Whether or not the account (i.e., the historical interpretation) provided by McConnell based upon his interviewing Mr. Coleman was true or not, at this point in time, has no definitive answer. Thus, it is not a historical fact and cannot be classified as historical fiction. The question then becomes, what interpretation do the existing data fragments point towards? I would encourage the reader with a real interest in why Watson was fired to read the article published by Dr. Ludy T. Benjamin Jr. and colleagues (2007; “John B. Watson’s Alleged Sex Research: An Appraisal of the Evidence”) in the American Psychologist. The article provides the most recent and available data fragments. My own interpretation is consistent with the authors that “the story of Watson’s sexual research was just that—a story, so much gossip” (p. 138). Textbooks, which had previously included McConnell’s interpretation (e.g., Schultz & Schultz’s textbook), have in more recent editions dropped the story.
Despite believing that it is unlikely that Watson conducted sexual research described by Coleman, I’ve wondered whether or not Watson did tell the story to co-workers. Watson was not beyond being boastful and embellishing his sexual escapades. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Watson certainly did like to talk about sex, but no conclusive evidence exists at this point in time.
Incomplete Knowledge: Undiscovered Data Fragments
Finally, two last uses of the dinosaur analogy. First, even with dinosaurs that have the majority of the fossilized bones discovered (often from multiple finds), new discoveries can always add to the picture to gain a better understanding. As an example relevant to history, Charles Darwin is one of the most researched individuals in the history of science, and there currently exist a large number of books devoted to Darwin.
Yet, even recently, new evidence about Darwin came to light which adds to the understanding about Darwin the family man, and how his personal experience may have influenced his thinking about evolution. Specifically, Randal Keynes, the great-great-grandson of Darwin (also the great-nephew of John Maynard Keynes, the economist), found in a box of family “odds and ends” the writing case of Annie Darwin, who became ill and died when she was only 10 years old. The case contained notebooks and letters written by Darwin about his daughter as the family cared for her over the course of her illness. Keynes’s book (2002), Darwin, his Daughter, & Human Evolution, added “bones” to our understanding of Darwin. There may yet be undiscovered materials that will be forthcoming as one never knows if all of the relevant data fragments have been uncovered.
Second, I suspect that currently all of the dinosaur fossil remains in the ground have not been discovered, which means that new findings (i.e., new dinosaurs) are always a possibility. Likewise, new findings occur in history as well. My favorite example of a new finding relevant to the history of psychology occurred quite by accident. Professor Ludy T. Benjamin Jr. was one day visiting the University of Akron and reading the letters of a psychologist he was researching. The University of Akron is where the Archives of the History of American Psychology are located. It is the largest central source of “data fragments” for researchers interested in the history of psychology in the United States (see www.uakron.edu/ahap). When looking through relevant folders for his research, one labeled “P.R.T” was noticed. Since Dr. Benjamin wondered what “PRT” stood for, he opened the folder, which contained only four one page letters. What became apparent to him from reading the letters, which included the names of some well-known psychologists, was that “PRT” appeared to be the initials of a secret psychological society. In digging for more information, Dr. Benjamin would eventually discover that a secret organization began in 1936 by 6 psychologists and called itself the Psychological Round Table (PRT). The group met once a year, was by invitation only from the “secret six,” and limited to young male psychologists. Those who attended the early meetings were “a select group containing many individuals who were to become the prominent figures of American psychology in the 1950s” (Benjamin, 1977, p. 542).
Dr. Benjamin was ultimately invited to attend the 40th anniversary of the PRT, when the “secret six” became aware that he was researching the group. The only major difference he noticed in comparison to the early descriptions was that women were now included at the gatherings. To complete the analogy, Dr. Benjamin discovered a before unknown dinosaur, which contributes to our overall knowledge about the history of psychology.[1]
Chapter 3: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION: PITFALLS THAT CAN MISLEAD
The previous chapter emphasized that history is a combination of both facts and interpretations. History is not “fixed,” but dynamic in response to new evidence. In this chapter I discuss how (a) historical researchers may mislead themselves when interpreting discovered data fragments, and (b) how data fragments of history can inhibit, or mislead when formulating an interpretation. Please do not misinterpret that I am implying that all individuals will ultimately come to the wrong conclusions when interpreting historical data fragments, but it is important to emphasize that the possibility of a faulty conclusion does exist. Because of the subjective nature of the decision making process—at some inevitable point, the researcher must fill in the gaps between fragments to complete the picture.
The Importance of Objectivity
Individuals who are reconstructing history are supposed to be objective in their interpretation of evidence. In essence, it is the evidence or data fragments that should help point to the most likely historical interpretation. Yet, historians bring “to their research a bundle of prejudices, preconceptions, penchants, premises, predilections, predispositions, and philosophical orientations. Such personal baggage does not mean that they abandon all hope for objectivity, nor does it mean that their histories are hopelessly flawed” (Benjamin, 2006, p. 9). Good historians attempt to take their own biases into account when interpreting evidence, but this can be a difficult task, especially since individuals often chose subject areas that are personally relevant in some way. For example, a historian may choose to investigate Freud because they admire his theory. The opposite is also true, as Freud may be chosen because the individual believes his theory is nonsense. Interpreting and writing history objectively should be thought of as a struggle, as opposed to an easy task.
Personal Biases
The historian, or any individual attempting to interpret history, often begins with an idea about what they believed happened, which can influence the interpretation of the data fragments. Research has demonstrated that current beliefs directly influence our ability to objectively analyze evidence, even in individuals who have been trained to think in an objective manner (Riniolo, 2008). We may latch on to “positive evidence” that supports what we already suspect (i.e., an inherent bias toward supporting evidence), while discounting or ignoring evidence that is not consistent with what we believed happened. Once an idea about what occurred has been formed, we all have a tendency to look for evidence that is already consistent with what we believe. Focusing on finding positive evidence further reinforces our opinion, but we do not with equal vigor seek out evidence that would contradict our belief. Psychologists call this a confirmation bias, and the confirmation bias has been demonstrated in a wide variety of situations and influences even those who are aware of this biased form of data collection. Once we develop a strong opinion, it can be difficult to give up our belief even in response to overwhelming new evidence (Riniolo, 2008; Riniolo & Nisbet, 2007). Thus, personal biases can ultimately influence historical interpretations.
Let me provide an example of how beginning with an idea of what happened appears to have influenced historical interpretation. One question I had become previously interested in was the accuracy of eyewitness testimony from survivors of the Titanic who witnessed the ship’s final plunge (see Riniolo, Koledin, Drakulic, & Payne, 2003). Specifically, how did the eyewitnesses recall the ship’s state during its final plunge, as intact or breaking apart? Until the wreck of the Titanic was discovered in 1985 and it was demonstrated that the bow of the ship had settl
ed on the ocean floor about 1970 feet from the stern (Ballard, 1987), and subsequent forensic analysis indicated that there was “no doubt” (Garzke, Brown, Sandiford, Woodward, & Hsu, 1996, p. 250) that the Titanic’s main hull was breaking apart while the ship was still on the surface of the water, the eyewitness testimony were the only data fragments available to historians to interpret what happened.
Specifically, a combined total of 91 Titanic survivors testified at hearings by the United States Senate (April 19-May 25, 1912) and the British Board of Trade (May 2-July 3, 1912). The transcripts of both sets of hearings are available on the internet (www.titanicinquiry.org/). The survivors responded to a wide range of questions (e.g., loading of the lifeboats, the actions of Captain Smith). Our investigation was limited to those who directly commented on viewing the condition of the ship during the final plunge (i.e., intact or breaking apart) as not all witnesses were asked about this topic. This resulted in total of 20 eyewitnesses, some of whom testified at both hearings. I will return to what the eyewitnesses recalled momentarily.
As noted above, it can be a difficult task to objectively interpret information when a preexisting belief exists. It was a widely held belief at the time and by subsequent historians that the Titanic was “the most perfect work of naval architecture the world has ever produced” (Wood, 1912, p. 160). The Titanic was really viewed as the “unsinkable” ship. It is likely that those interpreting the tragedy were biased towards interpreting the final plunge in the best possible light. Sinking intact is closer to the preexisting belief that the Titanic was unsinkable than the ship breaking apart as it was about to plunge to its final destination on the ocean’s floor.
So, what did the eyewitnesses recall, which at the time were the only data fragments available to evaluators and historians prior to the Titanic’s discovery in 1985? Of the 20 survivors who testified to having witnessed the Titanic’s final plunge, 15 (75%) accurately recalled that the ship was breaking. It appears that the data fragments should have led subsequent historians to the correct conclusion.
Despite the majority of testimony at both the United States and British hearings recalling that the Titanic was breaking while on the ocean’s surface, both hearings concluded in their final reports that the Titanic sank intact. In addition, I am unaware of any historian who believed that the Titanic was breaking prior to its discovery. Virtually every author writing about the Titanic, except Mowbray (1912) who summarized eyewitness accounts, concluded the Titanic sank intact. With one exception, every evaluator came to a conclusion that was in direct contrast to the only available evidence at the time (i.e., the survivors’ testimony).
Eva Hart, who was only 7 years old when the ship sank and who lost her father in the tragedy, provides an interesting case history of this specific issue. She did not testify at the hearings because of her age, but had repeatedly stated over the years in interviews prior to the discovery of the ship that the Titanic was breaking (Denney & Hart, 1995). Historians told her repeatedly over the years that her memory was mistaken because the evidence showed the ship sank intact. She never wavered from her belief and was ultimately demonstrated to be correct. Perhaps the most famous example depicting the Titanic sinking intact was in Walter Lord’s (1956) A Night to Remember, which was also made into a movie. For those who are old enough to remember, prior to the Titanic being discovered there was talk of “raising” the ship as a whole if it was ever located, because everyone assumed that it was lying intact on the ocean floor.
This example of the Titanic should alert us all to the influence that preexisting beliefs can have on historical interpretation. If historians had objectively interpreted the data fragments of history, they should have come to the correct conclusion that the ship was breaking apart initially, which is what 75% of the eyewitnesses reported. Finally, the Titanic example given above is useful in another way. The conclusions made by the United States and British hearings were sources that had great influence over historians who would make subsequent interpretations. If the initial conclusion is wrong, it can be repeated or easily accepted without proper scrutiny by subsequent individuals.
What are the Relevant Biases of the Author?
This discussion of individual biases influencing how we interpret historical information leads to a very pertinent question. What are the author’s own views towards Freud and psychoanalysis? I think this is a legitimate question to ask, and one which I try and ascertain about other authors when reading about Freud as so many who have written about him have had extremely strong opinions (both pro and con), which can ultimately influence what is presented, and how history is interpreted. For example, like so many others who have written about Freud, this book will rely in some instances upon Freud’s official biographer Ernest Jones. Jones was an exceptional writer, and I encourage you to read his three Volume biography of Freud, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (Volume 1 is available at the Internet Archive; http://www.archive.org/).
One almost has to rely upon Jones’ work in some instances because Jones had access to materials that most historians have not been allowed to view, and perhaps will never be allowed to scrutinize. Yet, Jones was not only a personal friend of Freud, but he can accurately be described as an ardent supporter of Freud and psychoanalysis as he was one of the people who attempted to popularize psychoanalysis in America. It is important to keep that in mind when evaluating his work, as others may have different interpretations of the same events based upon their views of Freud. This is not unique to Freud’s biographers, as many examples could be given where what a biographer chooses to present and how they interpret specific data fragments is strongly influenced by their own personal beliefs towards the subject material.
How do I describe my own views towards Freud and psychoanalysis, keeping in mind that self-reports are limited themselves? First, I think it is important to separate the man from the movement. In regards to Freud the man, I view him like the rest of us, as a person with both pros and cons. Some of his pros were his work ethic, his loyalty to certain people, he possessed some admirable qualities as a husband and father, and his diligence about answering letters that were sent to him. Some of his negatives were his willingness to falsely report clinical outcomes in journal articles (examples will be coming in forthcoming chapters), and his vindictiveness to those who disagreed with him. Also, some of Freud’s close friendships ended badly over disagreements about his theories. Thus, I have mixed views towards Freud the person.
My opinions about psychoanalysis as a theory are more straightforward. If I am feeling diplomatic at the time, I would give a response very similar to F.A. Hayek’s. Hayek, who won a Nobel prize in 1974 for his work in economics, also made a very important contribution to psychology with the publication of The Sensory Order: An Inquiry Into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology first written in 1952 (for more details about Hayek’s contributions to psychology, see Mahoney & Weimer, 1994). This book, written during the height of behaviorism (see Chapter 1), focuses on the mental mechanisms that influence perceptions. Hayek’s book is a forerunner to modern cognitive psychology. In the preface of The Sensory Order, Hayek describes the influential individuals (e.g., Wundt, James, Lashley) and schools of thought (e.g., Gestalt) which influenced him and with which he was familiar (he was an economist by training, but had a long-time interest in psychology). Hayek had this to say about psychoanalysis, “I have to admit that I have never been able to derive much profit from that school” (Hayek, 1952/1976, p. vi).
If I am feeling less diplomatic, I would likely say something like the psychologist Raymond Cattell who offered the following opinion when psychology and psychoanalysis were battling to be the true science of the mind (see Chapter 1), “As to psychoanalysis, it is not so much a question of science as a matter of taste, as Doctor Freud is an artist, rather than scientist, who lives in a fairy-land of dreams among the ogres of perverted sex” (Wiggam, 1928, p. 341). Ultimately, I believe that Freud’s theories moved us further away from a tru
e understanding of the human condition and the underlying causes of mental illness. Without Freud’s influence, perhaps today we would have a better understanding of mental illness because so many would not have gone down the wrong path. Many others will disagree with my assessment, as it is an opinion.
Could my own views towards psychoanalysis and Freud influence what is presented in this book? The answer is yes. I will attempt to limit the influence of my own personal biases, but the research literature clearly demonstrates that all of us are vulnerable (e.g., confirmation bias), and even a self-awareness that biases exist is often times not sufficient to completely control their influence (Riniolo, 2008). All authors who have written about Freud have their own biases to deal with, as Freud the man and Freudian theory are topic areas in which most who have written have strong preexisting views.
Biased Data Fragments
Bias can not only come from personal views, but in other ways as well. One such way is when the available data fragments that historians or biographers have to review can themselves be a biased source of information. As one example, if the data fragments have been selectively omitted, potentially important information is skewed or lost. As Sulloway (1979, p. 7) points out, “Freud took steps to deny history well before he had assured himself a place of lasting fame in its graces. Twice in his life, in 1885 and again in 1907, he completely destroyed all his manuscripts, private diaries, notes, and correspondence.” Freud wrote to his fiancée, Martha Bernays, about the 1885 destruction when he was only 28 years old (cited in Sulloway, 1979, p. 7):
Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History Page 4