Who Is Lauren Slater And Why Is She
Saying Such Terrible Things About Me?
(And Me? And Me? And...)

(Updated from 4/2 to include Carolyn See's review)

The Times of London gets in on the Lauren Slater dogpile. In addition to recapping Deborah Skinner's problems with Slater's wildly inaccurate account of her life in Opening Skinner's Box, now Elizabeth Loftus has come forward to state that Slater made up details about their encounter: Her windows do not drip with egg yolk hurled by passing protestors, and nobody called her a "whore" in Slater's presence. Jerome Kagan says he didn't hide under his desk while Slater interviewed him in his office. Robert Spitzer also says the interview with him depicted in the book is full of fabricated quotes and that he never, for example, gloated over the strokes suffered by a fellow scientist whose research he'd condemned. The article notes Slater's bizarre response to his written complaint:

“At root, none of the statements you believe you didn’t make are any kind of misrepresentation of you, even the statement about Rosenhan and his illness, given that your ire towards him and his study is well known.” (emphasis added)

Spitzer, along with other researchers, also challenges Slater's account of being able to walk into eight emergency rooms and get instant diagnoses and prescriptions for antidepressants...and they want to see the data. It sounds like Slater's credibility is pretty much shot in the United Kingdom; it'll be interesting to see how this story moves in the States, especially if the scientists press hard on her to make her "study" more transparent.

Of course, it will be difficult for them to get much attention for their cause if the American reviewers continue to approach the book so wrongheadedly, and book review editors continue to abrogate their responsibilities so blatantly.

Last week, I mentioned Peter Singer's failure to pick up on the problems with the Deborah Skinner story as related by Slater. To his oversight, we can add Carolyn See's. (In the interest of disclosure, See's a distant acquaintance from my bookselling days in Los Angeles.) Reviewing for WaPo, this is all she has to say about the matter:

So, what was it with B.F. Skinner--no matter how well-intentioned--that he elected to raise his baby in a box? (And why did Mrs. Skinner let him do it?) Yes, he came up with "positive reinforcement" as a theory but hadn't anybody ever mentioned to him that honey catches more flies than vinegar?

Although she doesn't explicitly say so, it seems clear that See accepts as truthful Slater's account of Deborah Skinner's infancy and the wholly imaginary consequences described as resulting from the "baby box." Yet as many of us have known for weeks now, Deborah herself firmly refutes all, undercutting See's objections to her father's methods. (Apparently Mrs. Skinner "let him do it" because she trusted it wouldn't harm Deborah... and made the right decision.)

It's easy to see why See might have bought into the Skinner myth; it feeds her interpretation of the book, which she turns into a grand tour of crazy things done in the name of psychology (mostly, she's quick to point out, by men). But somebody at the Post must surely have known long before this review's final deadline that Slater had been accused of bungling the Skinner story, and it's not inconceivable that some word of the other problems with the book had come to their attention. The editors should have sent the review back for a rewrite, and it verges on irresponsible for them not to have done so.

Frankly, I'm dying to find out what a real psychologist thinks of Slater's book, and I'm surprised that nobody seems to have thought to hand one the assignment. If I'm wrong, please do post the link!