Great extract and very enjoyable read. I lost count of the times that I mentally cried, "What! No way!" I'll be ordering a copy of The Genius Myth to be further entertained and infuriated.
Thank you for this book -I look forward to reading it for all the ways it will vindicate my *longstanding view that this man was a scandalous charlatan -definitely not a genius! *When I was a first year as a young but mature enough psychology student to question things,(1965/6 this man came to give a lecture at the university and also a Q&A talk in the Psychology department. Up close from the front row he looked surprisingly disreputable but worse - after looking down at me and several other keen but coincidentally blonde (yes that too) minority of young women - he spoke directly to us saying that he was pleased to be there -but couldn’t understand why we were there… we could stay if we wanted to but.. Our dear Prof didn’t know what he meant but I did and shocked at the blatant insult I walked out and the others followed. Emperors knew clothes it may have been but in later studies it was even more obvious that his methods and claims were unsupportable and his views obnoxious.
I never cited his work and would always explain to my students later my reasons for this and how they should not do so nor use his inventories but to question and look further and better. In my Adult Education teaching the hidden scandal of Eysenck and his influence was a great example for many wide ranging topics of discussion (political social historical, geographical critical feminist etc) relating to psychological research and it’s influence. I’m glad we can now call time on all his dangerous nonsense!
This might be an unanswerable question, but do you it’s likely there are other Eysenck equivalents out there, maybe smart enough to fly under the radar, but still poisoning the well?
My copy arrived this morning. Brought it into work (library) to cover it, as I suspect it will become very well thumbed (and will probably be added to the library).
This is interesting, well written and valuable. Your book is excellent. Tony Pelosi sparkled at the many talks of his I attended when a trainee in Edinburgh and subsequently at various conferences when I was in practice. He’s a nice guy and modest about himself. Thanks for all the effort you have put into this.
I couldn’t agree more (as another psychiatrist who attended many of his talks) and nice to hear his name again. He definitely had an astute bullshit detector and was always ready to challenge the latest, often unproven, fads.
I thought his cheerfulness was very notable -- he obviously cares very deeply about getting things right, but he also has an innate resilience and self-deprecation that means he's not too self-serious about it. Louis Appleby, his co-author, also bravely signed up to review the Tavistock's suicide rates after the ban on puberty blockers (and found none).
Weirdly I have heard comments about the sunspot thing before - specifically that there was virtually no solar activity for about 30ish years during the 17th century…which lines up pretty neatly with the mini-Ice Age (and a period of significant political turmoil). Though the astronomer who mentioned this wasn’t sure if there was any link at all - more along the lines of “this is interesting.”
"dismissed the idea that women are just as brilliant as men" ... I was doing a PGCert (Higher Education) in 2019 and a colleague challenged that the list of learning theorists we were given to research was all male. Another student (we were all already qualified in our own fields and just moving into HE) stated that the tutor (who had immediately acknowledged the error) couldn't include them if there just weren't any women. There was more than a sharp intake of breath!
Very much enjoyed your talk about this book in Bath recently. Although Eysenck's popular penguins got me to become an academic psychologists as a 60's schoolboy, it's good to have him finally called out. On the book more generally - good to have genius problematised in that way. I wonder if there is a mirror image book to be written (perhaps 'Stupid') in which you theorise the opposite end of the spectrum?
What is it with some of these psychologists (or geniuses) and the fascination with numbers that link to age? Freud had a fear of the number 62 and thought he would die then.
That excerpt was fun to read....as was the comment from a woman reader who walked out of one of his lectures when he said the women could stay buy he did not know why they would want to......
Now me .....I'm an f ing genius.....I tell myself as I prepare to go homeless again.....
"The name of Hans Eysenck is little remembered now..."
I feel very old reading this blog. Eysenck was big when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, published in slim blue Pelican paperbacks, which were very prestigious.
Some time around 1980 our teacher got us to take Eysenck's personality test, the one that categorised subjects according to Galen's four humours (choleric, sanguine, melancholy, phlegmatic). It's a long time ago now, but I remember the survey questions included at least one about stereotypes of Jews, which I found offensive, which indicated I was introverted according to Eysenck, which struck me as odd - what if I was an extrovert who thought racial stereotypes were offensive? (Or an extrovert Jew, for that matter).
Eysenck's views on race & IQ were popular with the kind of boys who thought apartheid was a Good Thing. Sounds like this stuff is coming back again, so well done for exposing its shaky foundations to a younger generation.
Excellent article! Dunning and Kruger could have modeled their theories after Eysenck. Why do you think his colleagues let him get away with it? Science is great, but scientists are still just people...
I wonder if there is an opposite effect, for those who are not treated as a genius but later mature into their strengths. From my observations, many of us go through different phases of recognition of genius depending in part on circumstances, in part on actualization.
As the book cover depicted suggests, along with Astrology, the endorsement and promotion of "psychic powers" is a red flag for poor scientific rigor , if not outright fraud, given the lax conditions and cheating exposed by James Randi, in clear sight of gullible researchers .
Great extract and very enjoyable read. I lost count of the times that I mentally cried, "What! No way!" I'll be ordering a copy of The Genius Myth to be further entertained and infuriated.
Cheers.
Thank you for this book -I look forward to reading it for all the ways it will vindicate my *longstanding view that this man was a scandalous charlatan -definitely not a genius! *When I was a first year as a young but mature enough psychology student to question things,(1965/6 this man came to give a lecture at the university and also a Q&A talk in the Psychology department. Up close from the front row he looked surprisingly disreputable but worse - after looking down at me and several other keen but coincidentally blonde (yes that too) minority of young women - he spoke directly to us saying that he was pleased to be there -but couldn’t understand why we were there… we could stay if we wanted to but.. Our dear Prof didn’t know what he meant but I did and shocked at the blatant insult I walked out and the others followed. Emperors knew clothes it may have been but in later studies it was even more obvious that his methods and claims were unsupportable and his views obnoxious.
I never cited his work and would always explain to my students later my reasons for this and how they should not do so nor use his inventories but to question and look further and better. In my Adult Education teaching the hidden scandal of Eysenck and his influence was a great example for many wide ranging topics of discussion (political social historical, geographical critical feminist etc) relating to psychological research and it’s influence. I’m glad we can now call time on all his dangerous nonsense!
This might be an unanswerable question, but do you it’s likely there are other Eysenck equivalents out there, maybe smart enough to fly under the radar, but still poisoning the well?
My copy arrived this morning. Brought it into work (library) to cover it, as I suspect it will become very well thumbed (and will probably be added to the library).
Great piece. Pretty damning indictment of the whole review process!
Yeah. If that interests you, both Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions and Jesse Singal’s The Quick Fix are very good on this
This is interesting, well written and valuable. Your book is excellent. Tony Pelosi sparkled at the many talks of his I attended when a trainee in Edinburgh and subsequently at various conferences when I was in practice. He’s a nice guy and modest about himself. Thanks for all the effort you have put into this.
I couldn’t agree more (as another psychiatrist who attended many of his talks) and nice to hear his name again. He definitely had an astute bullshit detector and was always ready to challenge the latest, often unproven, fads.
I thought his cheerfulness was very notable -- he obviously cares very deeply about getting things right, but he also has an innate resilience and self-deprecation that means he's not too self-serious about it. Louis Appleby, his co-author, also bravely signed up to review the Tavistock's suicide rates after the ban on puberty blockers (and found none).
Weirdly I have heard comments about the sunspot thing before - specifically that there was virtually no solar activity for about 30ish years during the 17th century…which lines up pretty neatly with the mini-Ice Age (and a period of significant political turmoil). Though the astronomer who mentioned this wasn’t sure if there was any link at all - more along the lines of “this is interesting.”
Right, there's no causal mechanism anyone can suggest for why it's more than "huh, interesting coincidence".
And I think it was more in the sense of “could this affect the climate” not an individual brain!
Enjoyed the article.
Will be listening to " The Genius Myth' on audiobook (as I did with "Difficult Women" and "The Spark").
The Wayback Machine didn't seem to like your link for reference 4.
Incorrect link? Or forces at work removing the rebuttal again?...
You can ask for stuff to be excluded from the WM, so maybe it's that.
"dismissed the idea that women are just as brilliant as men" ... I was doing a PGCert (Higher Education) in 2019 and a colleague challenged that the list of learning theorists we were given to research was all male. Another student (we were all already qualified in our own fields and just moving into HE) stated that the tutor (who had immediately acknowledged the error) couldn't include them if there just weren't any women. There was more than a sharp intake of breath!
Very much enjoyed your talk about this book in Bath recently. Although Eysenck's popular penguins got me to become an academic psychologists as a 60's schoolboy, it's good to have him finally called out. On the book more generally - good to have genius problematised in that way. I wonder if there is a mirror image book to be written (perhaps 'Stupid') in which you theorise the opposite end of the spectrum?
Thanks for sharing the extract.
What is it with some of these psychologists (or geniuses) and the fascination with numbers that link to age? Freud had a fear of the number 62 and thought he would die then.
That excerpt was fun to read....as was the comment from a woman reader who walked out of one of his lectures when he said the women could stay buy he did not know why they would want to......
Now me .....I'm an f ing genius.....I tell myself as I prepare to go homeless again.....
Mr Dodo B Bird. American Dissident Artist.
Dodobbird.pixels.com. (POD ART SITE)
"The name of Hans Eysenck is little remembered now..."
I feel very old reading this blog. Eysenck was big when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, published in slim blue Pelican paperbacks, which were very prestigious.
Some time around 1980 our teacher got us to take Eysenck's personality test, the one that categorised subjects according to Galen's four humours (choleric, sanguine, melancholy, phlegmatic). It's a long time ago now, but I remember the survey questions included at least one about stereotypes of Jews, which I found offensive, which indicated I was introverted according to Eysenck, which struck me as odd - what if I was an extrovert who thought racial stereotypes were offensive? (Or an extrovert Jew, for that matter).
Eysenck's views on race & IQ were popular with the kind of boys who thought apartheid was a Good Thing. Sounds like this stuff is coming back again, so well done for exposing its shaky foundations to a younger generation.
Excellent article! Dunning and Kruger could have modeled their theories after Eysenck. Why do you think his colleagues let him get away with it? Science is great, but scientists are still just people...
I wonder if there is an opposite effect, for those who are not treated as a genius but later mature into their strengths. From my observations, many of us go through different phases of recognition of genius depending in part on circumstances, in part on actualization.
Thank you for these provoking ideas.
Royal Society rather than Royal Academy?
Royal Academy is art, Royal Society is science.
Your sub-editor has been on a frolic in the ninth para. Though the Academy was no better at admitting women than the Society.
Thanks for spotting!
As the book cover depicted suggests, along with Astrology, the endorsement and promotion of "psychic powers" is a red flag for poor scientific rigor , if not outright fraud, given the lax conditions and cheating exposed by James Randi, in clear sight of gullible researchers .