.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

 

Is there a gay agenda?

Regular visitors will know that I am not all into the agenda stuff but I was sent an article from World Net Daily that quoted references from After the Ball. I have not read that book although I have been referred to it many times. Many visitors here are critical of my work and viewpoints and I suspect of this article as well. And so I hope we won't rehash that a ton. My question for anyone who wants to address it is: is this guy wrong about his reading of After the Ball? I have been told that there is no agenda that started with the gay liberation movement. A related thing that I have mulling over is an issue that is also being discussed at the ex-gay watch blog. Are gays more promiscuous than straights? I don't like questions like that because it implies that gays and straights are groups of people like Koreans or Uzbeks (a people group to quote missionary talk). And if gays are more promiscuous then how come? Is sociosexuality a trait that runs through all people and for some reason more happen to be gay?

Comments:
Yes Warren, you found us out. There is an agenda: The ending of homophobia, the death of baseless "sickness" arguments, the exposure of the ex-gay stuff for the poppycock that it is, and full equality under our civil Constitution.

You can only be worried that there was a book -- or books, because any reading of the history of gay and lesbian writings post Stonewall shows that it was a multifaceted and growing idea -- if you somehow think that gay people are somehow misguided, sick, deviant or otherwise not entitled to the everyday rights and responsibilities the larger community takes for granted.
 
I just spent some time with an individual that has come to the understand that for this person being attracted to the same sex represents primarily an eroticization of intense jealousy and envy of the same sex during the junior high years (Bem's theory). In fact, this person has vivid recollections of how this occurred. This person is also a member of a faith that regards acting on such feelings as wrong. Thus, to learn that there are antecedent events that shaped experiences of attraction has been liberating. The individual does not believe that all persons with same sex attraction have this background. However, the insight into this history has been meaningful and created quite a impact in the person's feelings of sexuality toward heterosexuality. This person believes that homosexuality represents a problem in development. This person is also offended by criticisms of change therapies. I am wondering if this person's perspective is poppycock because the person a) feels homosexual attractions represented a problem in development, b) feels that these attractions should not be acted on, c) now feels in much better mental health due to the realizations and d) is now attracted to the opposite sex.
 
To the extent that this person's beliefs appear to be self-contradictory, then yes, they would indeed have to be poppycock.

"The individual does not believe that all persons with same sex attraction have this background."

"This person believes that homosexuality represents a problem in development."

If homosexuality is a problem in development, then all homosexual individuals must share the background of having developmental problems which resulted in their homosexuality. If all homosexuals do not share a history of developmental problems that led to their homosexuality, then homosexuality is not a problem in development.

And that's not even getting into the question of whether or not this person actually did experience physical sexual attraction exclusively to members of their own sex and now experiences physical sexual attraction exclusively to members of the opposite sex. It would be nice if we could take these claims at face value, but the existence of large and growing numbers of ex-ex-gays argues for caution.

Boo
 
"This person believes that homosexuality represents a problem in development."

I should have written "represents a problem in the person's (his or her individual) development. But may not be the same thing in someone elses.

And yes, the person claims exclusive same sex eroticism.

If all homosexuals do not share a history of developmental problems that led to their homosexuality, then homosexuality is not a problem in development.

Theoretically, there is no reason to think that traits in life could not be caused by different factors for different people.
 
but the existence of large and growing numbers of ex-ex-gays argues for caution.

Point me in the direction of this large and growing number.

Seems like you are throwing out cliches
 
"Theoretically, there is no reason to think that traits in life could not be caused by different factors for different people."

Thoretically, it is also important to remember that correlation need not imply causation. Assuming a certain percentage of the population experiences intense jealousy and envy of their same-sex peers during early adolescence, then one would assume that a certain percentage of homosexual people would experience intense jealousy and envy of their same-sex peers during early adolescence even if it isn't somehow the cause of their sexual feelings towards members of the same sex.

"And yes, the person claims exclusive same sex eroticism."

And now claims exclusive opposite-sex eroticism? (And even if they do, many ex-ex-gays used to also make both those claims.)

The basic question of whether it's possible for developmental problems to create a kind of psuedo-orientation towards one's own sex which masks a "true" orientation towards the opposite sex- well, I have no idea. I'd want to see some evidence other than subjective first-person anecdotes tho.

Boo
 
Anonymous-

Oh please, even most ex-gay organizations themselves claim that only a minority of their clients experience "success."

http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html

"A review of the research over many years demonstrates a consistent 30- 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Masters and Johnson reported a 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up. Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%."

For whatever reason, the APA does not seem to find even these numbers credible. And remember that "success" in these groups is variously defined as broadly as continuing to be gay as gay can be but not having sex, or even continuing to have sex with members of one's own sex but feeling bad about it. It got so dismal at England's former flagship ex-gay program Courage that the whole organization flipped and became gay-affirming.

If you want to meet some ex-ex-gays, head on over to exgaywatch.com.

Boo
 
Why don't you read the book and make your own mind up?

Did you miss all the references to dates along the the Gay Agenda(c) timeline that are long before "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" was even written? Perhaps Kirk and Madsen invented a time machine.

And your recent conversations are interesting.

Personally, I believe I became gay because I didn't receive a pony on my 8th birthday. I met someone who did, and they are NOT gay. What more evidence do I need? Do you have any proof that it's not the cause?

Post-hoc reasoning Warren... post-hoc reasoning.

And not, frankly, in line with Bem's E.B.E. ideas either. Are you suggesting that there are heterosexual boys because they had an "intense jealousy and envy" of girls during junior high? Utterly absurd.

And all this is quite apart from whether another anonymous person is to even be believed at face value -- unless, it seems, they claim "There Is No Gay Agenda(c)".

If I came to believe that homosexuality must be caused by something traumatic in my childhood all I need do is start trawling backwards until I find the "evidence". This is the stock in trade of the exgay movement.

There is not a child alive who hasn't had some misfortune befall them, no matter how minor or trivial. However, remembering (and perhaps mis-remembering) that misfortune is not any evidence for why the adult is any sexual orientation.

This anonymous person is free to believe whatever they want. We remain free to think that they actually haven't got a clue.
 
New post, deliberately:

Are gays more promiscuous than straights?

No.

Do some gays have more sexual partners than some straights?

Yes, without a doubt. And vice versa.

Do some people who have lots of partners worry about being a "sexual compulsive" -- and turn to organisations such as one discussed in that exgaywatch post.

Yes, of course.

Of mild interest, perhaps, we both had a clean sweep of that survey. That's correct, a big fat goose egg...
 
There seems to be some conceptual confusion here.

What Warren is doing is providing some sort of narrative for the same sex attracted boy in question. Whether or not this narrative is objectively true, we can never know. After all, how we can prove or disprove that what happened in his childhood caused or didn't cause his homosexual orientation? But that is beside the point. The point is that this narrative, whether true or not, gives some sense of relief to the patient, and may allow him to move on with his life.

Whether he knows it or not, Warren is doing a form of Post-Modern narrative psychotherapy. With this sort of therapy, truth can be subjective/relativistic. This form of therapy has a pretty good evidence base. It seems to fall under the Constructivist Psychotherapy schools of thought. Basically, a narrative is woven together to lay out the tapestry of the person's life right before his eyes, and there is strong evidence that this has positive psychotherapeutic benefits in areas of depression, bereavement, life management, etc. I haven't heard of narrative psychotherapy being applied to unwanted same sex attractions until I started investigating sexual orientation issues. At the very least, narrative psychotherapy allows a patient to come to terms with his orientation, and get over his feelings of guilt and inferiority about being gay. At the very most, it may help to bring out any latent bisexual potential he may have and allow him to engage in heterosexuality.

I think you guys are confusing the subjectivity with the objectivity. Objectively, you guys who commented quite negatively here may very well be right. Maybe the narrative is completely wrong. But what matters to Warren is that the patient's subjective sense of suffering is mitigated. Call it delusional, call it stupid, but then again, we aren't the ones struggling, nor can we prove that the narrative is totally false. We can't.

At the end of the day, when both sides of the gay/ex-gay war retreat back to base camp, all I care about is that this poor human finds some measure of relief from his suffering.

And no, it does not appear that weaving together a narrative that says that he was born gay and destined to live as a gay man would do much to help this guy's suffering. It may only put him into more despair.


Ariel Meshoulan

PS: on an objective note: APA does state that it is likely that there are different reasons for why people become gay. And also, that being gay is felt differently from person to person.
 
APA states: There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Even the APA refuses to give a definite, unified answer, and remains somewhat evasive on the subject. But the last part was what got me, "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."

They are basically saying just about anything in a child's formative years (including in the womb and out of the womb) can lead to the development of a particular sexual orientation. What they are not saying is that people are born gay. True, the orientation is developed at a young age, but people are not born as "gay babies", as many believe. That is why gayness cannot be necessarily equated with being born without arms--as someone else on this site has conjectured.

Ariel Meshoulan
 
Ariel,

Yes, -- who cares?

The man (and Warren) is free to believe anything he wants to. If it makes him feel better about himself, he can go post-hoc reason anything about his life. He can blither about anything on the therapy couch.

That is not the problem.

The problem is that these narratives are offered as evidence that others can change their sexual orientation, or as a reason some people are gay.

At that point the narrative is no longer an invention to sooth the client, but a distortion about the lives of non-clients.

How is NARTH these days, by the way?
 
I'm not Uriel Meshoulam. The name is close, but I'm no psychiatrist. Just for your information, Uriel and Meshoulam are common Israeli names. My last name is bit less common, but is also widespread.

A little paranoid aren't we?

And, I don't believe Warren tried to take dear anonymous's narrative and tried to explain non-patients with it.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you are arguing against something neither of us said or necessarily believe in.

As for Bem's theory (from the link you sent me), I do not know much about it. If you can provide a link to Bem's original work, it would be much appreciated.

Ariel Meshoulan (not Uriel Meshoulam, for the spelling impaired)
 
No, not paranoid. I did call you Ariel :)

I had that Bem EBE page up just before doing the post, and went "Huh???" and laughed. The surname is not common, here anyway, so it jumped right out. It was a bit of serendipity I found funny, but maybe I should have put ha ha on the end for you.

(I have a mate -- Jewish but not Israeli, although most of his family are -- whos name is Uriel. He also uses Ariel, because nobody spells the first way correctly.)

What I was answering, Ariel, was your claim that it really doesn't matter that the narrative is true or not true.

For the client, sure, although I'm not sure Warren himself may agree to being party to deliberate delusion. In any case, who cares -- people are entitled to invent themselves.

It does matter when those fictional narratives are used as if they true and applicable to other people.

Google Bem and you'll find his page at Cornell. Apart from his papers on sexuality -- you may find as equally enlightening his work on ESP...
 
Regarding the idea that people are deceiving themselves or delusional or using fictional narratives, I thought of what Aaron Beck said about fellow cognitive therapist Albert Ellis: "I personally consider it hubris for a therapist to determine on his or her own which patient attitudes are irrational. It is only according to the therapist’s frame of reference that they are irrational." Aaron Beck, 1988.

Likewise, I consider it bordering on hubris to tell someone that the sense they make of their life is nonsense. (I am here referring to non-psychotic individuals). I think this whether it be the reparative folks saying, in essence, that all gays had bad parents or anti-RT folks saying that all SSA is a unfolding of from pre-set genetic coding.

As far as being post-modern, I am aware of this theoretical position and find the tentative stance appealing. My experiences as a therapist have moved me toward this stance. Believe me (in a tentative, post-modern sort of way), if I hadn't seen people change or observed the power of a narrative to catalyze change in all sorts of issues, I wouldn't be advocating the things I do. E.g., people have said to me that people cannot or do not go from straight to gay. In my experience, that is not the case. Clients I have worked with have spontaneously made such changes in the course of their therapy, partly, I think in response to factors they were dealing with in therapy. Convinced that they had found the truth about themselves, they construct a life around their new found awareness. Some continue, some do not. Some later look at it as their gay period and then rediscover heterosexual attractions. An observer can look at it as they were straight all along or they are gay in denial but why is this essentialist conceptual framework more valid than the one that says their attractions are malleable? Absent better research on the matter, I echo Beck regarding Ellis to suggest we can state dogmatically that we know.
 
I consider it bordering on hubris to tell someone that the sense they make of their life is nonsense.

Right...

Unless you feel like telling someone "You are way too young to identify yourself as gay."

I'd also suggest this is a hypocritical thing to state given the particular line of criticism you have taken with GLSEN and the people they support.

Perhaps this is less about client narratives, and more about your own?

After all, where do you:

* draw the line between the psychotic and the merely irrational?

* say the psychotic individual isn't correct, and that their views don't deserve equal time in schools etc?

* place religious extremism, such as that promoted by exgay groups, along the psychotic-irrational-rational continuum?

* know when these narratives are influenced by prior (or even current) episodes of delirium?

Pfft, and I get stamped with relativism...
 
Here's a quickie experiment, Warren for your post-modern, "If I believe it to be so it must be true" therapeutic style/personal world view.

1) Orient yourself towards the nearest load-bearing wall; brick, concrete, steel, doesn't really matter, just something tough and strong.

2) Step back several feet from that wall.

3) Bend at the waist, perpendicular with the floor and your face now leading your body.

4) Close your eyes.

5) Repeat over and over again the following: "The '...essentialist conceptual framework...' that walls are solid is no '...more valid than the one that says...' walls are '...malleable...' because of my thoughts. Therefore, the wall in front of me isn't real; I will pass through it without a scratch. '...I echo Beck regarding Ellis and state dogmatically this is true.'

When you firmly believe this to be true...

6) Run full bore into the wall.

Let me know how it goes.
 
Jody - You sound so familiar with that maneuver that I think I will just ask you in a qualitative research sort of way, how it was for you?
 
I have a client who is convinced that there are three women who follow my client around everywhere my client has lived and lurk just outside their door 24/7 making snide remarks about them. They have never seen these women, and no one besides my client has ever heard them. It may not be good therapeutic practice to simply tell my client directly that they are delusional, but they are in point of fact delusional.

This anonymous client may have been able to make sense of their life by deciding that envy and jealousy made them gay, but it would be irresponsible to point to them as "evidence" that envy and jealousy can turn people gay. If I were to call the police about my client's nonexistent stalkers, I would be wasting police resources.

On the other hand, this take on postmodernism seems to provide an interesting window into understanding the ex-gay community's nebulous use of words like "change" and "healing."

Boo
 
Boo (who?)

Are you saying that Daryl Bem is fostering psychosis?
 
Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with constructing your own subjective narrative of your life. If you choose to weave together a narrative that attempts to explain how your nature and your nurture led to same sex attraction, and if this narrative helps you live a more productive, happy, meaningful life, then who are we to judge? After all, the origins of same sex attraction are anything but firmly established. It is possible to create a narrative that is not overly ridiculous ("I became gay because Aliens raped me"), but yet allows someone to live in a manner which they see fit.

The hostility that I detect is due to people thinking that there is some ulterior motive of a political-religious type behind all of this. Warren, I know you are a conservative Christian, and, at least from the outside, it would appear to a secular person that you would have an ulterior motive. I don't have reason to mistrust you yet, so for now I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Warren, I'm saving the post you wrote about Ellis (the second to last post on this page). Lots of good points there.

Lets just hope you don't end up contradicting yourself there (and making Grantdale jump for joy).

Ariel Meshoulan
 
but it would be irresponsible to point to them as "evidence" that envy and jealousy can turn people gay.

I'd agree with this. To use a subjective narrative (which is merely a tool for regaining one's sense of well being) as an objective law that attempts to explain everything isn't correct.

However, suppose that the same narrative (jealousy and envy can turn a person gay) seems to help multiple people regain happiness and well being in their lives. What would this mean? Would it mean that the narrative is a scientific fact? No. What would it mean? Nothing other than the fact that "the same narrative works for more than one person."

The mistake is turning the pragmatically subjective into something morally objective. Correct me if I was wrong, but wasn't it the psychoanalysts of old who fabricated all these objective "facts" based on a couple case studies?

One person's Venus is another person's hag...

Ariel
 
Bem's EBE theory does fit most of the people I have seen or know who experience SSA. Note, I said most. In fact, it is uncanny how close it is for them. And this includes people who know about the theory, those who don't, those in this country and those not in this country (most recently, several contacts I have made in Pakistan, India, Thailand and Mexico). I am stunned by it sometimes. Having said that, I would not assume its fit for anyone without having heard his/her story.
 
Where do you meet these people Warren?

Perhaps it fits most people who are drawn to ex-gay or pro-change notions. Or perhaps they are already well versed with those ex-gay narratives that can, to the unwary, soon be easily fit to Bem.

But -- it does not fit the majority of gay or bi people we've met (and, I suspect, that's rather more than you and in rather more natural and open environments). Overwhelmingly, those people are content with their lives; they are not ex-gays.

(And we can include piles of people from Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam.)

Bem based his ideas on data collected in the late 1970's in San Francisco, with some extra fruit about gender-nonconforming kids -- No?. I think it was Weinberg who has warned about drawing direct conclusions about people from their work. And let's not forget, the narratives of those that they interviewed reflected the understanding and the ideals of 1970's San Francisco.

But unsuprisingly, Bem's steps B to D don't match up with most that we know; even if we discount how nebulous those steps are.

I'm wondering how your adoption of EBE fits with the known fact that same sex behaviour (and attraction) was commonplace in ancient Sparta. Last time I checked, they weren't known for raising sissy boys despite the fact thay'd all be up child molestation charges today...
 
Jody - You sound so familiar with that maneuver that I think I will just ask you in a qualitative research sort of way, how it was for you?

Thankfully, I never had to engage in that experiment. I benefited from the higher education I sought out. When I got my Masters in Counseling, the differences between empiricism, theory, and pulling shit out of your ass was made abundantly clear.

To review, the first two are based on the understanding that there is a reality out there and that we have a very effective tool -- science -- to use so as to increase our knowledge of that world. It does wonders for separating our beliefs and biases from the actual understanding of how the world works. Its track record of success in this regard has been remarkable, far better than any other process that's been proposed.

The third aspect, wherein personal beliefs, biases and prejudices are held up to be true because you believe it to be so really, really, really hard (My experiences as a therapist have moved me toward this stance..."), was shown to be the bullshit that it is.

Perhaps things change when you get a Ph.D. -- the Secret Clubhouse opens up, the dancing bears in tutus and tiaras emerge from the wings of stage and the spirit of Monty Hall ushers those with newly minted parchments into the secret Gnostic mysteries of universe where anything is what you believe it to be -- but somehow I suspect not.

I offered up my little experiment because, if after all the above has failed, it's the most effective way of demonstrating the differences to all but the most hardheaded.

The point is Warren, by your own admission, you subscribe to your theory because it appeals to you as being true, not because it actually is. That's not science, and given your education, you know that.
 
Jody, you have it wrong, it is when you become a naturalist that all the dancing bears in tutus come out, but then you already know that. I don't remember tiaras, though.
 
"Are you saying that Daryl Bem is fostering psychosis?"

No, I am saying that there is a difference between subjective narratives that may be "comforting" to a client and trying to apply that narrative out in the real world.

I suspect there are two reasons why almost all of the clients you see fit the pattern you describe. The first is what Grantdale pointed out: your clients are a self-selected group. The second is the same reason why all of Nicolosi's clients fit his model: your clients are coming to you desparate to believe that they can be "cured." They want to believe that you can provide them an explanation for why something has gone "wrong" with them, and how to fix it. Under those circumstances it is extremely easy for therapist bias to be communicated to the client even if the therapist isn't conciously trying to. When Joe suggests to his clients that they're gay because they didn't bond with their dads, they go back into their pasts and look for instances where their dads were cold or distant. The thing is, if you're desparate to find the elements of any particular narrative in your past and you look hard enough, you can end up finding confirmation of pretty much anything.

Boo (me)
 
A Naturalist???

I was under the impression they are larger figured German people who like to get their kit off, lakeside in forests, and such. Names like Grunhilda and Hans.

Maybe I have underestimated Grove City's seamier side.

And "dancing bears"??? -- have you been interviewing people at The Laird Hotel again...

More seriously. We still don;t know where your're getting your information from (or rather, from whom).
 
Yes, Warren. But the walls remain the walls, anecdotal evidence remains meaningless, and your theories remain, well, crap.
 
Jody - Well said, like the scientist you are.
 
Grantdale - aren't you thinking of naturist? And that image may have scarred me for life.

Boo - Problem with your theory is that I do not tell my clients what is causing their difficulties.
 
"Under those circumstances it is extremely easy for therapist bias to be communicated to the client even if the therapist isn't conciously trying to."

Boo
 
Alas Warren, I'm not a scientist. But then, it appears, neither are you.
 
Oh, naturist, That's right... wow, what a difference "al" makes.

But you can understand why I therefore rapidly closed the National Parks Service page when my eyes scanned:

[Thomas] Jefferson was a naturalist, a keen observer of the objects in the world around him.

Back on topic...

Communicating bias.

While you may not (or try to not?) do so in the session -- how many of your clients appear on your threshold with no knowledge of who you are? I'd guess not many.

You mentioned a client from State that sought you out because he was already familiar with your views. ?
 
I think the truth is that for the last two years more clients are calling because they know my writings. However, prior to that time, students on campus didn't know anything about it. People seeing me from the community certainly did not. My views have been forming for 20 years, long before I was involved in anything like this publicly. I was influenced a lot by my supervisors during my master's (Bob Lovinger) and doctor's (Tom Sweeney) programs who had similar ideas as mine. Both men believed that clients teach the therapist about the world of the client and then therapist communicates empathy by working within that framework. I have carried that stance over into my work with people who are conflicted over sexuality. I do not think of this as reparative therapy since I do not have a preset view of the cause of the client's experiences. I survey all of my clients during and post therapy and have a 90plus % satisfaction rating from clients dating back to my private practice in Ohio. This is the main thing I use to self-monitor.
 
Don't worry about Jody. She's an angry nobody with nothing worthwhile to say or contribute.
 
"clients" -- "students on campus"

Now I'm a little confused. I thought you didn't have any such clients from GCC campus?

Given the client group, I'm also a little sceptical about the 90%+. Not the before and after per se, which I can well believe -- heck, I get those results when I self-select clients as well! -- but I'm thinking 5-10 (or perhaps even 20) years down the track.

And if you are pandering to a particular client group, I presume they would be delighted -- particularly if they've done the rounds and faced therapists refusing to attempt reorientataion or therapists who only promise a low success rate.

I presume we're only talking reorientation clients here.
 
No I am talking across the board from the beginning of my private practice to now. On campus, I am no longer director of counseling but in teaching full time. My private practice was open to all and was the largest within an 80 mile radius of Portsmough Ohio. It was purchased by a hospital about a year and a half before I came to Grove City. I only have anecdotal stories 5-10 years out but this is the same as nearly all other therapists I know. No one is keeping that kind of information on clients unless it is via some kind of research project.
 
Don't worry about Jody. She's an angry nobody with nothing worthwhile to say or contribute.

Well, I don't see anybody as a nobody and I am not particularly worried about her. Apparently she has plenty to say but I will agree it didn't make much of a contribution. Clearly her mind is made up. Interesting that she keeps reading and posting.
 
I think Jody's a "he."

Boo
 
I only have anecdotal stories 5-10 years out but this is the same as nearly all other therapists I know. No one is keeping that kind of information on clients unless it is via some kind of research project.

Indeed -- one of my major bugbears about the therapy industry, full-stop.

This is why the anedoctal stories of success need be tempered by the anecdotal stories from those therapists who see these clients 5 or 10 years down the road (when everything falls apart, including those carefully created narratives). I think it highly unlikely a client would attend the original reorientation therapist at that point.

Privacy issues aside, I see this lack of follow-up (and often unwillingness in the profession to acknowledge the lack of reality testing caused by that lack of follow-up) as an environment rife for abuse. Anyway, my 2c.

And yes -- familiar with Portsmouth OH... that would be where Nicolas Cummings came into view as the founding CEO of Amer.Biodyne (which eventually became Magellan.) You had kind words about Cumming's recent book. Mildly interestingly, Cummings also founded CSPP where Nicolosi got his Pd.D. and where Epstein works/ed (at CSPP-AIU) apart from being the senior editor of Psychology Today; the publication (and editor) that created a ruckus after accepting an advert for Nicolosi's book.

And that was just a 5 minute google about 2 years ago.

What a funny old "Six Degrees of Separation" World we live in... :)
 
Off topic, but you appear to have quite a fan over in the O'Rielly thread

Boo
 
If you mean the O'Reilly thread on this blog, you are indeed correct. Maybe my biggest...
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?