Pseudoscience activists in action: Local complications surrounding an accreditation at the University of Montenegro

...so talents and sciences are easier to suppress than to resurrect..." (Tacit: Agricultural)

The accreditation of all studies and courses is underway at the University of Montenegro. We have one course on this subject, and that course is accompanied by local complications.

The subject of Psychology of Literature and Art, which we proposed for accreditation during the current accreditation process of the Psychology Studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Nikšić, is conceived of as four parts that make up the psychology of literature itself as an arm of personality psychology plus the psychology of art, as an arm of the psychology of perception, which is proposed in the form/composition in which it exists at the Psychology Studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. More precisely, all of this would have been proposed (but was rejected in advance and without a single word of comment and was not accepted), during the current accreditation, just as it would have been proposed during the previous one if it had not taken place, literally speaking, behind my back, so that I was denied the opportunity to do so, in a very rude and illegal manner. Why this happened, if you are interested, you should ask the then administration of the Faculty of Philosophy - who would certainly not have told you or admitted that they had or, at least, had a completely understandable aversion to the author of this text, since, although the only doctor of psychology (at that time) at the University of Montenegro, he was not to her liking, with his tribal and spahi-tempered temper.

The first of the four parts of the Psychology of Literature course is based (please pay attention!) on Aristotle Poetics in which a typology composed of four vivid dramatic characters is presented, which (I mean, typology), has survived centuries and still holds up very well when it comes to dramatic, film and narrative characters, and it is no different, I think, when it comes to people outside the theatrical, literary or film scene. Among such characters is alazon, and this is about a fraud, a con artist, a hoaxer, and a character who is smeared in various ways, about whose "real" existence, I don't think much evidence is needed, although it will be necessary for us to provide, arrange, and present such evidence in a psychometric manner, given that this is a subject related to empirical science.

For now, we would just like to note that in the same typology we are talking about, there are also heron te pharmacist i agricon which we will explain in more detail on another occasion, as we would like to add right away (especially in these “transitional” times) that this character, from the earliest classics to the present day, has been portrayed with special care and skill in many literary, dramatic and film works. In the domestic tradition, homoheroikus/homobalkanikus stands out in a fairly developed number of special variants, and for Montenegrin circumstances we must/are obliged to particularly, in both historical and literary terms, single out and emphasize none other than Šcepan the Little. And, please don't be surprised when you hear that there are alazonas in science and among scientists, and there were some when the Psychology Department was formed in Nikšić: for that occasion, they traveled to Nikšić from one of the worst universities in Europe; only to be treated here as an elite whose incompetence, admittedly, must be concealed with the greatest care. (But when the book "Motivation for Achievement in Organizations" appeared, and especially since we featured the book in Art, the cultural supplement of Vijesti, concealment is probably no longer so easy).

We will also have to draw your attention to the fact that none of the aforementioned typology has been established in modern psychology/psychiatry, and that we clearly believe that the time has come to radically change this infamous fact (and we are trying to do so).

As is known, in psychology there are typologies, such as those presented by German psychiatrists Krečmer i Kraepelin what they say about asthenics and pycnics or about affectothymic and syothymic types and those that the American psychologist talks about William Sheldon which precisely and based on measurements of body constitution, distinguished the ecto, endo and mesomorphic types - all of the above typologies have a long tradition in their historical background that originated from the "father" of medicine Hippocrates and, thanks to the practical authority of medicine, they have survived until recently, when their definitions have been sought in terms of neuropsychological and hormonal processes. The significance and practical importance of medicine have therefore cast a shadow over Aristotle's typology, and we believe that the time has come to remove such a shadow from the past, for the reason that the aforementioned neuropsychological, neurochemical and hormonal definitions are quite possible when it comes to Aristotle's types.

Is it possible, for example, that fraudsters/fraudsters do not have their own neuro-biological basis? Not to mention the fact that the types from "Poetics" have a significantly broader and more vivid behavioral scope than that from standard typologies. And that is what we (in the first of four places) propose in the subject we are citing and which we are nominating for, obviously, the most exacting checks (and all of which, we will add, was not even requested from us for consideration by the Accreditation Commission).

The second part of the course that we have proposed for accreditation constitutes a variant of differential psychology and appears in two wings: in-depth (a) and cognitive (b) (a) In the “in-depth” wing, we are faced with numerous studies in psychological hermeneutics that are dedicated to the dynamics of literary response, in which both classical and structuralist psychoanalysis and analytical and ego-psychology make their contributions, with numerous authors among whom the most famous are: E. Džons, O. Rank, E. Gombrih, N. Holland, I. Jelom, Ž. Lakan, KG Jung etc. starting, of course, from the very Sigmund FreudOn this wing we have, conceived in the past, a domestic tradition that comes into being, for example H. Klein, known as a Shakespearean scholar and also as an original interpreter, except Shakespeare's, also Krleža's i Sophocles dramas and characters, and works and characters from the opus DostoyevskyThis tradition, which was destined to die out due to the evolution of Yugoslav communism, had in it one V. Matić, the founder of paleopsychology, as a psychoanalysis of the mythical past, and in the not-so-distant past, despite everything, it nevertheless developed very richly thanks to authors such as: V. Jerotic (“Disease and Creation”; “Gifts from Our Relatives: Psychological Essays from Domestic Literature”); N. Milosevic (“Ideology, Psychology, Creativity”, “Psychology of Knowledge”); Z. Gluščević (“Alpha and Omega: Literature and the Psychology of the Unconscious”; “Guilt and Punishment”); P. Dzadzic (“Homo heroikus/homo balkanikus”) etc. If, therefore, the obstacles can no longer come from communist materialism, the question is what then remains as a reason why this tradition could not continue. Only ignorance and lack of hearing for the paths taken by psychology in emancipation from the tribal that takes place in concepts, customs and manners - if these are not domestic/local reasons, I do not know what could be.

(b) On its “cognitive” wing, this (differential) psychology brings us Lev Vygotsky and his "Psychology of Art" which, in the analysis of aesthetic reaction (or aesthetic stimulus), points us to such literary structures as fables, short stories and tragic dramas, with novels or fairy tales as open possibilities, both in their classical and modern forms.

The third part of the course would consist of experimentation in the field of literary/artistic language and experimentation in the field of literary genres and aesthetic forms. This experimentation is, in a way, analogous to the experimentation that is carried out with linguistic material in a standard way in many psychological laboratories: we believe that experimental work with metaphor, metonymy, verse meter, and the like, and with, as we have said, special literary/aesthetic forms/types, yields results that advance the entire field of the mental at a fundamental/basic level, and that such experimental interventions give us a more complete insight into the mental processes that take place in our minds. One cardinal result, for example, to which a Nobel Prize also drew our attention, pointed out to us a fundamental neuro-psychological dualism in which we can speak of "two brains" - left and right - with a natural division of mental functions into rational (logical thinking, verbal expression, control of temporal mode, arithmetic reasoning) which are related to one of these brains and, on the other hand, into irrational (control of spatial mode and perception of form, control of intuition, and aesthetic perception and expression) which are related to the other of them (accordingly, one can sometimes speak of left as well as right psychology).

For example, in order for an expression that is verbally formulated thanks to the work of the left brain to be able to encompass the aesthetic dimension, for example, to encompass the comic and funny, it is necessary, both in its "creation" and in its perception, to simultaneously involve the right brain, as shown by relevant experiments: for example, experiments in which a subject who reads a joke only with his left brain (which, in a technical sense, can be precisely adjusted) understands what he has read as a "neutral" text, but does not understand it as a joke, and when he reads it exclusively with the right brain, his reaction is unbridled laughter, except that he does not know and cannot explain what he is laughing at at all.

Everything presented above (in the three parts) represents "solid" and sufficiently extensive material for the formation of a teaching subject and its accreditation.

The fourth part of “our” subject anticipates a (for now) hypothetical part and provides opportunities for (completely) new research. We have named/labeled this part as TRS. We will see very clearly what TRS is when (the two of us working on it) finish constructing the tests by which RS is to be measured and by whose measures we are to arrive at initial distributions that would suggest the formulation of a theory that, very likely, refers to an entire area that today's psychology has not yet discovered (and, if you are interested, we will also explain why it has not) and with which this part of psychology will be integrated with both the cognitive processes and the moral concepts that modern psychology otherwise reports on.

After all, why wouldn't the Psychology Studies in Nikšić be a well-known address for research in the field of psychology of literature? A world-famous and recognizable address?

Yes, without false modesty. When I say this I mean that “human knowledge” (B. Russell) objective knowledge and that it belongs to the “third world”, as defined by the theory of science which must be taken as relevant and which, drawing the boundaries between the “three worlds”, establishes the following (o tome: Popper, K.R.: Objective Knowledge; An Evolutionary Approach: Oxford University Pres, 1972). The first world, this theory says, encompasses physical objects and living beings as physical bodies; the second world is the world of subjective experiences, such as emotions, thought processes, private moods and beliefs. The third world is the world of scientific concepts, ideas, scientific laws, hypotheses and theories - all of which are assumed to have objective existence and autonomy (and thus to be distinct from world two) and that relations within the "third world" must be treated on the basis of objective criteria in order to determine their truth value.

Everything we have listed in the curriculum of the course we have proposed (as well as what we have not listed) belongs to the field of objective knowledge; even the fourth part is not, in principle, different, although it is hypothetical, the only thing that is necessary, in this case, is to wait for appropriate checks and testing. And it would certainly be attractive to carry out the testing in these years in which Nikšić is the European capital/city of culture.

The fifth part of this text, which is not part of our curriculum but must accompany it for now, establishes that everything we have presented is radically different from pseudoscience and its various offshoots, and we will, in that sense, make the necessary comparisons.

Our first example of pseudoscience is the book “The Motive of Achievement in Organizations”, about which (some will remember) we published a review last year in the cultural supplement “Vijesti” that completely exposed, not to say destroyed, the said book in a logical, theoretical and pragmatic sense. The reaction that came from the (co)authors of the book was assessed in Art as a reaction that contains elements of fascism (it was mentioned Levels) and elements of Stalinism (it was mentioned A. Zhdanov). And now, if you allow me, I would like to ask a question: how is it possible that the same author was appointed as a member of the Commission for Accreditation of Psychology Studies and was also appointed as the head of the Psychology Studies themselves (anywhere, and here, in Nikšić)? (We actually believe that, with her reaction, she justified the reputation of a “forest/wild university” for the university where she earned all her degrees).

Another example of pseudoscience is the book "Personality of Managers and Employee Motivation", which is, in fact, a master's thesis, defended at Pale/University of East Sarajevo (which is usually somewhere between 6000th and 7000th place on the list of universities, at best). When, with enormous effort, you get to that book, you immediately determine that it contains just about all the essential characteristics of pseudoscience (which kills any desire to continue with such authors) and, if necessary, I will explain it to you in detail: now, instead, we will only state the following: the book, i.e. The master's thesis is based on research conducted on employees of EPCG, which, as it is claimed, has been a "ban" for the DPS, the ruling party in Montenegro, for decades: although this fact about the "ban" known to everyone in Montenegro (which of course also, as a hypothetical statement, should have been verified) is not stated in the paper itself or in the research (which should represent a certain analogy with a world-famous research), it is possible that it determines and distorts all the results that are stated: these are results that are, therefore, determined on a biased sample. And it is not just a matter of the sample not being representative, but, above all, of the fact that the "population" targeted by the said research was "distorted" by the political selection of employees (which also needed to be empirically verified), while the research itself does not take this into account or mention it at all (especially it does not mention it as a methodological problem) and thus it loses touch with reality and truth. In addition to the fact that in the work/research/book there are other ways in which the DPS is “deservedly” praised: for example, when under “desirable traits of leaders” are listed traits that simply copy/paraphrase the DPS slogan: “Young, beautiful, smart!” In any case, these circumstances had to be taken into account and had to be put under research control - and they were not: so that it could be said that politics, political suitability and the DPS were placed above science and the scientific method - although the author/researcher, one would say, does not see this and perhaps does not even understand it. We do not know how long this “eyes wide open” romance with the DPS lasted (and whether it still lasts) however. We only know that everything we have just listed falls within the characteristic features (even the definition) of pseudoscience (o tome: Eysenck, H. J.: Uses and Abuses of Psychology. London, Penguin BookWe also know that the author of the aforementioned paper/book has been appointed as a member of the Commission for Accreditation of Psychology Studies.

So, what is the common denominator of the members of the Commission for Accreditation of Psychology Studies in Nikšić? Their common denominator is pseudoscience and the degrees that were obtained, from undergraduate studies to doctorates, at the 6000/7000 university, so, if you will allow me, we have the most important question: how can this forced "cadre" from the 6000/7000 university make the University of Montenegro better and improve its position on the list of world universities? The answer, and the only possible answer, must be: it absolutely cannot, on the contrary.

For the above reasons, we repeat our question from last year: How to protect psychology in Montenegro from temptations?

How? Certainly not by having pseudoscience activists appointed to the Commission for Accreditation of Studies. Accreditation and pseudoscience: what is the consequence? The consequence is the reproduction of pseudoscience, the reproduction of pseudoexperts/continuators and descendants of those scoundrels who stood at the beginning of the Psychology Studies in Nikšić. Instead of all this being “figured out”, it is being revived and maintained and “improved”. And all this is happening in a city that has become the European capital of culture. And in which, here, there is no place in the Psychology Studies for the subject Psychology of Literature and Art, which would, without a doubt, represent the most direct connection of psychology, both as a science and as a profession, precisely with culture.