happened to my father and grandfather), even though Holland at the time was not a totalitarian state at all, and protesting only took some moral courage and enough intelligence to see that the above list (whatever one's feelings about these points morally or politically) is NOT the program by which to direct a genuine university or do proper science.
Hardly anyone did protest and almost eveyone collaborated and publicly supported it in Politically Correct language, which taught me a lot about human beings and Dutch academics, that still makes me very impopular in the country where I must live for lack of health to escape it.
P.S Dutchies who disagree should first take a peep at
Title: ME in Amsterdam
(mostly Dutch, with some very effective satire, never denied).
That is also what makes the situation in Holland so difficult, also with regards to ME: There are hardly any real academics, any real intellectuals, after 40 years of levelling of all of the Dutch educational system, which was quite decent until 40 years ago. It also explains the success of Mr Wilders (the peroxide blond male political populist who wants to put 20 million European muslims in camps, and is immensely popular in Holland).