When the Controversy Over Psychologists Participating in Torture Killed Democracy and Free Speech on APA Listservs
Reprisals against those of us who opposed psychologists supervising torture have never ended. I am cautiously optimistic that there will be some relief in negotiations with APA CEO Arthur Evans.
Seligman personally purges critics of his learned helplessness model as the theoretical basis of torture.
May 1, 2024 Commentary. May 2015 was a period of toxic authoritarian intervention by Martin Seligman, a former president of APA (1998), and his supporters on listservs and in the complex governance of APA and its various divisions. The number of members and moral authority of APA were drastically diminished by the continued crisis brought about by psychologists participating in enhanced interrogation, AKA torture.
APA had once been an organization of scientists, practitioners, and science-oriented clinicians. Yet, the last president before Seligman, who was respected mainly as a scientist, was Charles Spielberger in 1991. Several presidents after Seligman had solid scientific credentials. Yet, they were, to varying degrees, tainted by the failure of the organization to take a stand against psychologists participating in the torture of prisoners in long-term detention centers, often without the prisoners being found guilty of any crime.
Some admirers would see Seligman’s extended influence beyond the one-year term of his presidency as the triumph of the science of positive psychology, which enhances human well-being, over a fictive mainstream “negative psychology.” Critics like myself were skeptical of this claim, but if we became too outspoken about our view, we risked being discredited or pushed to the sidelines.
There has been no critical, but loyal opposition within positive psychology and very few rigorous public debates between advocates of positive psychology and its critics, except for the two debates at the Society of Behavioral Medicine involving me. The prolonged demonization of me that followed these debates tends to discourage anyone else from attempting to challenge the strong claims of positive psychology as being grounded in solid research.
Note the politics visible in the positive psychology listserv in May 2015. The New York Times revived condemnation of psychologists’ involvement in torture, citing a Harvard Public Health report that exposed earlier email communications between the APA and the CIA.
The positive psychology listserv mobilized attacks on anyone who mentioned the report on the listserv. Through a surrogate, Seligman would ban the critic from the listserv if these attacks from his followers did not successfully silence them. Essentially, it became dangerous heresy on the listserv to comment positively on the report.
Defending Marty Seligman from suggestions that he had a role in psychologists participating in the torture of prisoners had become a function of the positive psychology listserv.
The Department of Defense remains the largest single employer of graduates of Seligman’s Masters in Applied Positive Psychology at Penn, which now offers online MA and BA degrees. No background in psychology is required for the MA program, which costs $10,700 per four course unit (c.u.). The course is advertised as having Ivy League faculty, but it is unclear what that means. I doubt tenure track faculty would teach what was intended as a moneymaker with different standards for admission and grading.
The Positive Psychology listserv operates by very different rules than any other APA-administered listserv. The rules for APA listservs explicitly do not allow a person to decide that someone is banned from the group, especially based on a single posting in which they offended that person. When challenged, Marty claimed that because he had started the listserv, so he could decide who could participate and who would be removed.
I recall my moment of expulsion from the listserv when I contradicted Marty about whether participation in support groups extended the lives of cancer patients. I objected and provided a link to my authoritative Psychological Bulletin article, whereas Marty relied on his authority as the founder of positive psychology. That is all it took, I was gone without notification.
As Marty’s direct influence fades, adherents to positive psychology would like us to forget its roots and that its founder also provided the theoretical framework for enhanced interrogation based on his learned helplessness model. Yet individual members of the positive psychology movement still retain the right to orchestrate a condemnation and discrediting of critics as despicable persons and as threats to the whole movement based on a tweet or a mention somewhere in social media.
As one of many examples, it became a long-running battle when I criticized Todd Kashdan for bragging on social media about securing consulting money to provide a fake happiness equation (a feel-good formula) to a British cosmetic surgery company, Transform. The company had a media campaign urging postpartum women to be uncomfortable with their bodies and even the appearance of their vaginas. The company has quick and safe laser procedures (some machines are called MonaLisa Touch or FemiLifts) to make vaginas firmer, tighter, and more aesthetically pleasing so women could feel good again soon after giving birth.
Todd’s fictive feel-good equation was supposed to give scientific precision to estimates of how much this medically unnecessary surgery would make them measurably happier. His idea was a crass knockoff of Seligman’s happiness equation. Both equations were basically pseudo-regression equations in which data could not be entered.
I did not think this venture's shameful nonsense deserved a full blog post, only a tweet or two. How could I intellectualize my indignant reaction, even if I wished? Would I dispute the beta weights in the Feel Good Formula? Would I call for mixed-method qualitative/quantitative studies of MonaLisa Touch versus FemiLifts? I dared not speculate like this on social media. I kept these forbidden thoughts to myself.
Nonetheless, Todd responded with a rageful campaign with continued posts on the Positive Psychology Facebook page like this:
Welcome to my embattled world. Todd, I always knew you were a feminist who only wanted women to feel good again about sagging breasts and loose vaginas as soon as possible after giving birth. I know your wife gave birth to twins, but we won’t go there.
The cheap shot about my criticizing Barbara Fredrickson is crass anti-intellectualism, and the quality of the critique with my colleagues of Fredrickson’s work in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) is such that I don’t have to respond to criticism that my work is motivated by jealousy, sexism, or that it brings me money (I wish). Yet Todd’s histrionics incited considerable hate toward me and distracted his audience from his effort to convince postpartum women that their naked bodies are ugly and in need of cosmetic surgery. Some official regulatory commissions empowered to pull offensive advertisements in the UK ended the campaign.
May 1, 2015
The positive psychology listserv has posts that attack the authors of the New York Times article on psychologists' complicity in torture. If APA had not protected torturers, how would Seligman have gotten his no-bid $31 million contract to bring positive psychology to American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The article that caused the fuss:
The New York Times article concerned an analysis of exchanges between the CIA and APA by some public health researchers.
This press release came from the Harvard T.H. Chan: Report: Psychologists’ Association worked with CIA to justify torture.
The American Psychological Association (APA) secretly worked with the CIA, the White House, and the Defense Department during the post-Sept. 11 war on terror to bolster the legal and ethical justification for the CIA’s use of so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques on prisoners, according to a new report co-authored by experts at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The report, published online on April 30, 2015 in the New York Times, analyzed newly released emails between psychologists at the CIA and the APA that were written during a time of growing national concern about the George W. Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques on prisoners such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and death threats. These techniques came to light in 2004 after public disclosure of graphic photos of prisoner abuse by American military personnel at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
The emails suggest that APA psychologists collaborated with the government in creating an ethics policy that sanctioned psychologists’ participation in national security interrogations.
One of the three lead authors of the new report—the first to examine the APA’s role in the interrogation program—was Nathaniel Raymond, director of the Signal Program on Human Security and Technology at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, and former director of the campaign against torture at Physicians for Human Rights. Another Harvard Chan co-author was Isaac Baker, imagery analysis manager for HHI’s Signal Program.
Read a New York Times article about the new report: Report Says American Psychological Association Collaborated on Torture Justification
Read a July 20, 2014, Boston Globe update: Report on interrogation tactics roils academics.
Background on the May 1, 2015, New York Times article
The 2015 New York Times article provides the background for me getting kicked off the SSCPnet listserve in 2009 after a ridiculous Stalinist show trial orchestrated by Lee Anna Clark. Until a few years earlier, the listserv had enjoyed vigorous free speech and autonomy from APA and seemed to be heading toward total independence. I was quite active during that period and often showcased my high-quality publications and blog posts, criticizing faulty science and exaggerated claims.
Note that it is factually true that Sharon Manne was elected as Division 38 Representative to the APA Council of Representatives, defeating accused torturer Col Larry James. She quickly resigned, saying she had been told by the division’s leadership that she was unsuitable for the position. Lee Anna Clark then appointed Col Larry James to the Council in time for the discussion of whether the Nuremberg defense should be removed from the APA Code of Ethics, as the 2015 New York Times article later confirmed. My heinous crime of drawing the connection was not making clear whether my posting was my opinion and not fact. No one is denying there was such a sequence.
A very active and respected member of the SSCPnet listserv commented:
One of the listserv moderators quietly opposed my expulsion and kept me linked in. Other members did so separately.
I remained committed to condemning psychologists being involved in the torture of prisoners who had not been convicted of any crime. It is an important historical note that the AMA forbidding physicians from any involvement in torture led to psychologists getting involved and the bonus of psychologists authorizing medication as part of the enhanced interrogation.
My Facebook memories reveal that I posted the following on my personal Facebook page on May 1, 2013. I know that this was quixotic, but I felt justified in asking where candidates for the presidency of SSCP stood on torture.
Potato or Spud for President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Clinical Psychology?
[edited for clarity]
Members of the Society for the Scientific Study of Clinical Psychology listserv (SSCPnet) who bemoan the listserv’s chronic lack of political effectiveness, the chronic inability of the group to put issues to a formal vote after vigorous debate need look no further than the electoral process for membership on the board for an explanation.
Last week, the SSCP made position statements available for the candidates for President. This seemed an improvement over last year’s election of a stealth candidate who had never even posted on the notoriously lively SSCP listserv he was being elected as tone cop. Members then went to the website where the candidate’’ names were announced.
Imagine going into the booth at a poll where you first learn who the candidates are. “Barack Hussein Obama? Who is he? Some illegal alien Muslim extremist? Is it true he was not even born in America?” Democracy is, of course, not just about being able to vote but also about querying candidates and gathering information relevant to resolving any ambiguities or outright misrepresentations to one’s satisfaction. There was no excuse for the secrecy leading up to the balloting. Nominations by members had been closed for months. I asked a board member who the candidates were and was told simply that there were two. SSCPnet bears no resemblance to the New England town hall meeting it once did.
Voting remained open for a month, but neither accumulative nor final tallies are available to members, only to the board. This lends itself to the board trying to get out the vote to pitch the results in the direction of a favored candidate, but not the membership. I strongly suspect that turnout is consistently low, which can be easily accomplished by the board contacting a few minions.
One of my last posts to the SSCP listserv before being barred was a statement, mirroring that above, that democracy is about being able to get informed and discuss, not just about casting a vote.
But, alas, these candidate statements were vacuous and uninformative, an empty ritual devoid of relevant information.
David Miklowitz
“I have been a member of SSCP for many years, and it is my pleasure to be nominated as its President. I have been involved in several other organizations at the administrative level, including ABCT, the Society for Research in Psychopathology, and the International Society for Bipolar Disorder.
“If elected, there are several issues I would like to address:
“What should be the relationship between SSCP, APS, and APA? What are the advantages for individuals and the organization of linking with one versus the other or both?
“We all agree that the goal of SSCP is to promote clinical science, but how can we make the organization more visible? Do we need to start our journal? Have our own “spin-off” conference? What role should students play?
“To what extent should SSCP become involved in political issues, both those relevant to psychology as a whole (e.g., the psychology and torture issue), and those immediately relevant to clinical science (e.g., accreditation, prescription privileges)?
“How can we make the SSCP listserve more relevant to our day-to-day work?”
Varda Shoham
I am a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona, where I was Director of Clinical Training for 15 years. I received my PhD from Tel Aviv University, Israel, and completed post-doctoral training at Harvard University before moving to Arizona. Funded by NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA, my research focuses on developing and evaluating family-level interventions for change-resistant, health-compromising behavior, aiming to understand how and for whom psychosocial treatments work. I received the Early Career Contribution Award from the Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR), and later served as President of the North American SPR. I also served on the Division 12 Task Force on Empirically Supported Treatments and APA’s Committee on Accreditation. Most relevant, however, is my recent work as the 4th President of the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (APCS), which, like SSCP, aims to preserve the scientific integrity of clinical psychology.”
ME: I would suggest to David that most of us do not consider psychologists’ involvement in torture to be a political issue but an ethical and legal one. However, David is at least less of an insider of Division 12 and the larger politics of psychology than Shoham. He appears to have less to gain to toe the line of APA insiders running the outside SSCP like a Brit sent to govern and control a potentially unruly India.
I got into an email exchange with Varda. When I raised the issue of APA’s failure to exclude the Nuremberg Defense (I am only following orders) from its ethical code, she replied dismissively.
“I may not understand the current issue here, but by the time I'm president (and again, I don't think I will be, given where I'm coming from), there will be other issues. Don't worry; APA will never cease to rub us the wrong way.”
Undeterred, I sent Varda and David emails requesting position statements on the autonomy of the listserv concerning outside (read APA and Division 12) interference and getting the Nuremberg defense removed from the APA Code of Ethics. Shoham did not respond, but Miklowitz responded:
“Thanks for your query. I doubt this will be a satisfactory answer, but I am in the process of educating myself on these and other issues relevant to SSCP. I expect to learn more about them before I take office (if elected). All I can promise to you is an open mind!”
Potato or Spud for President? Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum? It's a tough choice, but maybe Miklowitz is the better choice because he is open to education. I sent him materials concerning the Nuremberg Defense.
Varda was a close friend and collaborator on several important clinical and research projects. I would attempt to keep the projects going, but she distanced herself from me, despite her poor showing in the APA election. However, she won election to the APS Council.
Earlier, Michael Rohrbaugh had jokingly sent me a cryptic $10 finders fee for introducing him to Varda, which I naively cashed. I attended their wedding. This photo, taken after their move to the University of Arizona, attests to our shared happiness.
Michael, Varda, and I got together in late 2013, knowing Varda’s death from lung cancer was rapidly approaching. I was eager to set aside any political differences that had recently accumulated. Varda declined.
2024
This article is part of a larger history in which I continue to be demonized and isolated for opposing psychologists’ involvement in torture. A subsequent article will document the link between the present and the distant and not-so-distant past. I anticipate some will find the actions by the leadership of APA and its divisions that will be discussed as morally repulsive and inconsistent with the ethical integrity of an APA still recovering. APA ethics is no longer considered the ethical authority, especially when only a minority of PhD psychologists belong to APA. There are proposals to make students with terminal masters degrees full members, but many consider that a mistake.
I met Arthur Evans shortly after he came to Philadelphia and before he became the CEO of APA. I know professionals who previously worked beneath him in behavioral health organizations who consider him a professional of uncommon decency.
I spoke with him several times despite my no longer being a member of APA. We discussed mutual friends from his past role as Deputy Commissioner for the Connecticut Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services. He introduced many institutional reforms in his highly praised time in that role. I told him how I had spent my teenage years on welfare and in public housing in New London, Connecticut, because of my mother’s conviction that the alternative was putting my half-brother in the horrific and now abandoned Seaside Sanatorium in Waterford, Connecticut. Our family feared Davey would be medically neglected and subject to unregulated scientific experimentation with no possibility of benefit. Dr. Evans acknowledged that would have been my half-brother’s fate and said he had closed the facility and that it was now a derelict abandoned facility.
Seaside Sanatorium, Waterford, Connecticut.
I am sure that Dr. Evans is aware of the need to put what was done to protect psychologists’ involvement with torture firmly in the past. I hope that means acknowledging that some of the ugliness inflicted on me when I acted in good conscience was wrong. APA should provide some symbolic or actual recognition that what was done was wrong. It is easier than APA apologizing to the victims of torture, which some of us have advocated.
I got into trouble but good trouble, unsuccessfully opposing Col. Larry James's appointment to the APA Council of Representatives, where he could influence the vote that could have led to his condemnation and expulsion. In my opinion, he is unrepentant evil, not me.
Afterward
This is a sampling of what some people consider as strong evidence that I am dangerous and should be ignored. These people have held trials on the internet in which I was not allowed to defend myself.
Can I be obnoxious? All this seems to suggest that I can be, but that is not my normal way of operating. I that should be allowed. I am following in the footsteps of Thomas Paine and my other intellectual heroes.
Obviously, most people would not feel safe posting such outrageous thoughts on the Internet. I believe that these thoughts should be allowed to be read by those who wish.
With your continued support, I will keep writing, and we can overcome this hate and harassment and I can regain my voice.
Get a free or paid subscription to my Coyne of the Realm Substack Newsletter and Blog.
Encourage journalists to interview me and investigate my story.
I will share my modest funds with someone who can craft my message on social media. I am quite inept with Instagram.
For more information, please get in touch with me at jimcoyneakacoyneoftherealm@substack.com