Hey, Here's a Timely Reference: Lauren Slater!

Farhad Manjoo gives Salon readers a heads-up on that Lauren Slater book they might have heard about last month, pointing out some of those "unbelievable little scenes in which Slater or one of the many people she encounters does or says something so unexpected that you'll wonder, for just a split second, whether you're reading fiction." Which is what many of the people she writes about are calling it--well, actually, they're using harsher terms than that--and "while some of the allegations are frivolous," Manjoo writes, "a few are serious, and the fight between Slater and her sources has turned nasty." But there's no need for much original reporting on the subject, when you can just link to every other article that's come down the pike, so let's get to it!

Neither side offers a good argument to readers looking for guidance on what to believe, and so, in the end, it's hard not to feel adrift and alone with Slater's book. This is a shame: "Opening Skinner's Box" is a genuinely compelling read. Learning of its deficiencies -- or what some of Slater's sources call deficiencies -- doesn't completely discredit the work, but it does, alas, dull the pleasure.

Now, I'm on record as believing that its deficiencies make it (at least the portions I sampled) significantly less than a genuinely compelling read, but we can't all like the same things, so fine. But then Manjoo's brain melts; that's the only way I can account for the description of "an heroic effort to track down Deborah Skinner." I'd encourage you to stand around your bookstore and read the chapter for yourself to form an independent opinion, but the relevant portions I've quoted in the past will help you understand why I'd call her efforts far less than "heroic."

[A]nd though she does not manage to [track Deborah Skinner down](a shortcoming about which we can gripe, but not really condemn), Slater does put to rest the idea that Deborah died in a suicide. Slater even quotes Deborah's sister Julie as saying, "My sister is alive and well," and "She's an artist. She lives in England." And what about the myth that Deborah was raised in a box? Slater quashes that, too.

What Manjoo doesn't tell you is that Slater also throws considerable doubt on the sister's statements (and the statements of another individual she queries) about the "alive and well" status of Deborah Skinner--mostly the "well," since she appears to grudgingly concede the "alive" part. And one really has to wonder about the standard of journalistic rigor held by someone who thinks we can't condemn Slater for not managing to track down a semi-public figure in this age of electronic databases. I mean, I'm sorry, but journalism, in magazines, websites, or even books, is not supposed to be a charity case. Slater's efforts come across to this reader as half-assed and lazy, something to set aside when the deadline looms too near and she'd rather talk about herself than nail down a crucial fact or two.

Things get stickier in the second half, when talk turns to the replication of the Rosenham experiments, a matter on which several researchers are challenging Slater. After touching upon the flap over whether one of Slater's interview subjects did or did not gloat over Rosenham's paralysis, Manjoo continues:

Spitzer also says that he did not tell Slater -- as she quotes him as doing -- that Rosenhan's experiment would never work today. "It would not make sense for me to have made a blanket prediction (twice!) that it could never happen now," he wrote. Of course, Spitzer has a reason to backpedal. Not only does he come off as callous, his predictions (if in fact he made them) are also wrong. Slater does reproduce Rosenhan's experiments, and manages to show that even today psychiatrists are something of a guessing crowd... Spitzer is absolutely shocked when Slater informs him of her results. "You're kidding me," he tells her. So isn't it conceivable that, now, he wants to step away from those predictions he made, just as a way to save face?

Manjoo thinks it's conceivable, but let's backtrack--the only source we have for Slater's alleged duplication of Rosenham's results is Slater, who refuses to share her research. Manjoo points this out glancingly, but the actual substance of the article's weak argument for not trusting Slater on this point is to rehash all the minor errors of fact other reviewers have already pointed out, followed by an abrupt about face to declare "the truth is that most, if not all, of Slater's book is the truth." On what basis one could make this statement, only God and Farhad Manjoo know for sure. And though God might be able to persuade me, nobody who thinks Lauren Slater is a "gifted stylist," as Manjoo asserts, will have much luck.

So far, all that everyone talks about when they talk about Opening Skinner's Box are the shortcomings of Lauren Slater. These are, in a sense, important. But by the far the more interesting shortcomings illuminated in this book are not those of the author but of us all. They are the shortcomings in human nature, and they are worth reading about.

Absolutely. But surely there must be another book somewhere in the world that touches upon these issues and doesn't read like it was written by someone who barely squeaked through freshman comp. That's the book you should read. And if you know which one it is, comment about it below, won't you?