A Bunch of Blind (Wo)Men and one White Elephant

Mon, 6 May 1996 08:47:42 -0400

Content-ID: <0_22479_831386862@emout08.mail.aol.com.26441>
Content-type: text/plain

Attach file "Pearls."

Content-ID: <0_22479_831386862@emout08.mail.aol.com.26442>
Content-type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A Bunch of Blind (Wo)Men and one White Elephant
I have been away camping and trout fishing for a few days and was delight=
ed by your responses to my postings. I should respond to each individuall=
y but will for brevity's sake summarize my thoughts in one posting, at le=
ast for now. =

Over the past few months I have posted a number of theoretical, methodolo=
gical, and philosophical assertions and questions. For the most part the=
y were ignored or not taken seriously, inspite of the fact that these har=
d earned ideas could be very beneficial if they prove to be valid. They =
have been treated with disdain because they are associated with a naughty=
boy who bites back. This shows the superficiality of many of the members=
of this pcp net. "Be nice to us or we will not consider your ideas," "T=
ruth is not true," "WE are Kellians" and "Throw him off the net." =

People like Bob Neimeyer and Larry Leitner have as much as admitted that =
they consider me a worthless person. In the past they unfairly criticized=
and censored my ideas but refused to debate them in a public forum, choo=
sing instead to prevent my responding in writing. Consequently, I could n=
ot publish in prestigous journals and could not progress academically. Af=
ter all, they or their friends do "own" the journals. Then the net prese=
nted a public forum. This threatened the cult. They wanted to silence dis=
sent. So they attacked my character. I bit back. Now some of you act insu=
lted that such a socially marginal person would give you back just the ki=
nd of personal criticisms that the bandwagon has been shoveling out for y=
ears. As Brian Gaines let on, you really do think you are superior to tho=
se of us with mere ideas and the courage to test them. =

The first priority of the Kelly cult (or PCT cult or what ever) is to pro=
tect the established power structure. I first realized this was the centr=
al characteristic of the bandwagon after sitting at Franz Epting's knee f=
or four years. I watched his adolescent, passive aggressive, completely u=
ncreative and obscenely narcissistic and effeminate behavior in disgust. =
I witnessed the brutally stupid and pompous behaviors of some of his coll=
eagues, such as Landfield, who controlled and shaped the post-Kelly PCT =
community and diagnosed me before we ever even met. Landfield, by the wa=
y, made my wife's skin crawl at a dinner party at Franz's one night. I fe=
lt powerless when I learned about this later. I kept remembering the mome=
nt I decided to ask her to marry me. We had come on a traffic accident fa=
r in the country. Bodies were everywhere. She breathed into a young dead =
boy's mouth and pumped his chest for over an hour before the ambulance a=
rrived. She was not made a professor or cult leader for her service. But =
she did make me love her with all my heart and then she put me through gr=
aduate school. I always wanted to give her something of that moment back.=
For awhile I thought I could return her gift by being a good psychologis=
But the bandwagon decided I was not to be a psychologist. Ironically, I l=
earned very little about Kelly and psychology from Epting, anyway, and m=
uch about the abuse of power. My grounding in construct theory came prima=
rily from readings of Kelly's original works, the works of Bieri, Bonariu=
s, Crocket, Rychlak, Bannister, Fransella and the many researchers who pu=
blished their findings in journals from the 50s to the late 70s. I saw in=
their efforts the growth of a noble psychology, one that was humanistic =
and objective, teleological and logical, caring and adventurous, rigorous=
and creative. My PCP soul awoke with the studies of the many researchers=
who are not only not on this net, but who have dropped from the PCP fiel=
d in what I suspect was disgust, long before I graduated and made such sc=
enes on this net. =

Construct theory degenerated into a cult. Epting, Landfield and their pro=
tege's, Bob Neimeyer and Leitner, were central to this degeneration in th=
e USA. Much of what I have seen come out of Britain lately suggests the c=
ult has developed there as well. My undergraduate days in England were, t=
hankfully, not in the least bit influenced by the cult, however. Frances =
Cook, a graduate of Brunel and one of the finest psychologists I ever kne=
w, introduced me to Kelly (by the way, she was trainned at the master's l=
evel). I thank her a thousand times for being the truely good and highly=
intelligent person she is. I wish all of you could have been introduced =
to Kelly by such a scholar- one who loves science and knowledge in genera=
l and who cares deeply for human beings- especially for psychiatric patie=
nts. =

Prima donnas like Maureen Pope neither fool nor scare me. The cult cares =
more about feathering its nests than about testing hypotheses and traini=
ng competent psychologists. Much as Gary seems to suggest, they see what =
they want to see in what I say. But even to a bunch of blind (wo)men, my=
"rot" begins to add up. It drives the bandwagon to profanity -that I wou=
ld prefer to test hypotheses than kiss their butts. I could have been one=
of them but had the integrity to simply say no. It cost me a cushy caree=
r but won me my soul. And now it is amusing to see the weasels wiggle. I =
thank Plato and Co. for philosphy and Kelly for foreseeing the (wo)men in=
man holes. I still test hypotheses. And lately I am almost always right =
in my anticipations concerning the Kelly cult. I find this validating, al=
though they do disgust me. I am sure Socrates is amused, as well. He and =
Spinoza probably have a going bet on how much further some of you will go=
to force me the hemlock.
There are some good people on the net. Over the months, several have writ=
ten me privately and told me that they agree with what I say but are afra=
id to speak publically. They are afraid their careers will be destroyed i=
f they speak out. They may be right. I will not betray their confidence n=
or forget the anxiety in their postings. When hollow (wo)men like Bob N=
eimeyer, Leitner, Raskin, Pope, Tooth, Shawver, Devi and others attack me=
instead of my ideas, I usually feel wonderful. This is because their hos=
tility shows others what poor scholars the bandwagon folks are. I try no=
t to be nauseated by their pompous selfishness. I know that they are afra=
id of ideas and can think of nothing better to do than to abuse me by the=
ir putting the cart before the horse. It is classic Kelly; extortion of s=
ocial validation; Hostility. Over the past few months they have avoided e=
very dispassionate thing I have said and they have wallowed in my mirthfu=
l celebration of their corrupt scholarship. Its been fun and immensly gra=
tifying to see such pigs at work. But a little boring. I would prefer mor=
e IQ and less 'f... you' from them. But hey, I've got my wonderful books=
and a procession of scholars that reaches back for thousands of years. A=
nd a wife who teaches me about real women by breathing life into people, =
when she can.
I do not mean to frighten any new comers away from construct theory. I on=
ly want to say that it's history and potential are very much more than th=
e social extortion that passes for PCT these days. If you really want to =
understand construct theory, you need to read, read, read, and most impor=
tantly, you need to test hypotheses. It does not take a PhD but it does r=
equire integrity and a little creativity. The relativists on this net are=
hiding behind loosely formulated and poorly developed propaganda. Many o=
f you want to BS with those you think are the best. But they should have=
been reading and conducting research more instead of writing fluffy book=
s. You are fools to seek wisdom from them. The purpose of their sweetly s=
poken looseness is to make new comers feel mystified. The last thing they=
want is a jester like me making asses of them with hypotheses.
So they shower you with feminine acceptance and warmth. Cult researchers =
know very well about this technique. Its called "Love Bombing." They show=
er new recruites with flattery and attention. They build up the fool's as=
piration to an elite group. They supply the means and ways. Then they gra=
dually stick it to you; slowly, discretely and with a sweet, smug smile, =
they expect you to compromise your integrity in order to ride the wagon. =
Those who do not go along with the seduction are black-balled. This is wh=
at happend to me in the early 80s. I told the truth.
Believe it or not, many people outside of PCP see the Kellians as a cult.=
I did not invent this judgement. Unfortunately for me, however, I still=
love Kelly's theory. And do hate to see students and patients suckered b=
y the Kelly cult- even you debutantes on parade.
You who are innocent and still have your own minds, read the archives of=
this net in their chronological sequence. Try to think of how the bandwa=
gon might have responded to me if they had not been guilty of what I accu=
se them. Read Kelly. Read the many research publications from the 50s to =
late 70s. Do not take my word for anything. Test me and my ideas. Test th=
e many good researchers who have come and left construct theory before yo=
u. Do not fear me. I have no power. I am Noman.
But remember that I would rather be dead than jump onto the Kelly cult ba=
ndwagon. If that seems childish or pathological to you, and earns me the =
rebuke of being forced from your net, then let it be. But don't be surpri=
sed by what others do not tell you in the future. They have learned to no=
t cast pearls before swine, while I am still just a swineherd, waiting fo=
r Oddyseus to return.