Thanks for writing this Jim. I dared to defend you and that put me on his list. And boy did he come after me. He contacted HR at my university to say that I verbally attacked him on Twitter and should be fired for physically threatening an "old man." When they asked for proof, his screen shots showed nothing of the sort. They contacted me to tell me about it and to avoid him as he is costing the university money to investigate his nonsense.
He really, really despised well-being science and then tried to peddle self-published books on the topic.
My first interaction with him at dinner in New Orleans with Bonanno, McNally, Frueh, and a few others was a delight. He had such a great mind. As you said - what a waste of great critical thinking to aim it toward harming people than producing good work.
Right? And you probably know how he went after Eiko Fried. I really did want to emphasize that he changed my way of thinking on many fronts. He was *important,* but taught too many of the wrong lessons.
Eiko and I traded war stories. Here's a lesson: don't be the guy or gal the media goes to for stories to be the person who will always say on cue that someone's research sucks.
Thanks for this piece, Jim. I, too, have been one of Coyne's targets. Just in case anyone might be interested, I'll share my story, noting for the record that I previously had had a cordial relationship with Jim for any number of years and greatly appreciated his incisive mind. Coyne and I were both members of the Society for the Science of Clinical Psychology (SSCP) and on its listserv, a site of vigorous debate. Not surprisingly, Coyne took the debate to a new level, such that he was clearly in violation of the listserv's posting policies. However, the Society had no formal means to do anything about such behavior other than remind people of the policy to which Coyne, again not surprisingly, did not take kindly. So, when I happened to be elected President, I decided to take action and proposed a process for removing recurrent violators. After much spirited debate on the listserv about where to draw the line between freedom of speech and unacceptable behavior, through which my initial proposal was considerably revised, tightened up, and greatly improved, by adding multiple chances for people to improve their behavior, and a rather legalistic process for ultimately removing a member from the listserv, the membership voted on implementing it, and it passed by a wide margin. Then came the process.... I've already gone on too long, so I'll spare everyone the details, but I carefully documented every step along the way, through which I was repeatedly attacked and vilified by Coyne, yet again unsurprisingly. The document ultimately came to 27 pages and Coyne was removed from the listserv, after which he used multiple opportunities to continue to excoriate me for his removal. Fast forward a decade or so, and Coyne asked to be reinstated to the SSCP listserv. Fortunately, there was enough institutional memory that the then-SSCP Board contacted me about what had occurred previously and I'll just say that I was really glad to have compiled and saved that document.
I remember this happening, though I think I was finishing up graduate school at the time. You were right to push him out. I, among others, had stopped interacting with SSCPnet because of him. And it isn’t like the listserv was all peace and love all the time, even without him. Sorry in any case for the struggle. I’ve tried to understand Coyne from a psychological perspective at times, and I think he was high in the often forgotten trait of sadism. I just wish people hadn’t tolerated him for so long as just sort of quirky. Even my old mentor Lee Sechrest gave him too much of a pass.
As frustrating and incredibly time-consuming as it was at the time, it was worth it. Also, in reading your comment "I just wish people hadn’t tolerated him for so long as just sort of quirky," the parallels to a currently dominant figure in U.S. politics came to mind: One who gets "too much of a pass" for things that anyone else would be skewered for. I just hope it doesn't ultimately get to where Coyne ended up because of the immense difference in the amount of power and influence compared to Coyne's....
I only "danced" with Conyne for 5 mins or so, compared to others but could see his rabid need to compartmentalise everyone into buckets of "Good " and "Bad".
Sadly, this still appears to be a dynamic that continues amongst Social Psychologists today.
How ironic that they cannot see that which is most prevalent in themselves!!
i didn't get the serious treatment. merely the "society lost the money spent on your studies" or similar. all for politely replying to one of his very politically motivated tirades.
it's sad when his behaviour was copied by others. bad for truth finding
Thank you for writing this, Jim. This is up there with your best essays, right beside Negative Psychology, which I loved at the time and still love. I hope this essay gets wide circulation as a cautionary tale. I still see jackasses acting this way online even in the so-called good place.
Thanks man. Funny, I just spent the morning reading your essay on whether Jews are white and it floored me. I can't believe I'd never thought about it in terms of caste before but that makes perfect sense. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words!
Jim couldn’t stand bad research because it harmed clients terribly and similarly harmed whole populations where public health strategies were based on junk. He was a justice warrior who cared deeply for people but had deep contempt for those who perpetuated BS.
What we should be doing is humbly recognising the depth and breadth of truly bad research that has so thoroughly polluted the entire field, including calling out the many gurus whose status is rabidly but undeservedly respected.
Jim’s irreverence and vitriole was an attempt to see real progress sooner rather than in 50 years’ time, which it seems is how long it takes for the inertia of popular BS to finally be pushed back, when people finally take their blinkers off and do the studies necessary to demonstrate the null hypothesis.
RIP Jim, deeply appreciated and missed by all who value robust science and also found in him a kind heart and deep love of humanity.
Thanks for writing this Jim. I dared to defend you and that put me on his list. And boy did he come after me. He contacted HR at my university to say that I verbally attacked him on Twitter and should be fired for physically threatening an "old man." When they asked for proof, his screen shots showed nothing of the sort. They contacted me to tell me about it and to avoid him as he is costing the university money to investigate his nonsense.
He really, really despised well-being science and then tried to peddle self-published books on the topic.
My first interaction with him at dinner in New Orleans with Bonanno, McNally, Frueh, and a few others was a delight. He had such a great mind. As you said - what a waste of great critical thinking to aim it toward harming people than producing good work.
Right? And you probably know how he went after Eiko Fried. I really did want to emphasize that he changed my way of thinking on many fronts. He was *important,* but taught too many of the wrong lessons.
Eiko and I traded war stories. Here's a lesson: don't be the guy or gal the media goes to for stories to be the person who will always say on cue that someone's research sucks.
Truth!
Thanks for this piece, Jim. I, too, have been one of Coyne's targets. Just in case anyone might be interested, I'll share my story, noting for the record that I previously had had a cordial relationship with Jim for any number of years and greatly appreciated his incisive mind. Coyne and I were both members of the Society for the Science of Clinical Psychology (SSCP) and on its listserv, a site of vigorous debate. Not surprisingly, Coyne took the debate to a new level, such that he was clearly in violation of the listserv's posting policies. However, the Society had no formal means to do anything about such behavior other than remind people of the policy to which Coyne, again not surprisingly, did not take kindly. So, when I happened to be elected President, I decided to take action and proposed a process for removing recurrent violators. After much spirited debate on the listserv about where to draw the line between freedom of speech and unacceptable behavior, through which my initial proposal was considerably revised, tightened up, and greatly improved, by adding multiple chances for people to improve their behavior, and a rather legalistic process for ultimately removing a member from the listserv, the membership voted on implementing it, and it passed by a wide margin. Then came the process.... I've already gone on too long, so I'll spare everyone the details, but I carefully documented every step along the way, through which I was repeatedly attacked and vilified by Coyne, yet again unsurprisingly. The document ultimately came to 27 pages and Coyne was removed from the listserv, after which he used multiple opportunities to continue to excoriate me for his removal. Fast forward a decade or so, and Coyne asked to be reinstated to the SSCP listserv. Fortunately, there was enough institutional memory that the then-SSCP Board contacted me about what had occurred previously and I'll just say that I was really glad to have compiled and saved that document.
I remember this happening, though I think I was finishing up graduate school at the time. You were right to push him out. I, among others, had stopped interacting with SSCPnet because of him. And it isn’t like the listserv was all peace and love all the time, even without him. Sorry in any case for the struggle. I’ve tried to understand Coyne from a psychological perspective at times, and I think he was high in the often forgotten trait of sadism. I just wish people hadn’t tolerated him for so long as just sort of quirky. Even my old mentor Lee Sechrest gave him too much of a pass.
As frustrating and incredibly time-consuming as it was at the time, it was worth it. Also, in reading your comment "I just wish people hadn’t tolerated him for so long as just sort of quirky," the parallels to a currently dominant figure in U.S. politics came to mind: One who gets "too much of a pass" for things that anyone else would be skewered for. I just hope it doesn't ultimately get to where Coyne ended up because of the immense difference in the amount of power and influence compared to Coyne's....
I was a fairly small fish on the Coyne target list, but even that was a quite horrific experience. I appreciated reading this. Thank you.
I only "danced" with Conyne for 5 mins or so, compared to others but could see his rabid need to compartmentalise everyone into buckets of "Good " and "Bad".
Sadly, this still appears to be a dynamic that continues amongst Social Psychologists today.
How ironic that they cannot see that which is most prevalent in themselves!!
so sad and so true.
i didn't get the serious treatment. merely the "society lost the money spent on your studies" or similar. all for politely replying to one of his very politically motivated tirades.
it's sad when his behaviour was copied by others. bad for truth finding
Thank you for writing this, Jim. This is up there with your best essays, right beside Negative Psychology, which I loved at the time and still love. I hope this essay gets wide circulation as a cautionary tale. I still see jackasses acting this way online even in the so-called good place.
Thanks man. Funny, I just spent the morning reading your essay on whether Jews are white and it floored me. I can't believe I'd never thought about it in terms of caste before but that makes perfect sense. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words!
Jim couldn’t stand bad research because it harmed clients terribly and similarly harmed whole populations where public health strategies were based on junk. He was a justice warrior who cared deeply for people but had deep contempt for those who perpetuated BS.
What we should be doing is humbly recognising the depth and breadth of truly bad research that has so thoroughly polluted the entire field, including calling out the many gurus whose status is rabidly but undeservedly respected.
Jim’s irreverence and vitriole was an attempt to see real progress sooner rather than in 50 years’ time, which it seems is how long it takes for the inertia of popular BS to finally be pushed back, when people finally take their blinkers off and do the studies necessary to demonstrate the null hypothesis.
RIP Jim, deeply appreciated and missed by all who value robust science and also found in him a kind heart and deep love of humanity.