The current case became more widely known after a commentary on it appeared in the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health (IJFMH), written by two researchers at the University of South Florida in Tampa—Norman Poythress, who frequently collaborates with Skeem, and John Petrila. They argue that threats such as Hare's "strike at the heart of the peer review process" and "may have a chilling effect on the values at the core of academic freedom."
In an academic disagreement, "filing a defamation suit…may be the last response in extreme cases," Petrila says, "but you have to search for a long time before finding a case in which a threat to sue is the first or an early response."
Hart, who edits IJFMH, says Hare has a vested interest in the PCL-R because he receives significant royalties from it. Hare counters that if money was his goal, he could have made much more by testifying in high-profile criminal cases as some of his colleagues do. He says he receives less than $35,000 annually for royalties associated with the PCL-R and its derivatives.
Hare says his side of the matter has not been heard. "The APA would not have done anything had my complaint not been valid," he says. "Obviously there was something wrong to start with." In the document he has circulated he questions why Poythress and Petrila did not seek his version of events before writing their commentary and why Hart did not offer Hare a chance to respond in the same issue of IJFMH.
Other researchers are more concerned with the effects of Hare's actions on the field, although not all of them are convinced those effects will be enduring. "The reaction to this, and the way this has sort of unfolded, I don't think [it] leaves anyone thinking litigation is helpful," says forensic psychologist Daniel Murrie of the University of Virginia, who was not involved in the dispute.
Hart says he would like to see everyone put the "disturbing and embarrassing" matter behind them. "We need to get over this part of it as quickly as possible and get back to science."
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentNext, authors will be pre-censoring reviews of their books and threatening legal action against reviewers who didn't like their books!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I the only person on earth who thinks that because Psychology lacks any empirical proof for their claims - that virtually nobody in the scientific community should be taking the vast majority of what they say seriously whatsoever?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have trouble thinking people should consider it anymore "science" than Phrenology. That it should be diagnostic in the legal system comes at a difficult price of the subjective opinion of its adherents.
But, however, I have been chronically misdiagnosed by psychiatrists and psychologists alike - leading me to believe that they are not only absurdly presumptive - but also fools.
My bad, Phrenology is more scientific than the vast majority of psychology I've encountered - at least whatever stated hypothesis therein can be disproved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely understand Hare's point of view. Skeem and Cooke are misinterpreting facts and attempting to falsify a construct that has been in place for decades. This is not about royalties, it is about the integrity of science! Criminality is not a central component of psychopathy and never has been. It is one factor of many and, if it is not present, it does not exclude the person from presenting as a psychopath. While Skeem and Cooke are entitle to their position, they can only present it with the proper scientific evidence to back it up. What this article shows is that they were asked multiple times, by peer reviewers, to change their article to make it more factual and failed to do so. Why shouldn't Hare be mad? They are attacking his life's work for Christ's sake! Keep in mind, those who are writing comment articles in support of Skeem and Cooke are close colleagues of theirs who have been writing with them for years. What does that really say bout 'blind' peer review? Think about it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I understand Skeem and Cooke's view. Simply put, Psychopathy is the PCL-R and the PCL-R is psychopathy is a circular reasoning that much be open to scientific debate. Let me make myself clear, I do not support the supposedly misquoting of Hare's work. But leaving the sensitive quotes aside, the issue remains that scholars convincingly question whether the construct has become the measure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur current knowledge on psychopathy as a construct does not ascertain that we fully understand this socially devastating disorder, thus we cannot be certain that PCL-R – the measure – fully captures psychopathy. Better understanding leads to better prevention of the severe consequences of psychopathic behavior, and maybe, maybe even to a cure. But the only way to get there is to keep questioning, scrutinizing and debating. Basically doing research, as Skeem and Cooke are doing in my point of view.
It is always a good strategic practice to encourage discourse, reason, and inquiry. This is a strategy that has enabled mankind and science to master nature to an extent that other creatures haven't approximated. Limiting the same is strategically inimical to the legitimate goal of science and psychiatry, the improvement of human welfare, understanding, and goals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe Clekley wrote an important book, "Mask of Sanity", of the subject of psycopathy.
Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, and Freud and many other great scientists and philosophers have been subject to criticism. However, the same has not significantly diminished the import of their contributions to philosophy, psychology, and science.
A critique of the Forensic Psychopathy Scale should not be censored nor delayed in publication, therefore.
I believe Clekley wrote a book, "Mask of Sanity", on the subject of psycopathy.
From Wikipedia "Hare describes people he calls psychopaths as "intraspecies predators[21][22] who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, sex and violence[23][24][25] to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".[3] "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."[26]"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHare makes almost $35K from royalties from his test.
Hmmmmm.
The word "psychology" covers a lot of territory and at least some of it is science. Oh, there are speculators, hypothesizers and dreamers in the field but there are real scientists too. As evidence, I have 2 degrees in The Experimental Analysis of Organism Behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am dismayed to read, again and again in science magazines, that there is no science of human behavior. So do I have to point out that Homo Sapiens are organisms and that there is a lot of scientifically collected and analyzed data out there that you've missed?
Please read more outside your fields!
Simply because you are not hearing what you "want" to hear from a psychologist or psychiatrist, does not invalidate the science. On the other hand, as with almost any other medical profession, it does, sometimes take some effort to be truly "heard." I have multiple sclerosis, for example, and the average MS patient will go through 7 neurologists before they find a good fit. I suspect the same is true for psychology as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the local Hospital, the staff in the "psychiatric" ward don't wear uniforms,(to make the patients more happy (or something).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is difficult to tell who are staff and who are patients.
Both are very convincing when you talk to them.
Hare should be ashamed of himself. Using the threat of lawsuit (a defamation lawsuit, no less) to stifle peer-reviewed criticism... These are corrupt methods on their face. They embarrass Hare, undermine the field of Psychology, and collectively diminish the practice of science as a whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHare should be ashamed of himself. Using the threat of lawsuit (a defamation lawsuit, no less) to stifle peer-reviewed criticism... These are corrupt methods on their face. They embarrass Hare, undermine the field of Psychology, and collectively diminish the practice of science as a whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But, however, I have been chronically misdiagnosed by psychiatrists and psychologists alike - leading me to believe that they are not only absurdly presumptive - but also fools."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------------------------------------
No one said psychiatry/psychology is clear-cut or that disorders are all that discrete in a clinical setting. A patient's symptoms often change with time and stress, and only in time, with honest dialogue, does any diagnosis become concrete.
Judging by your antagonistic attitude, I personally would hope not to diagnose you - because hell if I think you'd really be telling me anything and everything. That doesn't make a clinical diagnosis easy for anyone.
Also, unless you think yourself an objectively consistent, unchanging patient who tells EVERY practitioner the exact same thing, always present the exact same symptoms, and never lie or forget to mention anything, you are as much a cause of the discrepant diagnoses.
Also, I think we should be very careful to automatically discredit vast amounts of experimental, statistical, and scientific-method-driven knowledge solely on the notion that its application in a clinical setting is inherently subjective.
The same argument could say biology is not a science because doctors misdiagnosed your acute allergies as a cold.
"Am I the only person on earth who thinks that because Psychology lacks any empirical proof for their claims - that virtually nobody in the scientific community should be taking the vast majority of what they say seriously whatsoever?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------------------------------------
Yes, you are probably the only person on earth who thinks that... "Psychology lacks ANY empirical proof for their claims..."
I think you meant empirical EVIDENCE.
First of all, science doesn't "prove" anything. It tests and re-tests using the scientific method until the probability of a theory being false is very, very unlikely.
Second, by this standard, there are massive amounts of empirical and controlled-study experiments in psychology yielding consistent, predictable results.
Perhaps you meant "it doesn't involve fancy math equations" as your argument, instead.
-----------------------------------------------
"I have trouble thinking people should consider it anymore "science" than Phrenology. That it should be diagnostic in the legal system comes at a difficult price of the subjective opinion of its adherents."
----------------------------------------------
You almost lost me at "Phrenology", but then I realized I couldn't let stupid get the best of me and pushed through.
You obviously didn't consider the fact that the legal system comes down to the subjective opinion of jurors and a judge. Furthermore, expert testimony from psychologists most often has the effect of pointing out known biases and, more often than not, helps to enhance the objectivity of the process. For example, psychologists discovered the phenomenon of false confessions. I believe something like 18% of post-trial exonerations since 1977 involved false confessions, and far more involved defendants giving incriminating statements which were later proven impossible.
But I guess the subjective opinion of everyone else is much better because you say so.