Talk:Bruno Bettelheim/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

"As examples... I cite..."

"As examples of the comprehensive understanding of very ill children Bettelheim bravely advanced throughout the book I cite..." This doesn't seem the place for first-person argumentation. Suggest that this be deleted, but not sure where the boundaries might be for getting rid of such a personal POV. Clocke (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Refrigerator Mothers

Can anyone out there provide an exact citation for the "refrigerator mother" syndrome (presumably from "The Empty Fortress"? A friend of mine questions whether Bettelheim actually used this term. Any help greatly appreciated.

A search on Google Books shows that the phrase "refrigerator mother" does not occur in any book written by Bettelheim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A search of Google Books certainly returns many references to "refrigerator mothers" in close connection to Bettelheim's views. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22refrigerator+mothers%22#hl=en&newwindow=1&tbm=bks&spell=1&q=%22refrigerator+mothers%22+Bettelheim&sa=X&psj=1&ei=a8-IULXzNuSzygG_sIDIDA&ved=0CDEQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=388cb4fd0a7e2fb2&bpcl=35466521&biw=1152&bih=577 Clocke (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the sources, it was Leo Kanner who first used the term, and Bettelheim who popularized it : Autism, by Lisa D. Benaron

Ethomsen (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I included this and pulled a quote from the book. Hope you like it, and please include it if you can. :~) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_Bettelheim&diff=886847578&oldid=885703293

"Unintentionally hilarious" -- is this NPOV?

Here's the line: "The Uses of Enchantment recast fairy tales in terms of the strictest Freudian psychology, sometimes to unintentionally hilarious effect."

I'm reinstating this line. All but the most orthodox of Freudians find that Bettelheim goes to some laughable extremes. Remember, he wasn't *actually* a psychologist. Carolynparrishfan 18:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am taking the line out again, not because it is necessarily untrue that some people find the book risible, but it in no way reflects the vast influence the book has had on knowledge of and interest in folk and fairy tales. The line should only be included in a more balanced and fair account of the book. Jmc29 23 April 2006

Agree with Jmc29. It's not a question of whether or not whoever's writing this article finds it hilarious. Cite a reputable source that calls it hilarious, otherwise do not make statements like the one Jmc29 cut. Lexo (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Gathering in May 2005

This gathering had nothing to do with Bruno. Most of us there were in agreement that he was cruel, ignorant and a bully. We did not "celebrate" him in any way. In fact, his name was never mentioned in any public way.

His suicide freed up many of us to begin to talk about the evil the man inflicted upon us and to begin to heal. We needed each other, and have helped each other in many ways.

It is not true that all of the counselors who were there still admire Bruno. Most have now realized that he was a psychological terrorist and realize the damage he did to each and every one of his "patients".

The gathering was for us, not for him. He should go down in history as an abusive bully, a fraud and a liar.

I have no opinion one way or the other about the subject of the article. However, I must ask you to please review WP:NPOV before contributing on this particular subject. We recognize it is difficult to put aside strong feelings, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we must always attempt to present an impartial view. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also added the awards that this book won. Unlike some of this article, these are verifable objective facts. The general tenor of this article feels POV and, in my opinion, it should be flagged as such. (See also my note on his Biography

Please be careful of mentioning suicide as a good thing so that we do not cause hurt to his family. Wikipedia:Articles on suicides Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

--Roger Mexico 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Refrigerator mothers

Here's for starters: Refrigerator Mothers

Michael David 14:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia article - people should go beyond that for sources.--Parkwells (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A Controversial figure

I have edited and re-phrased some of this paragraph, to at least give it an approximation of the English language and coherence. However, some of the material still feels unsuitable for this context, and what is more there is no referencing to back up the claims. Can a dispassionate person who knows something on this subject work on this page?

Jmc29 21:50, 29 May 2006 (GMT)

This article should be flagged as self-contradictory. Separate paragraphs on Bettelheim's theory of autism and its consequences condemn and then excuse him as misunderstood by other practitioners.

The addendum on Bettelheim and homosexuality obviously breaches NPOV.

William lee0 11:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Balance in the Article

I am not going to edit the article because I would cause more controversy than the matter is worth. My credentials are as the parent of a daughter who spent twelve years at the Orthogenic School although she only overlapped Bettelheim for one of these.

That the article is grossly unfair to Bettelheim goes without saying. However he stood for an approach to the treatment of mental problems that is no longer practiced, apart from small enclaves (I assume the Shankman School continues), not because it was ineffective but because it was too expensive. In my experience the present-day drug-based approached is not one bit better. But it is much cheaper.

In this sense his life's work was not a success. He spent a number of years testing the "refrigerator parent theory" as a scientist ought to do and in the end he concluded it was false. His mode of therapy was rejected by society as too expensive. No wonder he was depressed.

He was not a diplomatic man and he made enemies. I feel the hostility that drips from the current article is offensive and unnecessary.

Why not just a straight career biography - actually there is one already in the article - a paragraph about his intellectual defeat and nothing more?

Kleinecke 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's known beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied about his education (he did NOT have a Ph.D. at the University, and actually did not even attend, not even for a day). Dozens of former female students have also claimed he viciously raped them, then blamed them for their trauma (because apparently it's always the woman's fault). See the book The Creation of Dr. B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim for further information. --Charlene 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no information that Dr. Bettelheim was ever accused of rape. Even his harshest critic states in "The Creation of Dr. B", that the few claims of minor sexual inappropriate behavior were made by mentally ill patients. The author, Pollak, doesn't believe the claims and states that not a single staff member reported anything at all regarding this accusation. This includes staff members with serious disagreements with Dr.Bettelheim, in other areas.

Benvhoff (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the reviews of a biography simply said he completed a PhD without honors, rather than the three with honors he had boasted about.--Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak . Simon & Schuster: 478 pp., $27.50, Los Angeles Times, review by Howard Gardner, Jan. 19, 1997.
' . . Two women testified that Bettelheim fondled their breasts and those of other female students. And while extolling the value of privacy at times, Bettelheim felt free to walk into any room and any bathroom at any time, even if teenage women were bathing. . '

Other sources talk about Bettelheim building his own fiefdom, beating students in a rage for seemingly trivial offenses, and these were full-time students who lived at the Orthogenic School, dragging a teenager out of the shower and beating her soaking wet, calling a teenager a "slut" because she had a picture of the Beatles on her wall (?), yes, really. It's certainly the type of environment where sexual abuse could occur. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The "hostility that drips from the current article" is perhaps because people are aware that because of this mendacious and formidable man, mothers across the world were told and are still being told to this day--yes, in the 21st century-- in places like France, Argentina, China, Saudi Arabia-- that they caused their child's autism by their coldness and lack of love. Bettelheim's theory has caused and is still causing divorces, conflict and untold misery in tens of thousands of families whose neighbors, friends, teachers and psychologists believed the writings of this "great man." I heard a University of Chicago vice-president mention Bettelheim approvingly twice in a recent speech, as if the university should be proud of him. His book The Empty Fortress continues in print as if it were still considered authoritative.

Bettelheim's only claim to any kind of academic authority was his expertise with autism, and that was based on lies and distortions of the truth-- even his friend Theron Raines admits in Raines' biography of Bettelheim that he was taken aback by the extent of Bettelheim's lying (he did not have the background in Vienna that he claimed, he did not spend years in concentration camps, "his" experience with an autistic girl turned out to be his wife's, his claims of cure were deliberately unverifiable because "it would disturb the patient", etc.). He should never have been given the awed reverence that he received for forty years, and still receives all too frequently. The real authority in the field and originator of the term autism, Leo Kanner, early on (1965) gave up his theory about "refrigerator mothers" because it didn't jibe with the facts he was observing. But that didn't stop Bettelheim from continuing against all evidence to blame mothers for the next 35 years, well after that mentality fell out of fashion.

I have actually seen a video of Bettelheim saying that he encourages children to urinate and spit on photos of their mothers because the mothers caused their autism.

What video? How does one respond to things like this?

Benvhoff (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He blamed mothers for everything. During the Vietnam war, I personally witnessed him telling a large audience of students that they opposed the Vietnam war because they hated their mothers.

He was a good writer, I'll give him that. He wrote eloquently about fairy tales.

Evangeline (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to go on the record, Kleinecke, as saying that I respect your personal experience on the matter. My experience with autism is eerily suggestive of the old "discredited" theories, too. I have sometimes wondered how much secret defensiveness is hidden behind the new "neurogenic" theories (as if, if childhood experience deeply shapes one's development, this would not be reflected in the brain!) Mbarbier (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparent Errors in Biography

There are several apparent inaccuracies in the lifestory as contained in this article.

Bettelheim's biography in The Uses of Enchantment (Penguin, ISBN: 0-14-013727-0) states that he did formally study psychology. He "obtained a doctorate in psychology from the University of Vienna". It also states that he was interned in Dachau and Buchenwald "during the Second World War" not simply prior to it. The uses of the phrase "It seems..." implies that the challenges are objective fact rather than a matter of controversy.

I would also query the statement that he took part in the "infamous T-4 euthanasia program of the 1930s". My only source on this is Wikipedia's own entry on Aktion T4, but it states that the program began in October 1939. How then could Bettelheim be involved during the '30s?

--Roger Mexico 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger, other sources prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no such degree, but that he said he did. --Charlene 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

title

In general, this article reads as if it were written by a twelve year old. At least use the title doctor, when the article itself just about manages remember Bettelheim's credentials. "Mr Bettelheim"??

Review comments

Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:

Template:Infobox Scientist should be added
Photograph should be added
Further organisation and subdivision would be beneficial
Information on research should be significantly expanded
All referencing should be converted to use an inline citation format and references section
External links list could do with pruning

Espresso Addict 02:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

References should be from third-party sources.--Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needed corrections

As I was converting the links to inline citations, I looked up the original articles referenced. The editor had referred to titles and authors totally incorrectly, so may not have been any more accurate in using info from the articles. It is hard to know. There are many books listed as references, but most citations come from book reviews, hardly the depth needed for this topic. The man was well-respected and influential in his lifetime. Yes, many different facts came out after his death, but whatever is written here needs to be sourced and accurate.--Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs third-party sources

For all the writing that has been done about Bettelheim, the article needs more citations from third-party scholarly sources. Two book reviews of biographies, however thorough, and an interest group website are not the standard.--Parkwells (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Sources, sources, sources, guys. This discussion page is becoming a heated forum in which people debate about whether or not Bettelheim was a 'bully and a liar'. Wikipedia is not the place for that; do it by email if you must do it at all. This article should be about the verifiable facts of the man's life and legacy. I have only read the book on autism (The Empty Fortress) and I understand that it has now been widely discredited - but I am not just going to say so without having some good sources to back me up. I don't have a personal opinion about what kind of man he was, I just want the article to give an accurate reflection of what he did, what people said he was like and what has happened to his reputation since his death. Right now the article has serious POV problems, probably as a result of people who hate Bettelheim editing it to reflect things they personally know but can't or won't provide a citation for. I have gone through the article and removed the most glaring offenders. Lexo (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having gone through the article one more time, I will go further and say that this article is seriously compromised by violations of WP:NPOV and is in need of being rebuilt from the bottom up. Nearly every paragraph contains either unsourced assertions or weasel wording; if Bettelheim were still alive he could probably have sued somebody. I also note that the total sources for the assertions made in the article amount to three published magazine/newspaper articles and a website. This is pretty pathetic. I have neither the time nor the resources to acquire biographies of Bettelheim, but can't someone who does back up some of the allegations made in this article? Lexo (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

q\ \ \ \ 090jhyb xdsxssd \`'//;

My experience with Dr. B.

Irrelavent personal material removed ...

It's hard for me to accept that anyone who has read "Love is Not Enough" could believe that he was not a caring man with both the children and his staff.

I think he was wrong about "refrigerator moms", not his original phrase, and I think the accusation caused a lot of pain to innocent mothers who already were vulnerable, but to call him a bully or uncaring is just wrong. The children at his school at University of Chicago, were among the most disturbed of all. And some of the parents were brutal and bullies as were siblings and other children. Dr. B. was not one of them and the staff and parents did not stand by and allow the things that are alleged to have happened, although I have found few allegations with actual details, all, I'm pretty sure made by human beings who had been disturbed children. Read this book and see if you think the author was a mean person.

    (Since original post, I have read allegations made by staff

members also, so I was wrong about it being just children). I'm afraid that my opinion about Dr. B will depend more on which accounts I read, than on an objective standard. What moves me still though, is the accounts of the caring showed between the children, many or most of them, and the caring between the children and staff. The two books I'm reading now and "Love is Not Enough", that I read forty years ago give similar descriptions of the caring times at the school.

    One factor in some people's attempt to discredit the good things

accomplished in the lives of emotionally disturbed children, is the tendency for there to be a fight over money when long term care and long term therapy is not affordable or not popular ... a political subject that probably most of us would not want to fight about, not here, anyway. What do you think? Benvhoff ([[User talk:Benvhoff|talk]]) 03:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

    It's weird, but I believe that Dr. B. would have sympathized with

and maybe admired his strongest critics, most of them, the ones who defended themselves against "refrigerator mom", because they stood up for what they believe in. Most of his book, "Dialogues with Mothers", he stressed the point that parents should act on their own conviction along with remembering their own childhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvhoff ([[User talk:Benvhoff|talk]] • contribs) 06:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Dr. Bettelheim may have been altered

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/104149518/Dr_B_side_by_side_.jpg

The link above will take you to a comparison of the photo used in this article with what seems to be the actual photo (a frame from video). The speck on his tie and the shadows make it seem almost certain. The photo, that may have been edited to present an unflattering view or Dr. B., was flipped & background removed. It appears that his ear was cropped and it appears the photo was changed from grayscale to black & white.

IMO, this is a very insulting thing. Hitler, Rommel, Eichmann, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer all have better photos here on Wikipedia. I haven't seen a worse photo anywhere on Wiki. Benvhoff (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeking additional references

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990.

(page 1:)

' . . . Indeed, the basic facts of the Bettelheim controversy are not in doubt:

'During his three decades as head of the Orthogenic School, Bettelheim formulated concepts of humane care for emotionally disturbed young people that became standard practice in psychiatry. He also abused the power and privilege of his position.

'Of the 19 alumni of the Orthogenic School interviewed for this story, some are still bitterly angry at Bettelheim, 20 or 30 years after leaving the institution. Others say their stays did them good, and they express gratitude for having had the opportunity to be at the school. All agree that Bettelheim frequently struck his young and vulnerable patients. What is equally significant is that none of Bettelheim`s sucessors at the Orthogenic School now contradicts these reports.

'``Yes, Dr. B hit children,`` says Bertram Cohler, who worked with him before briefly heading the school after Bettelheim retired. ``In retrospect, I`d have to say it wasn`t a good thing.`` . . '

(page 2:)

' . . . Yet the university`s official biographical sketch credits Bettelheim with only one Ph.D., and doesn`t specify a field. . . '

(page 3:)

' . . . Zelan recalls him [Bettelheim] taking personal reponsibility for a badly dehydrated five-year-old and patiently nursing her back to health when the staff couldn`t get the child to take nourishment. . . '

(page 4:)

' . . . Sanders thinks his was a case of too much success coming too soon. ``Dr. B got worse once he started getting acclaim,`` she says. ``He was less able to have any insight into his effect on these kids.`` . . '

To the "Personal controversy" section of our article, I added the above information regarding whether Bettelheim had credentials above and beyond a PhD in art history. And to this reference I added the quote from Sanders, which thus shows up as additional information in the footnote. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychotherapy and its Discontents, edited by Windy Dryden and Colin Feltham, One University Press, 1992. Ch. 2: "The Tyranny of Psychotherapy," by Jeffrey Masson, page 13: "But not, note, in print!" About the Chicago community of psychoanalysts knowing of Bettelheim and his temper, and even calling him "Brutalheim."

See also Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, epublished by Untreed Reads, 2012, previous publishings in 1988 and 1994.

Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing <-- longish footnote which talks about some of the 'reasons' for which Bettelheim hit his students who lived at the school.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DyDbxBkeyQMC&pg=PA132&dq=%22The+Other+Dr.+Bettelheim:+The+Revered+Psychologist+Had+a+Dark,+Violent+Side%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KBu2Uf_8LceEyAGMuYGABA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Other%20Dr.%20Bettelheim%3A%20The%20Revered%20Psychologist%20Had%20a%20Dark%2C%20Violent%20Side%22&f=false

http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_2481.html

http://www.autism.com/ari/newsletter/044/page6.pdf

" . . . Charles Pekow, another former Bettelheim student at the Orthogenic school, wrote a long and detailed account published in the Washington Post (Aug. 26), describing how he and other students were beaten and terrorized by Bettelheim. . . "

" . . . despite claims by Bettelheim (the most famous proponent of the 'psychogenic' theory of autism) to have cured these children by removing them from their mothers, whom he compared to Nazi concentration camp guards. . . "

PS If anyone is acting like a Nazi concentration camp guard and should be compared to a Nazi concentration camp guard, it sounds like it's Bruno Bettelheim himself! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Elijah's Cup: A Family's Journey into the Community and Culture of High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome, Revised Edition, Valerie Paradiz, Free Press, 2002; UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005, pages 72-73:

" . . At the time, few people knew that Bettelheim had faked his credentials and was using fictional data to support his research. . "

The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak . Simon & Schuster: 478 pp., $27.50, Los Angeles Times, review by Howard Gardner, Jan. 19, 1997.

' . . beat several students and fondled others; '

' . . Two women testified that Bettelheim fondled their breasts and those of other female students. . '

' . . He [Bettelheim] despised authority and authoritarianism yet could not operate in their absence. . '

' . . A final issue: When I began to discuss this biography with clinicians, several of them said in effect, "Oh, we all knew this about Bettelheim. We did not believe his claims and figures; we knew he was a bastard." I asked myself--and then I started to ask others--"Why did no one expose this fraud, this pretending saint who was tainted with evil? Did their silence encourage Bettelheim's excesses?" . . '

' . . Pollak's book does not convict only Bettelheim, it indicts those of his time who knew the man but kept their reservations to themselves.'

http://www.discovery.org/a/722

" . . After his death in 1990 a professor of anthropology at the University of Berkeley sadly announced that The Uses of Enchantment was copied from a 1963 book titled A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales. Bettelheim was a plagiarist and, worse yet, no psychiatrist. He was an imposter. After his death, it came out that he was a child-abuser. He claimed, "As an educator and therapist of severely disturbed children, my main task was to restore meaning to their lives." To the contrary, he misdiagnosed normal children as mentally disturbed in order to claim later that he had cured them. Bettelheim vindictively blamed autism on bad mothering (a cruellie). All that desperate parents got for trusting this slick predator with their children and their money was false guilt and true grief; yet he remained a venerated celebrity in his lifetime. . "

Rimland, Bernard. Infantile Autism. New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, 1964. Autism spectrum as biologic brain function, which now most people familiar with autism consider to be the overwhelmingly most likely cause.

Another letter from Chicago Reader describing largely the same situation:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/shooting-craps-with-bettelheim/Content?oid=875805

Former patients offer darker view of noted psychologist, Times-News, Hendersonville, North Carolina, Richard Bernstein (New York Times News Service), Nov. 5, 1990, page 25.

Newsweek, Sept. 10. 1990.

U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 10, 1990.

Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 16, 1990.

Commentary Magazine, Oct. 1990.

New York Times, Nov. 4, 1990.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/archives/portfolio/books/book411.html "It's now clear that he plagiarized parts of The Uses of Enchantment, and that for many years he inflicted severe verbal and physical abuse on the children under his care in a group home," said Mark Abley in a 1992 article in the Montreal Gazette. Harvard professor Maria Tatar is the first to challenge his overly Freudian analysis of fairy tales in her book "Off With Their Heads!: Fairy Tales and the Culture of Childhood."

Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure, Paul Offit, Columbia University Press, 2008, page 3: "showed his claims of success were fraudulent"

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-11-30/lifestyle/9011290133_1_bruno-bettelheim-orthogenic-university-of-Chicago

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.POLLAKBETTELHEIM&q=Women%20social%20workers

http://www.larrykuperman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Jewish-Psychologists1.pdf

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9706/articles/finn.html A reprinting of Molly Finn's '97 article

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-10-29/news/9003300393_1_bruno-bettelheim-orthogenic-school-autistic brave sharing of her own experiences at the school by Alida Jatich. She also makes a pretty good case for the reasons for lack of oversight by both the University of Chicago and the local Chicago psychiatric community.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/bruno-bettelheim

Life under the watchful eye of enigmatic Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2003.
A review of Stephen Eliot's memoir Not the Thing I Was (2003). Stephen was a student on lived at the Orthogenic School for thirteen years, from 1963 to 1976.

We have a ton of references. Sometimes I just don't want to lose a reference, so I'll put it here. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-01-30/article/26226?headline=Books-Literary-Con-Artists--By-Dorothy-Bryant-Special-to-the-Planet

The Mystified Fortune-Teller and Other Tales from Psychotherapy Ph. D Amada, "A Brief but Bad Brush with Bettelheim"

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/sw/43/2/10.1093/sw/43.2.188/2/43-2-188.pdf?Expires=1493064245&Signature=CwvgWhQ3FYrUR9-gF4otSzWnPnHKFvOs2S~JzaK3PQcq5rLZGIIXqHhhftnyJ~S18fHTOiD6f50uZKvq7ylKza5cRpjubsNjACoYyweKmxUd76GVncFVdOl4rBXYy65iTf8RQaGNudGkte8EbmkZNb-gSxVYAiHfWV7LOaWxoWqnl-26SBssXLx2J-rf3gN9l9KsmnGEZs6Hg~21BoPiRRc9BZaVA-jmsriBcOUzzoHONxsjaBr71fftJKb01dXUlevXLvmXiSVs-JsD0Ql7puYM-459LLkdpnmgkDQ6Vd7~wx5z~UY015bVbdccUzQiSCj43Hw4uJa~B41v4zKo6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

Tikkun, "Bruno Bettelheim-Blaming the Victim," Helene Goldberg, Sept./Oct. 1997. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-16306964/bruno-bettelheim-blaming-the-victim

article structure doesn't make sense

there is nothing about his theory on autism, and yet there is criticism section about it... i think some info about the theory should precede the critique of it. thanks...216.80.103.99 (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

From some of our references it sounds like Bettelheim's PhD was in art history, with perhaps only very sketchy formal training in psychology. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bettelheim lied about his credentials? Yes, looks like it.

People wanted to view the guy as a healer, especially with the Viennese accent and all that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990:

(page 2:)

' . . . He studied at the University of Vienna, where he took a Ph.D., though it is not clear to many of his former colleagues in what subject. Sanders and Cohler, his successors at the Orthogenic School, got the impression from Bettelheim that his doctoral dissertation was in art history. In some of his writings, Bettelheim implies that he wrote a disseration on the philosophy of education. . . '

And this is how a skilled con artist operates, right? You lightly play off what people already believe. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Setting The Record Straight About A `Fallen Guru', Chicago Tribune [Editorial], Joan Beck, April 3, 1997:

' . . Bettelheim quickly came to Chicago, soon got a job teaching at Rockford College and began re-inventing himself, asserting the war made it impossible to check his records. His claimed he had summa cum laude degrees in three disciplines, had studied music with Arnold Schoenberg and had been called by Freud "just the person we need for psychoanalysis to grow and develop." . . . '

THE BATTLE OVER BETTELHEIM, Weekly Standard, Peter D. Kramer, April 7, 1997:

" . . . A recent immigrant from Nazi Europe, Bettelheim applied for a position at Rockford College in Illinois, using an impressive, and in those years unverifiable, curriculum vitae. It said he had studied for 14 years at the University of Vienna, earning summa cum laude doctorates in philosophy, art history, and psychology. He had done original work under the leading artists at the Vienna Kunstgewerbeschule; had excavated Roman antiquities; had run the art department of Lower Austria's library; assisted at the Kunsthistorisches Museum; and published two books in the field. Bettelheim claimed this much and a good deal more (music studies under Arnold Schoenberg!) to land a two-day-a-week post in a small-college art department. . . "

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997, page 2:
" . . But when the directorship of the Orthogenic School became available, he evidently gambled that because of the war no one would be able to check on his credentials. So he intimated to U. of C. officials that he had been cross-trained in psychology. Yet when his transcript was posthumously examined, it showed that he had taken but three introductory courses in the field. . "

The Man He Always Wanted to Be, New York Times, Books, Sarah Boxer, Jan. 26, 1997.

"Bruno BETTELHEIM'S new biographer lays his cards on the table right away: he thinks Bettelheim was a pathological liar. Richard Pollak, the former executive editor and literary editor of The Nation, got interested in the famous psychotherapist and author in order to learn more about his own younger brother, . . "

" . . Soon, Bettelheim was wowing students with his Viennese accent, his casual references to Freud and his habit of psychoanalyzing students' dreams, memories and parents. . "

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (review of The Creation of Dr. B by Richard Pollak), Jan. 13, 1997. " . . Bettelheim seems to have re-enacted the archetypal American success story of inventing a false past, concocting a new formula for snake oil and selling it to the public with flummery. Under Mr. Pollak's magnifying glass, Bettelheim is seen in a new, harsh light, and stands exposed as a brilliant charlatan."

Bernstein, Richard: "Accusations of Abuse Haunt the Legacy of Dr. Bruno Bettelheim", New York Times, November 4, 1990: "The Week in Review" section. " . . not only of a tyrant but of a hypocrite as well. . "

Late-Talking Children: A Symptom of a Stage?, Stephen M. Camarata, MIT Press, 2014. From "Ch. 4: Lessons from Autism: Charlatans, False Cures, and Questionable Cures", page 81 quotes a paragraph from Newsweek magazine.

Bruno Bettelheim: a cautionary life, Baltimore Sun, Paul R. McHugh, Jan. 19, 1997.

'Walter Bagehot noted that self-taught men tend to be "dogmatic, decisive and detestable." Bruno Bettelheim, portrayed in this thoroughly researched biography by Richard Pollak, fits the mold. Bettelheim had no qualifications as a child psychiatrist or psychologist, having been a businessman with an art history doctorate in 1930s Vienna. And yet after escaping from Nazi Austria, he won - by means of glibness with Freudian theory and a set of influential friends - the office of director of the Orthogenic School for disturbed children at the University of Chicago, a post he held from 1944 to 1973. . . '

' . . . Bettelheim - with boldness, energy and luck - exploited American deference to Freudo-Nietzschean mind-sets and interpretations, especially when intoned in accents Viennese. . . '

I can find zero references which state the man had the credentials he said he had. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Most sources show Ph.D. in either art history or philosophy (aesthetics)

art history:

Setting The Record Straight About A `Fallen Guru', Chicago Tribune, Joan Beck, April 3, 1997:

' . . He did have a doctorate in art history, obtained after he went to Rockford. Even so, his inventive resume got him the job as head of the Orthogenic School in 1944. . . '

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997, page 2:

' . . . Belatedly, he had earned a doctorate in art history, the subject he taught at Rockford College. . . '

Bruno Bettelheim: a cautionary life, Baltimore Sun, Paul R. McHugh, Jan. 19, 1997:

" . . . having been a businessman with an art history doctorate in 1930s Vienna. . . "

aesthetics:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;c=mqrarchive;idno=act2080.0037.322;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mqrg
" . . . earning a doctorate in aesthetics . . . "

Biography As Revenge, Chicago Tribune, Marie Winn (who writes regularly for The Wall Street Journal's Leisure & Arts Page), Feb. 23, 1997.

" . . . and his degree was in aesthetics, not psychology. . . "

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (review of The Creation of Dr. B by Richard Pollak), Jan. 13, 1997.

" . . . True, Bettelheim had earned a doctorate in philosophy, . . . "

so, like a lot of things, the sources don't entirely agree! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?

There are many controversial figures: Yet the first paragraph is normally an overview not an assasination. Within the main text it says he won an award; yet this isn't featured in the first overview part.FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But if the facts are there, right? Multiple sources are saying the guy misrepresented his credentials (and some of the sources not near that politely!). I could very much use your help in steering a middle course. The previous lead where we call the guy a "child psychologist," No, that's not accurate either, for that implies a certain amount of professional training, which Bettelheim emphatically did not have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Some common sense might help here. A sentence starting with something like, "Bettelheim has been accused of misrepresenting his credentials...", or even maybe a stronger sentence beginning with something like "Bettelheim has been shown to have misrepresented his credentials...", could easily be added to the lead - but per WP:NPOV you can't make it start, "Bruno Bettelheim (August 28, 1903 – March 13, 1990) was an individual who misrepresented his credentials..." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There aren't sources on the other side, least not I can find. Most of all I have the Chicago Tribune, a major journal of record. I mean, there aren't other quality newspaper saying, Oh, yes, the guy did have a Ph.D. in child psychology. If the best current sources say the guy's been discredited, and it sure looks that way, why don't we tell our readers that at the outset? To me, it kind of seems we'd be doing them a disservice not to. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try a few things. Again, I invite you to jump in and help, especially with the research.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not controversial that Bettelheim was an author or that he wrote books. The article should begin, therefore, by identifying him as an author. Currently, the article starts with, "Bruno Bettelheim (August 28, 1903 – March 13, 1990) was the director of the Orthogenic School for Disturbed Children at the University of Chicago..." I would alter that to something like, "Bruno Bettelheim (August 28, 1903 – March 13, 1990) was a writer and the director of the Orthogenic School for Disturbed Children at the University of Chicago...", or alternatively, "Bruno Bettelheim (August 28, 1903 – March 13, 1990) was the director of the Orthogenic School for Disturbed Children at the University of Chicago and a writer..." The references to the Chicago Tribune and the Weekly Standard need to be removed from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and should not contain anything not present in the main body of the article. A briefer summary would be appropriate here, per WP:UNDUE. You could mention that the American media ran exposes criticizing Bettelheim; there does not seem to be any need to name individual publications, or to include as much detail as you have. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never understood why we don't want to include references in the lead. Now, whether the information is also in the body, and I did a fair amount of work on this subject several years ago, I think it is. But I'll check it again. From what I say, the guy is a major intellectual fraud. I'm sorry, but he is. Not only did he (skillfully) lie about his credentials, he also preached kindness and then would hit the kids in fits of rage. One book review has in its title "Confidence Man." That's not me. That's the book reviewer. Again, I could use your help on the balance. To me, neutral does not mean bland and "nice." It means middle-of-the-road on facts, best that we can determine them. I hope we're in agreement on this. FriendlyRiverOtter ([[User

213.106.240.194 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reader213.106.240.194 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Straight up, the man did not have the credentials he claimed he had. That probably needs to be put in the very first paragraph. I agree that someone who has all kinds of facets to his life and career is hard to cover. We just go with a variety of sources. That's all I can think of. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit you made here violates both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. It is neither appropriate, nor helpful to Wikipedia's readers, to begin the article with the words "Bruno Bettelheim (August 28, 1903 – March 13, 1990) was an individual who misrepresented his credentials". It is appropriate for the article to mention criticism of Bettelheim, but not for it to read like a hit piece. If you wish to restore the material you added, then please don't restore it in the lead - put it somewhere else in the article. talk:FriendlyRiverOtter|talk]]) 20:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But I think I see what you mean about a shorter lead. Give me a little while to work on it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Going to revert it back for sake of references. Then change back to your way temporarily. Then we can talk. For example, should Frank Abagnale be primarily identified as a pilot? To me, that's a good question. And on our topic here, the info on Bettelheim is going all one direction, and this is from a variety of different sources. We might wish it was different, but that's the way the facts seem to be falling. No need to revert, quicker and easier just to do the references directly. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, I'm sorry about this, but you are still editing in a way that is pretty obviously not in accord with WP:NPOV. For example, you added the following sentence to the lead: "He has been called a fraud and worse." It's unacceptable. Plenty of quite famous people get called "frauds" for one reason or another, but we don't note in this in the leads of articles about them. It's something that would go somewhere else in the article, if anywhere. The "and worse" part is just ridiculous. Encyclopedias are supposed to convey useful information and state facts clearly: what is the "and worse" part supposed to mean? It's not clear. Effectively it's just titillating the reader, leaving them to speculate about just what the "and worse" part means. That content will have to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. The "and worse" part is probably not the best writing. And you're right that plenty of famous people get called frauds for one reason or another. However, in the case of Bettelheim, there are zero references on the other side. I can find no credible reference (nor non-credible reference for that matter! or any reference at all!) which states that the guy had the references which he claimed he had. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to be straight down the middle, just like a good golf shot. I want to do well at both the research side and the writing side. To the extent you have time and this topic interests you, please jump in and help. And even though we've perhaps had some disagreement, I do appreciate your help so far! :~) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason why Wikipedia articles about famous people who have been called frauds to do not contain statements such as "He was a fraud" is not that references exist on the other side, it is that encyclopedias do not make statements such as "He was a fraud". There are always better ways of acknowledging that someone has been criticized. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this out here. This is very philosophic. I'm not sure what to make of it. When the best evidence is that the guy only took 3 introductory classes in psychology, etc, etc, etc., well, it's more than just the guy's been criticized. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not been following this article for a while, but judging from recent changes made to the lead (which I have reverted here) your edits look incompetent. That is not meant as a personal attack in any way, just a frank statement of truth. You might consider that you are simply too biased to edit this article properly. Whatever would make you suppose that it was appropriate to reduce the lead to a single sentence reading, "Bruno Bettelheim was a fraudulent child psychologist who enjoyed a period of fame in the 1960s and '70s"? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, good to have you back! I want your participation, especially since we come at this from different directions. Working together we might potentially make this article better than it otherwise would be. Back around the second week of November, I did send you a message on your talk page, letting you know that I was planning some major changes (and by the way, I'm still proceeding rather *slowly* on the first heart transplant history).

As far as your question of, why I moved most of the factual info to the history and went with a single short lead? In part, I was inspired by the article on James Hardy (surgeon), in which the lead is a single sentence. And this is a guy who really did have a medical degree and who really did have the credentials he purported to have.

Okay, I'm easy to work with. Might be able to make some small changes this week, but then probably not able to be able to make any big changes till next week. And my content-focused question still stands. For example, if the New York Times describes the anti-rejection drug cyclosporine as a major breakthrough, is it our job to water it down and describe it as a medium breakthrough? And so, coming at it from the other direction, if the New York Times describes Bettelheim as "concocting a new formula for snake oil," which they do, is it our job to water this down? On both cases, I answer no. (not sure if NY Times so describes cyclosporine)

At a certain point, we might have to draw upon the strength of the Wikipedia community, which I think can be a positive thing. In the meantime, all I'm going to do is pop an invite to the one participant who deleted the word "fraudulent" and left standing "child psychologist," which based on a slew of references, is simply not an accurate description of Bettelheim at all. All the same, he or she made a perfectly credible edit in passing. Just didn't have the time or take the time to read the supporting references. Want to invite him or her to dive into the topic, if the interest is there. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

compare to article on Diederik Stapel

Diederik Stapel

Diederik Alexander Stapel (born 19 October 1966 in Oegstgeest) is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.[1] In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected at least 55 publications.[2]

This general approach might be good for our article here. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

compare to article on Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can")

Frank Abagnale
Frank William Abagnale, Jr. (/ˈæbəɡneɪl/; born April 27, 1948) is an American security consultant known for his history as a former confidence trickster, check forger, and impostor between the ages of 15 and 21. He became one of the most famous impostors ever,[1] claiming to have assumed no fewer than eight identities, including an airline pilot, a physician, a U.S. Bureau of Prisons agent, and a lawyer. He escaped from police custody twice (once from a taxiing airliner and once from a U.S. federal penitentiary), before he was 21 years old.[2] He served less than five years in prison before starting to work for the federal government. He is currently a consultant and lecturer for the FBI academy and field offices. He also runs Abagnale & Associates, a financial fraud consultancy company.[3]

Abagnale's life story inspired the Academy Award-nominated feature film Catch Me If You Can (2002), starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Abagnale, as well as both a Broadway musical and autobiography of the same name.

This is the full lead to our Wikipedia article on Frank Abagnale as of Dec. 13, 2016. I think it provides a pretty good model that we might perhaps use here for Bruno Bettelheim. In fact, I think there are even more journalistic and third-party references for Bettelheim than there are for Abagnale. Now, we don't want to go overboard, but within the context of the references, I think we can be quite a bit bolder on how we present and cover Bettelheim. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

compare to article on Ferdinand Waldo Demara ("The Great Imposter")

Ferdinand Waldo Demara
[need additional citations]
Ferdinand Waldo Demara, Jr. (December 21, 1921 [This date is uncertain. Some sources say 12 December 1921, 12 December 1922 or 21 December 1922.][2] – June 7, 1982), known as 'The Great Impostor', masqueraded as many people - from monks to surgeons to prison wardens.[3] He was the subject of a movie, The Great Impostor, in which he was played by Tony Curtis.

During Demara's 'careers', his impersonations included a ship's doctor, a civil engineer, a sheriff's deputy, an assistant prison warden, a doctor of applied psychology, a hospital orderly, a lawyer, a child-care expert, a Benedictine monk, a Trappist monk, an editor, a cancer researcher, and a teacher. One teaching job led to six months in prison. He never seemed to get (or seek) much monetary gain in what he was doing – just temporary respectability.citation needed

Many of Demara's unsuspecting employers, under other circumstances, would have been satisfied with Demara as an employee. Demara was said to possess a true photographic memory and was widely reputed to have an extraordinary IQ. He was apparently able to memorize necessary techniques from textbooks and worked on two cardinal rules: The burden of proof is on the accuser and When in danger, attack. He described his own motivation as "Rascality, pure rascality".[4]

This is full lead for Demara as of Dec. 13, 2016. As far as Bettelheim, a lot of information came out in the year of his death 1990. A lot more information came out with the pair of biographies in '96 and '97. And not just the biographies themselves, but also the journalistic coverage they led to. So, in a sense, our article, or at least our lead, is 25+ years out of date! Being more charitable on ourselves, and focusing on the additional info in early '97, we're approaching 20 years out of date. We can do much better! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Did Bettelheim plagiarize?

Bettelheim Plagiarized Book Ideas, Scholar Says : Authors: The late child psychologist is accused of 'wholesale borrowing' for study of fairy tales, Los Angeles Times, Anne C. Roark, Feb. 7, 1991:
' . . Writing in the latest issue of the Journal of American Folklore, Alan Dundes, a widely published expert on folklore and a 28-year veteran of Berkeley's anthropology department, details what he says is "wholesale borrowing," not only of "random passages" but also of "key ideas" in Bettelheim's 1976 book, "The Uses of Enchantment." . . . . Many of the ideas, according to Dundes, are borrowed without attribution from scholars dating back nearly half a century. But the most obvious "borrowing" comes from "A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales," written by Heuscher in 1963.'
' . . Heuscher says he is not bothered at all. In fact, when he read Bettelheim's book years ago, he remembered feeling no sense of violation.
'"We all plagiarize. I plagiarize. Many times, I am not sure whether it came out of my own brain or if it came from somewhere else. . . . I'm only happy that I would have influenced Bruno Bettelheim. I did not always agree with him. But that does not matter. Poor Bruno Bettelheim. I would not want to disturb his enternal sleep with this."'

This is significant, too. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Heuscher's 1963 book --> https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001277202

"Bruno Bettelheim's Uses of Enchantment and Abuses of Scholarship," Alan Dundes, The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 104, No. 411 (Winter, 1991), pp. 74-83.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/archives/portfolio/books/book411.html
"It's now clear that he plagiarized parts of The Uses of Enchantment, and that for many years he inflicted severe verbal and physical abuse on the children under his care in a group home," said Mark Abley in a 1992 article in the Montreal Gazette. Harvard professor Maria Tatar is the first to challenge his overly Freudian analysis of fairy tales in her book "Off With Their Heads!: Fairy Tales and the Culture of Childhood."

http://www.newsweek.com/was-he-really-bruno-borrowheim-205566
' . . Ironically, Heuscher refuses to characterize the similarities as anything worse than "poor technique and not very courteous." Heuscher says he doesn't think the "plagiarized" ideas were all that unusual, anyway. He speculates that Bettelheim's memory of books he read might have been so good that he didn't realize he was borrowing. Says Heuscher, "Some ideas become so true to you that they become your own." . . '

okay, so maybe this one, not super serious. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Bettelheim Accused Of Plagiarizing Book, Chicago Tribune, Sharman Stein, February 7, 1991.
' . . Dundes said Bettelheim had, in ``The Uses of Enchantment,`` also borrowed from one of his own works, a 1967 article about Cinderella, and had never acknowledged Dundes` contribution either.
'``I was, and am, a great fan of his,`` Dundes said. ``I thought the book was brilliant. It hurt me to find this. I was relieved that he died before he saw this.`` . . '
' . . But Jack Zipes, a professor of German at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who has also written extensively about fairy tales, called Dundes ``a very serious scholar`` who would only make the accusations for legitimate reasons. Dundes is a former president of the American Folklore Association. . '
' . . Jacquelyn Sanders, the current director of the Orthogenic School at the University of Chicago, said she had read Dundes` article but did not believe many people would agree with his accusations.
'``I would not call that plagiarism,`` she said. ``I think the article is a reasonable scholarly endeavor, and calling it scholarly etiquette is appropriate. It is appropriate that this man deserved to be acknowledged and Bettelheim didn`t. . . . But I would not fail a student for doing that, and I don`t know anybody who would.`` . . '

Is it our job to second-guess references?

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (review of The Creation of Dr. B by Richard Pollak), Jan. 13, 1997.
" . . Bettelheim seems to have re-enacted the archetypal American success story of inventing a false past, concocting a new formula for snake oil and selling it to the public with flummery. Under Mr. Pollak's magnifying glass, Bettelheim is seen in a new, harsh light, and stands exposed as a brilliant charlatan."

So, the New York Times is basically calling the guy a snake oil salesman. Except a little fancy with terms like "a new formula" and "flummery." ;-) My question then, is it really our job to sand this down? And I answer no.

Well, it's one particular reviewer for the NY Times? Yes, but still a reviewer backed up by an editor and the entire Times chain of command. So, is it our job to decide that didn't work well enough and play the role of NY Times editor ourselves. Again, I don't think so. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997.

And that's it. Two references are enough to go with, although we have plenty more. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The difficult, nonprecise issue is when was his period of fame? I'm going to go with his two big books: The Empty Fortress (1967) and Uses of Enchantment (1976). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The short lead in the article on Dr. James Hardy

James Hardy (surgeon)

James D. Hardy (May 14, 1918 – February 19, 2003) was an American surgeon, famous for the first human lung transplant and the first animal-to-human heart transplant.[1]

Short and sweet. Now, Dr. Hardy actually had the credentials he stated he had, in his case an MD, and he continued to be respected after his death. Maybe we should do a similarly short and sweet lead for Bettelheim? I think we should. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

NNDB gives "Executive summary: Fraudulent child psychologist"

http://www.nndb.com/people/929/000115584/

This is a link site ("tracking the entire world"). We do better because we give references. But if our references are saying that and/or more and/or similar, I don't think we should second-guess our references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

and some non-academic criticism (!)

What an Asshole #23 Bruno Bettelheim
http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=48193
Love the fact that the guy gives it a number! And yes, I know we can't include this in our main article, but it's just too good not to include here! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bettelheim popularizing "refrigerator mother" theory of autism

https://books.google.com/books?id=FcffBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22neatly+in+a+refrigerator+that+did+not+defrost%22&source=bl&ots=hDpdNTGF2u&sig=v21ar5sRKoLPAnnTFdFZ2UAAAY0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKofGxo_7PAhWEjlQKHT6ZBAEQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=%22neatly%20in%20a%20refrigerator%20that%20did%20not%20defrost%22&f=false

This is maybe the "heyday" of the psychoanalysis approach. Yes, people are pretty sure these days that autism has a biological cause. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/pov/refrigeratormothers/fridge/

Including some background on Pollak's book?

Richard Pollak was anti-Bettelheim, or at the very least Bettelheim-skeptic, from the very beginning. And he's very open and forthright about this.

And a range of book review seem to agree on the factual information Pollak presents.

As researchers and editors here at Wikipedia we should just try and be straight down the middle. One test is this: If we don't include the information, are readers going to be disappointed or feel we didn't give them the whole story? And in this case, I think the answer is Yes.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Other summary of Bettelheim's career

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/seeing-the-spectrum

" . . . another Austrian émigré, Bruno Bettelheim, who, on the strength of a doctorate in art history and supersized intellectual chutzpah, had wangled Ford Foundation funding for his research and a prominent position as a child psychologist at the University of Chicago. . . "

It's our job to summarize and reference a variety of good sources, but not to decide on our own to water them down. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruno Bettelheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

neither one of the new changes link to a full article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

pre-change they both work

first wife took care of troubled child

THE BATTLE OVER BETTELHEIM, Weekly Standard, Peter D. Kramer, April 7, 1997.

" . . . and his first wife had helped raise a troubled child. . . "

The Man He Always Wanted to Be, New York Times, Books, Sarah Boxer, Jan. 26, 1997.

" . . . Then Mr. Pollak goes on to the fib he thinks was the foundation for Bettelheim's career: Bettelheim claimed that Patsy, a troubled girl his first wife had taken in, was autistic and that it was he who cared for her. Neither was true, Mr. Pollak suggests. Later, Bettelheim embellished more, saying there had been two autistic children. Partly on the basis of this putative experience, Mr. Pollak writes, the University of Chicago asked him to take over the Orthogenic School, which he did in 1944. . . "

Beer of Broadway Fame: The Piel Family and Their Brooklyn Brewery, Alfred W. McCoy, published by State University of New York Press, Albany, 2016, notes to chapter 11.

first wife said, "Bruno was lying when he said for three months she [Patsy] didn't say a word; the George Washington story is nonsense; she talked right from the beginning." (Gina Weinmann, interview by Richard Pollak, San Francisco, 4/5/1991)

https://books.google.com/books?id=w3XoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&lpg=PT127&dq=Bettelheim+Patsy+Gina&source=bl&ots=qC3VQvfm-r&sig=ZsHrGXnJ9EvAUuAAiB4vCu5Nw7E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibyLeXs9bQAhVCjVQKHZbCDhYQ6AEILzAE#v=onepage&q=Bettelheim%20Patsy%20Gina&f=false

Finn, Molly, June/July 1997, First Things, "In the Case of Bruno Bettelheim" Archived February 20, 2012, at the Wayback Machine

" . . . Some undisputed facts are clearly laid out by both biographers: Patsy lived in the Bettelheim household for seven years. She was not autistic. She was cared for exclusively by Bettelheim's wife Gina. Interviews with Patsy herself and many people who knew the Bettelheims and Patsy corroborate these facts. . . "

And maybe this is mainly how Bettelheim got his job. He claimed he had both academic experience and personal experience, when in fact he had neither. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

accurately summarizing (multiple) reports of Bettelheim abusing residential students at the school

The Other Dr. Bettelheim, Washington Post, Charles Pekow, Editorial, Aug. 26, 1990.

' . . . Bettelheim had standard lines he gave us all: we were considered hopelessly "crazy" by the outside world and only he could save us from lives in mental institutions or jail. "You get better here or you go to a nut house," I heard him routinely tell school-aged children. He insisted that he cured me and many of my colleagues, but there was no one to check the original assessment or the outcome. . . '

' . . . But he created a climate of fear -- we could never tell when he would attack us for any arbitrary reason. Once, after a boy returned from a visit home, Bettelheim spent five minutes slapping him in the face, hitting him in the sides with fists and pulling his hair. Midway through, he revealed why: The lad had told his brother to "do well in school." He had no right to "push" his brother around. . . '

' . . . "One incident led me to quit," recalled former counselor Blau. "I was sitting with my group for dinner . . . . As we were leaving, he pounces on us and says someone stuck gum under our table. He starts roaring at all of us like we have just defiled Mother Superior. He makes us turn the table over. There was no gum there . . . . He kept on ranting and raving." In his recent letter, Blau wrote, "The Bettleheim I knew had little mercy in his heart, and exuded a particularly obnoxious strain of old Viennese arrogance." . . '

'The Other Dr. Bettelheim', Washington Post, Letters to the Editor, Sept. 6, 1990.

The Bettelheim We Know (Cont'd.), Washington Post, Letters to the Editor, Oct. 6, 1990.

Bettelheim Led Us Cruelly Down Wrong Road For Children, Chicago Tribune, Editorial, Joan Beck, Oct. 1, 1990.

' . . . [Ronald] Angres says. Although he wrote and lectured against any kind of corporal punishment ever, he routinely slapped and beat his charges and dragged them around by their hair. . . '

' . . . Bettelheim routinely called the children ugly names-psychopath, paranoid, anal-retentive and, most often, crazy. And he deliberately and effectively shut them away from their parents.

'Says Angres, ``Bettelheim`s constant verbal abuse of the parents with whom he dealt, and whom he refused to allow past the visitors` area-combined with his well-publicized assertion that it was parents who caused mental illness in their children-systematically destroyed their will to stand up for themselves or their children.``

'The need to set the record straight about Bettelheim goes far beyond the fact that the famous guru who preached love and supportive care for children often beat them in what Angres calls ``exultant rage`` and emotionally undermined them in cruel and ugly ways.

'It`s important to discredit permanently Bettelheim`s conviction that mental illness in children-especially autism-is caused by emotional factors, especially maternal feelings and behavior. . . '

' . . . State supervision of treatment centers has improved since Bettelheim ran the Orthogenic School. But states must make sure captive children are not mistreated physically-or emotionally-by those who profess to be helping.'

A Personal View Of Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Alida Jatich, Oct. 29, 1990.

' . . . Whenever Bettelheim called a young person ``autistic`` or ``psychotic`` or ``homicidal`` or ``suicidal`` or anything else, the staff believed him regardless of all evidence to the contrary. To them, the truth was whatever Bettelheim said it was, and their job was to get me and the other youngsters to accept it. . . '

Bernstein, Richard: "Accusations of Abuse Haunt the Legacy of Dr. Bruno Bettelheim", New York Times, November 4, 1990.

' . . . Some former counselors, like Dr. Zelan and Freda Rebelsky, a psychologist at Boston University, said they never saw Bettelheim use corporal punishment. Others argued that he did but never in the uncontrolled way described by some of his former patients. . . . . She [Jacqueline Sanders] said, "I do not believe that he administered corporal punishment in an arbitrary rage." . . . '

'Bettelheim Became the Very Evil He Loathed', Letter to the Editor, New York Times, Nov. 20, 1990 (written Nov. 9).

' . . . I saw him hit frequently. I saw him beat sometimes. I don't recall ever seeing him do either when I thought it was deserved. I was mortified by what I saw. I told my family about it -- they refused to believe me. Now they do, because they have seen it in print.

'Bettelheim convinced them that I was crazy and they shouldn't believe what I said. He convinced a lot of people of that, Even us. We had nobody on our side. We were falsely imprisoned, falsely labeled as insane and then publicly beaten and humiliated. This was a loving milieu that was supposed to turn the Nazi methods upside down? . . . '

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990.

page 1:

' . . . ``Though Bettelheim routinely proclaimed in print and speech that no one should ever use corporal punishment on children,`` Agres [Ronald Angres, and please notice spelling difference] recently wrote in Commentary magazine, ``I lived for years in terror of his beatings, in terror of his footsteps in the dorms-in abject, animal terror.`` . . .

'Of the 19 alumni of the Orthogenic School interviewed for this story, some are still bitterly angry at Bettelheim, 20 or 30 years after leaving the institution. Others say their stays did them good, and they express gratitude for having had the opportunity to be at the school. All agree that Bettelheim frequently struck his young and vulnerable patients. What is equally significant is that none of Bettelheim`s sucessors at the Orthogenic School now contradicts these reports.

'``Yes, Dr. B hit children,`` says Bertram Cohler, who worked with him before briefly heading the school after Bettelheim retired. ``In retrospect, I`d have to say it wasn`t a good thing.`` . . . '

' . . . To the larger world, Bettelheim was known for his books and frequent appearances on TV and in popular magazines. Reading or listening to his poetic evocation of childhood`s joys and sorrows, few would have thought it possible that this seemingly compassionate man would pull an adolescent girl out of a shower, then hit and berate her in front of dormitory mates. Yet Alida Jatich says he did just that, and another former student, Roberta Redford, recalls being summoned from a toilet stall for a similar thrashing.

'Inside the Orthogenic School, Bettelheim surrounded himself with a staff so blindly loyal it scarcely perceived his shortcomings. . . '

page 3:

' . . . Orthogenic School patient Charles Pekow had allergies, but was not allowed to take medication, even when overcome by asthmatic attacks. Bettelheim thought allergies were psychologically induced-a theory largely laid to rest by subsequent medical research. . . '

Yes, there's a bunch of information. We want to accurately summarize, without either heightening the information or reducing it too much. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And this might be a hinge point, depending on other sources of course. Was it more orderly corporal punishment, even though Bettelheim preached the opposite, or was it more out of control violence? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's our goal to be right down the middle. To neither overstate nor understate. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The section on Abuse has turned into a WP:QUOTEFARM. It has a lot of good information, thanks to FriendlyRiverOtter but should be summarized as text with the quotes as footnotes. I am going to take a stab at paring some of this down, while keeping the spirit of the section. Whenelvisdied (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Good luck. I've dived into the abuse section on a couple of different occasions, and it's neither particularly fun nor easy. More specifically, it is a real challenge to summarize a report of abuse while neither up shifting nor down shifting. For example . . .

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Nov. 11, 1990.

" . . . Orthogenic School patient Charles Pekow had allergies, but was not allowed to take medication, even when overcome by asthmatic attacks. Bettelheim thought allergies were psychologically induced . . . "

If we say, with some patients--no, that's an up shift, for we only have this single patient. But if we say, Bettelheim believed physical symptoms were psychologically induced--no, that's a down shift, for he did more than merely believe a certain way, he also withheld medication. And at the same time, it might be an up shift by again implying more than one patient.

And then I say, we're always trying to achieve multiple goals. Avoiding a WP:QUOTEFARM is one goal among a handful. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Did Bettelheim casually diagnose autism spectrum and/or falsify results?

Bettelheim Led Us Cruelly Down Wrong Road For Children, Chicago Tribune, Editorial, Joan Beck, Oct. 1, 1990.

' . . . Ronald Angres, a graduate student in international affairs at George Washington University. Angres spent 12 years at the Orthogenic School, diagnosed by Bettelheim as ``autistic`` although he seems merely to have been uncoordinated, given to day-dreaming and twiddling his fingers and at age 7 still unable to read. . . '

' . . . In his book on autism, ``The Empty Fortress,`` Bettelheim describes in detail how some initial awkwardness in getting breast feeding started could lead an infant to reject all contact with humans and to deny his own feelings to become, in fact, autistic.

'But autism is almost certainly caused by a genetic defect, not a cold style of mothering. (Even a quick look at children who are abused or neglected by parents should make it obvious that autism is a completely different kind of problem.)

'Eventually, autism will probably be treated with gene therapy or effective medications . . . '

' . . . Bettelheim`s claim to have treated autistic children successfully is suspect; no independent diagnosis or verification is available. It is likely many youngsters he called autistic were not, by usual definitions. [Emphasis added] . . . '

This is another important aspect, that perhaps with at least one more reference should be included in our article.

We now know that Autism Spectrum is quite a bit more common than previously believed. And yes, plenty of persons on the Autism Spectrum go on to college. Of course, there's no particular reason for thinking Mr. Angres himself is on the spectrum. What's listed as being Bettelheim's causes for his "diagnosis" seems like pretty vague and ordinary childhood traits. If the baseline for autism is that 1 out of 85 persons is on the spectrum, then that same baseline applies to Mr. Angres, no more, no less.

As I have read, autism is some or all of the following: sensory and processing issues, awkward or patchy social skills, perhaps less interest in social interaction, intense artistic, intellectual, or experiential interests, and greater frequency of meltdowns. Temple Grandin has talked about how some autistic persons may see or hear in distorted fashion. For example, a letter may appear like cubist art, and standard eye tests do not pick up on this. Some persons on the spectrum stim, much like a poker player may fiddle with chips and for much of the same reason, to deal with sensory issues and to maintain concentration. And thus, in an interesting way, (excessive or unusual) stimming is both a symptom of autism spectrum, and at least in the private or lower-key methods, may also be part of the solution. This is as I understand. I am by no means an expert. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice about Children, Ann Hulbert, Random House, 2003.

" . . An evocative case history approach like his allowed for fudging of samples, methods, and final results, and Bettelheim did so quite brazenly. . "

Very important topics to the history of autism, and our understanding of the autism spectrum. If this interests you, dive in. We could probably use your help. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker, 8 December 1995.

" . . hid the fact that he never completed a psychoanalytic training and, despite claims to the contrary, possessed no psychology qualifications of any sort. . "

" . . But there was always the desire to impress the rest of the world at all costs, a desire that led to the various falsifications of results that were gleefully picked up on after his death. . "

This reviewer agrees with Sutton's book. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

30 years is not "for a time"

Dr. Bettelheim was considered an expert from his first book published before 1950 until after his death in 1990. "for a time" (beginning of article) trivializes his status, imo. Please change it to "over 3o yrs." or something more indicative of the time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvhoff (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I'm currently working on a new lead which will include a goodly range of sources stating that Bettelheim had nowhere near the credentials he claimed he had. After that, I'll try to jump in on this.

And, Bettelheim died in 1990.

Or, take a go at it yourself. Wikipedia's supposed to be a participatory activity. Just please be backed up by a good source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. In fact, I went with "For more than 40 years, Bettelheim wrote a number of articles and books on psychology . . . " I just looked at what was listed in our "Major works by Bettelheim," including his first journal article in 1943 and then primarily his books. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How might one convey information to a professor, both reasonably complete and formally written?

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990.

A lot of material. Again, the question is, how do we summarize. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (review of The Creation of Dr. B by Richard Pollak), Jan. 13, 1997.

a lot of info FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak . Simon & Schuster: 478 pp., $27.50, Los Angeles Times, review by Howard Gardner, Jan. 19, 1997.

Our goal is to summarize it straight forward fashion. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Biography As Revenge, Chicago Tribune, Marie Winn (who writes regularly for The Wall Street Journal's Leisure and Arts Page), Feb. 23, 1997.

" . . . A concentration-camp survivor who wrote one of the first detailed accounts of the camp experience for the American public, a self-described intimate of Freud and his inner circle, a man whose educational credentials were impressive though unavailable because of the war, Bettelheim ran the school as his own fiefdom for the next three decades. Much of his fame and glory was based on his work there--or rather on the picture of the school he painted in his four books about it. For as Pollak demonstrates, Bettelheim was a snake-oil salesman of the first magnitude. His concentration-camp stories were untrustworthy, he had never met Freud, and his degree was in aesthetics, not psychology. Of course, nobody had a clue at the time Bettelheim snagged the job; could anyone doubt the word of a survivor?

"Upon taking over the Orthogenic School, Dr. B, as he soon came to be called, replaced a conventional custodial approach with a weird therapeutic program partly based on Freudian principles and partly on observations he had made during his 10 months in two Nazi camps. . . "

In some ways, this book reviewer is critical of Richard Pollak's The Creation of Dr. B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim (1997), although she agrees with him on the factual information.

We present the info right down the middle. Neither revving it up, nor sugarcoating it. And thinking how we might present it to a college professor is not a bad way to go about it, at least initially. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To me, three things jump out.

1) Bettelheim substantially misrepresented his credentials.

2) He hit students even though, he preached against it. Some counselors saw merely corporal punishment. Some but not all students saw rage and out-of-control violence.

3) And yet, people got inspiration out of his books and he was a big time author for some 30 years as the person points out above.

All of this has references. This is the information I would expect as a reader to be presented in the lead. Again, in matter-of-fact and straightforward fashion, neither jazzing it up nor sugarcoating it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the lead, which I have just reverted makes a number of inappropriate changes. It made the lead state that Bettelheim was a "self-described Freudian". If what you meant to say was that Bettelheim claimed to be a psychoanalyst, that was not the right way to say that. You also added text reading, "And yet, for some 30 years he wrote a number of books on psychology, and, for a time, had an international reputation for his work on Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis and emotionally disturbed children. And perhaps somewhat ironically, a fairly large number of people found his books very inspiring." You might want to review WP:NOTESSAY; that wasn't encyclopedic language at all. The lead shouldn't contain editorial comments about what is "ironic". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To me, it's the central irony about Bettelheim. And I seem to remember reading similar things in Encyclopedia Britannica and often this is what gives richness to a particular encyclopedic entry.

All the same, I concur. And the difference is that I'm not an authority nor am I presenting myself as an authority, whereas Britannica entries are written by named experts in their fields.

So, we'll just go with the references. If a reference states that this is ironic about Bettelheim's career, then we can include. If not, well, there's plenty of other information we can work on summarizing and including. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

current scientific understanding of the causes of autism spectrum

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1919642

This article is pretty straightforward over the issue it addresses, but in general, it's pretty complicated. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Workshop on U.S. Data to Evaluate Changes in the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), February 1, 2011, page 7, section Background: What Do We Know About ASD Prevalence? M. Yeargin-Allsopp.

'There are likely multiple forms of ASDs with multiple causes that are poorly understood. It was noted that sufficient evidence exists that biologic and environmental factors, alone and in interaction, need to be considered as causes.'

' . . The "refrigerator mother" perception was prominent until the 1970s, continuing even into the 1980s. Today, autism is recognized as having a biologic basis and a range or spectrum of presentations. The autism spectrum disorders have been shown to occur among about 1% of children in several different countries. . '

' . . It is estimated that all genetic variants discovered to date are present in 10% to 15% of people with an ASD and many are implicated in other conditions (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia). In general, there would not be an epidemic of a purely genetic condition because genes change over evolutionary time. However, shorter term changes can be seen if there are increases in mutations or breaks, or both, in chromosomes, changes occur in epigenetic patterning (e.g., DNA methylation) or in selective mating patterns. . '

This is currently a source from 2011 we cite in our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Autism spectrum disorder, Cause, Mayo Clinic Staff, June 3, 2014. ' . . Genetic problems. Several different genes appear to be involved . . . . . Environmental factors. Researchers are currently exploring whether such factors as viral infections, complications during pregnancy or air pollutants play a role in triggering autism spectrum disorder. . . '

So, it's complicated, with quite possibly multiple interaction causes. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Did Dr. Bettelheim hit students?

Please include page numbers for the citations re: this. I have read the books and remember no instances of this except in the case of a girl who was suicidal and had been locking herself in the bathroom stall after being told not to and that Dr. Bettelheim was very afraid that she would commit suicide in a stall. So please provide page numbers. Isn't that normal for a citation to a 400+ page book?

There is one piece of information i want to discuss with the people responsible for the final info in this article before I post it, even in the talk section. Please email me or tell me how to contact you.

Benvhoff (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just straight up, I don't give out my email. I've had too many problems in the past.

And even if you gave me a great account of personal experience or just some dynamite theory and thinking, I couldn't use it. It would almost hurt my writing, not help it. I'd really encourage you, first publish maybe on a blog of some sort, and then see if you can get a news outfit interested, and then we can include it here on wiki. Although I think it would be better if someone else included your info, but I think it would be fine for you to talk it up here on the talk page, as long as it's published somewhere else first.

I've only read short sections of Richard Pollak's bio on Bettelheim, and I haven't read Nina Sutton's book at all. I mainly draw from summaries of news articles and book reviews from such sources as the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune, those being probably the main ones. Will be happy to provide what I think are some of the better articles. There's just a slew of information. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990.

' . . . Of the 19 alumni of the Orthogenic School interviewed for this story, some are still bitterly angry at Bettelheim, 20 or 30 years after leaving the institution. Others say their stays did them good, and they express gratitude for having had the opportunity to be at the school. All agree that Bettelheim frequently struck his young and vulnerable patients. What is equally significant is that none of Bettelheim`s sucessors at the Orthogenic School now contradicts these reports. . . '

The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak. Simon & Schuster: 478 pages, Los Angeles Times, reviewed by Howard Gardner (professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education), Jan. 19, 1997

' . . . While Bettelheim advised against slapping or spanking children, several former residents of the Orthogenic School accused him of repeated episodes of frank physical abuse. According to their testimony, Bettelheim slapped youngsters with the hand or the fist, humiliated them in front of others, dragged them around, pulled them by the hair and whipped children with his belt with such severity that he left welts.

'These informants spoke of living in constant fear, "in terror of his footsteps in the door--in abject, animal terror," as one put it. Two women testified that Bettelheim fondled their breasts and those of other female students. And while extolling the value of privacy at times, Bettelheim felt free to walk into any room and any bathroom at any time, even if teenage women were bathing. . . '

and from a student at the school——

Bernstein, Richard: "Accusations of Abuse Haunt the Legacy of Dr. Bruno Bettelheim", New York Times, November 4, 1990: "The Week in Review" section.

' . . . Another former patient, Richard Younker, a Chicago photojournalist, said in an interview that he was slapped some 20 times in eight years at the school. "He hit me until he got tired, and then he would tell me that I was a hood and a thug and was going to end up as a murderer, and then he slapped and punched me some more," he said, adding that his offense was defying his counselor's orders that he stop hiding under his bed. . . '

And Bettelheim was a big name-caller

Letter to the Editor, New York Times, 'Bettelheim Became the Very Evil He Loathed,' Roberta Redford, Nov. 20, 1990 (written Nov. 9).

' . . Unlike most of the other kids there, I was beaten only once. Bettelheim knew how to find people's Achilles' heels. Alida Jatich, whom you quote, he beat up often, knowing that her parents had done so and that was what would cause her the most grief.

'He also did to me what my parents had done -- stripped me of my self-esteem, caused me constantly to doubt myself and verbally abused me. He told me I was a slut, I was a failure at life, and only by abiding by his rules would I ever be fit to live in society again. . '

seeking references for Bettelheim's 10 months in Nazi concentration camps

Currently, this aspect of our article has minimum references. This is a start. Please jump in and help. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Holocaust, Inga Clendinnen, Melbourne, Australia: The Text Publishing Co., 1998, page 66, " . . late in 1939 . . "

NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity, Steve Silberman, Foreword by Oliver Sacks, Penguin Random House, 2015, pages 202-03.

This source says Bettelheim was released on April 14, 1939. I'm going with this for the time being because it's more specific, and plus, it's from a source I'm pretty familiar with which seems like a pretty alright source. As always, standing offer, please jump in and help. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dictionary of Genocide, Volume 1: A–L, Samuel Totten, Paul R. Bartrop, with contributions by Steven Leonard Jacobs, "Bettelheim, Bruno (1903–1990)," Westport, Connecticut, U.S. and London, UK: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008.

This source also says April 1939. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did more people not give voice to their suspicions?

The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak. Simon & Schuster: 478 pages, Los Angeles Times, reviewed by Howard Gardner (professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education), Jan. 19, 1997.

"When I began to discuss this biography with clinicians, several of them said in effect, 'Oh, we all knew this about Bettelheim. We did not believe his claims and figures; we knew he was a bastard.' I asked myself--and then I started to ask others--'Why did no one expose this fraud, this pretending saint who was tainted with evil? Did their silence encourage Bettelheim's excesses?' Answers varied from fear about Bettelheim's legendary capacity for retribution to the solidarity needed among the guild of healers to a feeling that, on balance, Bettelheim's positive attributes predominated and an unmasking would fuel more malevolent forces."

This is an important question, too. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Finn, Molly, June/July 1997, First Things, "In the Case of Bruno Bettelheim" Archived February 20, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.

"[I]t is deplorable that the institution [University of Chicago] supported Bettelheim's work without ever setting up the oversight committee or board of visitors it usually appointed."

In Print: the abominable Dr. Bettelheim, Chicago Reader, Cara Jepsen, Jan. 16, 1997.

Richard Pollak, author of The Creation of Dr. B (1997) basically said the popular media just treated it as a pop culture item. They didn't even scratch the surface, much less make an effort to look for other voices or do anything approaching investigative journalism.

"The media played along from the start," says Pollak said. "They never asked the questions, never asked to see any kind of support for the claims he was making. He'd appear on Dick Cavett and the Today Show, and they all sat there slack-jawed and threw softball questions."

Order of sections

Misrepresented credentials should come first, and then plagiarism. Going to try some ideas with other sections. Please jump in and help. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

early career in U.S.

Biographical Dictionary of American Educators, Vol. 1 edited by John F. Ohles, Westport, Connecticut, and London, England: Greenwood Press, 1978.

For example, that Bettelheim first worked as a research assistant at the University of Chicago, then taught at Rockford College, then came back to U. of Chicago. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990.

(page 3)

' . . [Ralph] Tyler also had administrative responsibilty for the Orthogenic School, which needed a new director. Bettelheim persuaded his mentor he could do the job, and in 1944 he returned to the university from Rockford to head what was then one of very few psychiatric programs for young people in the country. . '

Right down the line with references, slightly on the cautious side?

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker, (review of Bruno Bettelheim: A Life and a Legacy by Nina Sutton), 8 December 1995.

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (review of The Creation of Dr. B by Richard Pollak), Jan. 13, 1997.

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997.

Boxer, Sarah (January 26, 1997). "The Man He Always Wanted to Be". The New York Times. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak. Simon & Schuster: 478 pages, Los Angeles Times, review by Howard Gardner, Jan. 19, 1997.

' . . . He [Bettelheim] lied about his family background, his education, his love life, his credentials, his experiences in the concentration camp. Nor did this reshaping of the truth end after he became renowned; if anything, his claims became more grandiose. . . '

And this is a book review that disagrees with much of Pollak's writing style, but agrees with the conclusions. What more can we ask for? And Gardner has a Ph.D in developmental psychology and taught for years at Harvard.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Biography As Revenge, Chicago Tribune, Marie Winn (who writes regularly for The Wall Street Journal's Leisure & Arts Page), Feb. 23, 1997.

' . . . Bettelheim ran the school as his own fiefdom for the next three decades. Much of his fame and glory was based on his work there--or rather on the picture of the school he painted in his four books about it. For as Pollak demonstrates, Bettelheim was a snake-oil salesman of the first magnitude. [Emphasis added] His concentration-camp stories were untrustworthy, he had never met Freud, and his degree was in aesthetics, not psychology. Of course, nobody had a clue at the time Bettelheim snagged the job; could anyone doubt the word of a survivor? . . . '

How much more do we need? To me, it's a question of how to summarize abundant references without going overboard. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus other references which show that Bettelheim did not have the credentials he claimed. So, right down the line with the references, ever so slightly erring on the side of caution, should we describe him as 'discredited' in our lead? Yes, I think we should. And if someone has a better idea, please let me know. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's go with " . . former director of the Orthogenic School for Disturbed Children at the University of Chicago who was exposed after his death as having used plagiarism and fake credentials. . ," which I think is very neutral and down the line.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And I always welcome help to improve the grammar, pacing, and punctuation of an article. And all of this, in its own way, really is as important to good communication as is the accuracy of the information itself.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on how our lead should cover long career but also fake credentials, etc.?

Editors are fine with the current revised lead.
Cunard (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How early and clearly should our lead talk about fake credentials, as well as plagiarism and abusive treatment of students? We currently state "self-educated psychoanalyst" and that simply is not the case.

There's another issue. When I do a search on Bettelheim, my mobile device truncates our lead and shows the first 35 words. And though we might cry to the heavens that this is not the way people should use wikipedia, all the same, this is in fact how people often do use wikipedia. I think we should endeavor to cover both sides of his career in those 35 words. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If the statement that Bettelheim was a "self-educated psychoanalyst" is incorrect then remove it. It was not me who added it in the first place. You should be able to remove inaccurate material without adding material that violates the appropriate neutrality of an encyclopedia in the process. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Cite the content correctly in the main body and summarize it in the WP:LEAD. Feel free to make adjustments to the LEAD if you feel it does not accurately summarize what we are able to cite. If there is a major conflict or controversy, cite it properly in the main body and summarize it properly in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With some recent work by two of us, I think we now have a pretty good lead. But all the same, if the topic interests you, please jump in and help! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Lead looks good. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Summoned by bot. Correct me if I'm wrong but his fake credentials, plagiarism, and treatment of students is what he is most known for, thus should be included early in the lead. I support the lead as it currently stands. Meatsgains (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

slightly shortening and tightening our lead?

For example, we don't need to twice say that Bettelheim was director of the Orthogenic School for Disturbed Children. And there might be a shorter, tighter way of saying "allegations . . . raised and later substantiated."

I'm going to try a couple of changes. As always, please jump in and help if this topic interests you. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence of article

Why does the opening sentence of article paint such a negative view of Bettelheim? It could be written from a more neutral point of view, saying that Bettelheim was a psychoanalyst who had written a book "Freud and Man's Soul". This book does not seem to get enough attention in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, and I've struggled with this very issue many a revision! All I can say, that's the picture of Bettelheim our references paint. For example, he's not a psychoanalyst in any way, shape, or form. From our sources:

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, The New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (review of Richard Pollak's The Creation of Dr. B), Jan. 13, 1997.
" . . . is seen in a new, harsh light, and stands exposed as a brilliant charlatan."

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker (review of Nina Sutton's Bruno Bettelheim: A Life and a Legacy), 8 December 1995.
" . . . no psychology qualifications of any sort."

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997.
" . . . had only taken three introductory courses in psychology."

Now, if I were teaching a college seminar, say, on the history of thought regarding autism, I might lead with one of these quotes. I might even look for a more juicy quote. Be that as it may.

But for our purposes of a down-the-middle encyclopedia, I think the three-fold classification of plagiarism, falsified credentials, and abusive treatment of students, is a pretty solid classification. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

First sentence using three-fold approach of " . . refugee from Nazi Europe who used false credentials to obtain professorship at U. of Chicago."

I think such a lead sentence would grab the essentials of Bettelheim's career. And yes, we have more than adequate documentation, for example:

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997.

' . . . It was thus discovered that, somewhere between Vienna and Chicago, he had reinvented himself--right out of the proverbial whole cloth.

'It turned out that Dr. B wasn't a medical doctor nor even did he have a degree in a psychology. As a young man, he had operated his family's lumber yard, even though he detested a businessman's life. Belatedly, he had earned a doctorate in art history, the subject he taught at Rockford College.

'But when the directorship of the Orthogenic School became available, he evidently gambled that because of the war no one would be able to check on his credentials. . . '

As always, please jump in and help if topic interests you! :~)

Lead Section

The lead section of this article will need substantial work to get it in line with MOS:LEAD. It is too long, includes lots of detailed information that should be in the body of the text, and places undue weight on a number of aspects the subject's life. I have re-written the opening sentence for clarity and to better align with WP:NPOV, but the whole thing really needs some work. Whenelvisdied (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for jumping in. If something bothers you, it most probably bothers other people as well. Now, please understand that with what our sources say, it is not NPOV to describe Bettelheim as a children psychologist. For example:

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker (review of Nina Sutton's Bruno Bettelheim: A Life and a Legacy), 8 December 1995.
" . . . no psychology qualifications of any sort."

And we have a number of sources saying similar things. Plus, we have the RfC from above.

As far as the length, the man had a complex life and career and it's going to take some length to describe it. I plan to work on a couple of topics within the article, and then probably take another look at the lead. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

sources disagree about what field Bettelheim's one Ph.D was in

art history:

Setting The Record Straight About A `Fallen Guru', Chicago Tribune, Editorial, Joan Beck, April 3, 1997:

' . . He did have a doctorate in art history, obtained after he went to Rockford. . . '

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997, page 2:

' . . . Belatedly, he had earned a doctorate in art history, the subject he taught at Rockford College. . . '

Bruno Bettelheim: a cautionary life, Baltimore Sun, Paul R. McHugh, Jan. 19, 1997:

" . . . having been a businessman with an art history doctorate in 1930s Vienna. . . "

aesthetics:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;c=mqrarchive;idno=act2080.0037.322;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mqrg
" . . . earning a doctorate in aesthetics . . . "

Biography As Revenge, Chicago Tribune, Marie Winn (who writes regularly for The Wall Street Journal's Leisure & Arts Page), Feb. 23, 1997.

" . . . and his degree was in aesthetics, not psychology. . . "

Finn, Molly, June/July 1997, First Things, "In the Case of Bruno Bettelheim" "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

" . . . were actually six years and a Ph.D. without honors in philosophical aesthetics. . . "

And @2dk:, good catch. Thank you! :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_Bettelheim&diff=883315990&oldid=883315680
None of the sources mention anything about a dissertation on the philosopher Immanuel Kant. I'm going to take that part out.

And a Ph.D in any field whatsoever stands for "Doctor of Philosophy." This might be another source of confusion among sources.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

How to describe Bettelheim in sidebar?

As references, we have:

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker, 8 December 1995.

" . . possessed no psychology qualifications of any sort. . "

Bruno Bettelheim: a cautionary life, Baltimore Sun, Paul R. McHugh, Jan. 19, 1997.

" . . . Bettelheim had no qualifications as a child psychiatrist or psychologist, . . . "

Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997, page 2.

" . . he evidently gambled that because of the war no one would be able to check on his credentials. So he intimated to U. of C. officials that he had been cross-trained in psychology. Yet when his transcript was posthumously examined, it showed that he had taken but three introductory courses in the field. . . "

Plus, there are lots of other references. So, it is not accurate and in fact somewhat misleading to say "freelance ideas on child psychology," even though I think I'm the person who came up with this! It is our job to summarize the references. In particular, it is not our job to start with some preconceived notion and average between that and the references.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: how to cover someone who doesn't have credentials for their field?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC asked for a decision about how to style the first sentence of the LEAD paragraph about this article. While some participants discussed ways that the LEAD as a whole could be structured there was not significant enough discussion for the scope of this RfC to be anything beyond the question which was asked. Those answering yes tended to cite that this is how we was referred to at the time while those answering no tended to cite subsequent revelations about his lack of training and/or other abuses and fraud committed by Bettelheim. In general there was very little mention of policy and guidelines in this discussion.

This means that something closer to a headcount is called for in closing this RfC. With editors evenly divided between the two positions there is no consensus about whether to refer to him as a child psychologist in the first sentence. Some alternatives such as psychoanalyst or adding a qualifier to "child psychologist" such as self-taught were suggested. Further discussion about these phrases might allow interested editors to come to a consensus, with or without a future RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "child psychologist"? 22:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes "Self-styled" or "presumed" might work as well. On one hand we have the facts he misrepresented his credentials and had no formal training as a child psychologist, but on he other hand we have the work he did in the field. I think the lead makes clear he has no real training in the field, so the initial descriptor can remain. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No But did Bettelheim do the work? We have solid sources stating he engaged in plagiarism for his well-known book The Uses of Enchantment (1976). And even though he publicly advocated against corporal punishment, at least four students from his residential school later went public with reports of what sure seemed to them to be out of control violence on his part, although counselors at the school tended to merely perceive corporal punishment.
And then there's the aspect of how people use Wikipedia and what I think of as us having about 39 words to provide a solid, succinct nutshell description. On a number of different occasions, I have seen people google a topic, read the Wiki excerpt, scan the rest of the search page (first page), and that is that. They never open the Wikipedia page! And though we may cry to the heavens that this is not how people should use Wikipedia, this is in fact how people do use Wikipedia. Instead, I think we should live it, love it, embrace it. I mean, what else can we do ? ! And, we should try to make that approximate 39 words as good as we can. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think it's fine to separate Bettelheim's work (unethical and abusive though some of it seems to have been) from his credentials. There are lots of examples of exactly this situation. For example, Jared Diamond is listed as a "geographer, historian, and author....[o]riginally trained in physiology." There is plenty of space in the page (and indeed some in the lead) devoted to criticism of Bettelheim over his ethics and bad behavior. But the fact remains that he was hired as a child psychologist, wrote books (plagiarized though they may have been) as a child psychologist, and worked his whole life in the field of child psychology. Despite his credentials, he was a child psychologist, though clearly a pretty terrible one. Whenelvisdied (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I kind of don't get it. Would we describe Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can") as a "doctor"? He actually worked in a hospital as an attending physician. He was able to fake his way through this by using a type of Socratic questioning with interns and residents, and then agreeing with one. But, if it had been a tricky case which had actually needed an experienced physician, someone could have really gotten hurt.

I think it's that we give psychologists less respect (maybe they deserved a little less, but not that much). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Then the sentence stating "fraudulent academic credentials" as one of the accusations against Bettelheim in the last sentence of the lead should address this. Anything more than that doesn't meet the standards set on relative emphasis in MOS:Lead, imo. Whenelvisdied (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I really encourage you to take the "busy person" Wiki test. Using google or dogpile or whichever search engine you choose, please pick a topic you already know about, and see how accuratedly and/or completely the truncated version on the search page does. And I mean, without even clicking on the Wiki article, just what's on the search page.

I notice you wrote "though clearly a pretty terrible one." Yes, I do agree with you here, although I have tried mightily to stay measured and down the line with what our references say, no more, no less. And so, what I find fascinating is that you seem to agree with me on the misrepresented credentials, the plagiarism, the physical abuse of students (different than his public persona) and yet . . . you want to write a plain vanilla lead as if Bettelheim led a normal career ? When of course, he had anything but.

In particular I'd ask, let's try to make our first sentence broadly meaningful. We may not be able to do anything about a sentence fragment someone takes in on a glance, but I think we can build to a very good first sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The 'test' you describe has no place or standing in wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and is a meaningless criteria for editing the lead. It is not a standard by which to write an acceptable lead section.

However, I'd like to propose a compromise. Let's add the words "controversial Austrian-born" before "20th century". Then we can delete the sentence that starts "Born in Vienna..." This alludes to his problematic behavior in the first few sentences while not giving it undue weight. Quick readers will then not be able to come away with the impression that he was unproblematic. Whenelvisdied (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we're also asked not to include suspense or reveals, such as stating that Bettelheim was a 'psychologist' and director of the Sonia Shankman Orthogenic School, and then belatedly getting to the 'good' stuff as it were, or the real stuff such as major misrepresentation of credentials, the plagiarism, and the violence toward patients. All of which I think is what Bettelheim is most known for these days, and which should address questions of undue or proper balance (weird questions about temporal neutrality notwithstanding! , which someone could bring up, and which frankly I'd have no idea how to address) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section
" . . cultivates interest in reading on – though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. . "
As always, YMMV, meaning your mileage may vary. But what I take from this is that we should be pretty direct and matter-of-fact about the major controversies surrounding Bettelheim (which are not minor) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine, "controversial" hints too much, but again--the information that you want included is already in the last sentence of the lead. Adding at again, earlier in the paragraph is placing undue weight on one aspect of his biography. I also dispute what you just said " All of which I think is what Bettelheim is most known for these days". I don't think this is true at all--for example, plenty of people still read "The Uses of Enchantment" if Amazon's sales rank and google trends are any guide. This is certainly how I discovered Bettelheim. The lead should discuss his life in summary, and should be NPOV. I'm going to take the sentence that starts "Born in Vienna..." out. Whenelvisdied (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If you learned from Bettelheim's The Uses of Enchantment, you might want to try the original which is Dr. Julius E. Heuscher's The Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales (1963, and 1974 rev. edition). Perhaps skim it and read just parts and see what you think. I trust you are aware that major public accusations of plagiarism were made against this book of Bettelheim's, and to the best of my knowledge, this is the only book of his in which charges were made in this kind of public manner.
Bettelheim Plagiarized Book Ideas, Scholar Says : Authors: The late child psychologist is accused of 'wholesale borrowing' for study of fairy tales, Los Angeles Times, Anne C. Roark, Feb. 7, 1991.
And, I find myself in the position of radical moderate. From my perspective, other people are trying to "normalize" or "regularize" a set of messy facts. And I say, why don't we just go ahead and let the facts be messy? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but since he had no formal background in it and the fact that he was a faker seems to be as important as any other part of his personality or career, there should be some type of qualifier. In addition to the suggestions in the first comment in this section, I offer "self-titled", "self-professed", "imposter" and welcome other suggestions. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "self-professed" would be an improvement; imposter might be more at it.

Okay, there's the question I raised above about whether the Catch Me If You Can guy should be described as a "doctor." Or . . . should we describe Jimmy "Baby Face" Nelson as a "banking entrepreneur"! ? ! Afterall, he did put together a team. He did invest money upfront in hopes of making a profit. Of course, you and I probably both know him as the notorious bank robber. But per NPOV, I suppose we shouldn't let that stand in the way . . . of what I really think is over-politeness. ;-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It is NPOV and is what he was (although we can remove "child"). [1] (does not mean he was a good one). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral on the surface. But what about the 39-word argument? That many people never actually go to the Wiki article, but just go with the part carried on google search because they're an adult and that's all they need. And they're just as smart as you and I. I think we should strive for a more meaningful summary (really just beginning of article). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what special status you assume "psychologist" has -- in the 20th century, especially, it was a new theoretical enterprise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A PhD in psychology is part of licensing by state governments as far as offering help to the public. And it communicates to individuals within the public that you have completed a course of study. I'm pretty sure it existed in the 1940s, although I'd welcome references on the point. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What? His practice, such as it was was, was what we would call education psychology but education psychologists in schools even today don't need a PhD (and even our article on psychologists says counselors can practice psychology). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The children and teenagers at the Sonia Shankman Orthogenic School lived there, except for the occasional visit home. So, I think of it as more than what we would today refer to as educational psychology. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Some were day students, some were not, and many schools have live in students. It's still educational psychology. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And you'd think we could find a number of sources which would tell how many students lived at the school vs. how many were day students, but no, I have not come across a single reference which addresses this question. I do gather that the school was relatively small with, say, between (?) 20 to 40 students, but even on this basic fact, the references don't address it nearly as clearly and directly as it seems like they could.

Now with all this said, we do have solid references such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. And all we can do is go with the ones we have and do a solid, down-the-middle job of summarizing.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No. He was foremost a pretend psychoanalyst, but psychoanalysis is a fake science itself, and there is not much difference between a fake and a double fake, so "psychoanalyst" would be OK. What Pollak wrote about Bettelheim's "stance of infallibility over matters Pollak knew to be untrue" seems to be fairly typical for psychoanalysts in general. You could find similar things written about Freud. A "psychologist" is someone who either does actual science or at least applies actual science. Except Eric Kandel, I don't know any psychoanalyst who ever did that. (Inventing random explanations and never seriously testing them does not count.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you bring it up, a think a lot of fields don't have enough interchange between theory and practice!, certainly not enough to really constitute a healthy interchange and get some kind of upward spiral of improvement and advancement going. I encourage you to roll with your energy on the subject of psychoanalysis (and/or what might you view as the better alternatives). With solid references of course, that's a given.

I myself think the reason Freud's ideas caught on with both professionals and the general public, well, they were big, complex ideas, for one, and then they included interesting views on the subject of s-e-x, and that gave them a lot of traction.

On Bettelheim, I'd say that if he didn't complete the training for the time to be a "psychoanalyst," then our article should not so label him without some kind of qualification. And I'd ask you to please reconsider on this point, whatever might be your philosophical views regarding the field itself. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No, (via FRS) we should not describe him as a psychologist. I think that psychoanalyst would be acceptable. If we do refer to him as a psychologist, we should include "self-styled" or something similar. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think there's two aspects to 'psychoanalyst,' first, whether one subscribes to the theory, basically whether one believes in Freud's theories, and then secondly, esp. for the mid 1900s, whether one has completed a pretty intensive formal course of training. So no, I don't think we should refer to Bettelheim as a psychoanalyst either. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes Bettelheim had no real credentials in the field and faked most of his published work but he still worked in the field regardless. Some phrase must be used prior to the term but he had the experience to be classified. He still had to knowledge to function as a psychologist even if he applied it poorly and contradicted himself at times. Ted (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, plagiarism was only demonstrated in his The Uses of Enchantment (1976), which of course was one of his big books. I just continue to be fascinated, you say the guy faked most of the work and I guess I get the point that you have to be somewhat knowledgeable in order to successfully fake, . . well, is it that we just give so little anything to the label 'psychologist'? Or, this question and challenge, should the main character in the Catch Me If You Can movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks be described as a doctor, for he did afterall present himself as a doctor? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Strange Case of Dr. B.", New York Review of Books, Robert Gottlieb, Feb 27, 2003.

Bettelheim arrived in the United States without a job or even a profession, so of course he said what was necessary to get a job.

And this is perhaps the most succinct, as well as a very human summary, of his career which I've been able to find. Unfortunately, New York Review of Books is now only making the beginning of this article available online. We do use several quotes from this article in the Misrepresented credentials section. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not appear, you have done any research. He impressed people, very knowledgeable people, and people in the public with his writings and presentations on psychology. See eg., [2] Some of his work is even cited to this very day.[3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the case that he both misrepresented his credentials and that he impressed knowledgeable people? And yes, I have looked up and read a number of references and have made a number of edits, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_Bettelheim&diff=884743393&oldid=884625963
to the effect that Bettelheim's one PhD was either in art history or aesthetics. Sources vary, and I am unable to fix it past that point. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you? Then there is no possible way for you to view a sentence about 1943 a summary of his career. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In reply to Hob Gadling: Based on their professional qualifications, someone either is a psychoanalyst or they are not. It is important for Wikipedia to be accurate about this. Opinions about the validity of psychoanalysis itself are irrelevant to the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No He would be a “self taught amateur psychoanalyst.” Jasphetamine (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Self styled, self taught etc are not good options because they have negative connotations, so I would suggest autodidact which seems nicer even though it means the same thing Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Maybethe dictionary definitions make no mention of qualification. Eg https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychologist. I don't think Wikipedia should act as professional association gatekeepers or raise criticism ; So I suggest "Although Bruno was not formally trained..." Or " Bruno was famous in the field of child psychology .." or "worked as a child psychologist. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But he wasn't merely self-taught or an autodidact, Bettelheim also misrepresented his credentials, right?
And really, the way I look at it, we're not trying to do anything near as 'interesting' as avoiding negative connotations. Instead, we have the rather boring task of merely summarizing a variety of good reference and letting the chips fall where they will, although if we pick the right topics, this will still have plenty of intellectual heft! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Self styled" and "Self taught" do not carry negative connotations. An autodidact is the exact same thing as a self-taught person. Many great artists philosophers and scientists over the years have been described as self-taught. Perhaps we should be using the style of Srinivasa Ramanujan as precedent and describe him as having no formal training in the field. Regardless, self taught is perfectly acceptable and the meaning is obvious -- autodidact is synonymous but obtuse and reeks of purple prose. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my mind on self-taught, but all the examples i can find have Self-styled used negatively. I like the no formal training suggestion. I also now agree that autodidact is (and forgive me for my humour and i had to look it up} sesquipedalian. Purple prose is a bit harsh though "Purple prose is prose text that is so extravagant, ornate, orflowery as to break the flow and draw excessive attention to itself. ... Purple prose is criticized for desaturating the meaning in an author's text by overusing melodramatic and fanciful descriptions." Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I like your humor. Sesquipedalian itself being a sesquipedalian word, right? Now, I do question, at what cost we should avoid "negative." After Richard Pollak's bio, meaning after Jan. '97, the overwhelming majority of journalistic sources have been negative and that's just the fact of the matter. An analogy might be the hypothesized Planet Nine which is a current scientific controversy. It will eventually shake out one way or the other. And after it does, it's not our job to continue to be "neutral." Well, maybe a couple of months, that might be unavoidable, but not 20+ years like we are with our Bettelheim article.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No These are particular fields where being self-taught is not equivalent to having this title, so calling him a "psychoanalyst" would be flawed. MA Javadi (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect, being a psychoanalyst doesn't imply being an MD in the field of of psychoanalysis, or a PhD, or any kind of credentialed title. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

But "psychoanalyst" requires some kind of formal training, and not just winging it as Bettelheim did. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, or just "psychologist". The latter in particular carries very little weight. Why should a psychologist be judged for helping people rather than pursuing credentials? So absolutely no pejorative terms. The Refrigerator Mother theory is an important progenitor of Bateson's double-bind theories. is one notable who uses double-binds against opponents. I personally think it's irrelevant in autism and dislike the gender bias of Refrigerator Mother. WykiP (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to help place Bettelheim in larger context, more power to you. As I understand, Leo Kanner came up with the refrigerator mother theory, although not that exact phrase. And both Kanner and Bettelheim helped to popularize, although not working together. Have run across "double bind," but it's the 1980s or earlier. And all this was during the heyday of psychoanalytic thought in which parents, and esp. mothers, were blamed for everything under the sun.
On separate issue, how much do we water-down our references in order to avoid being pejorative? For example, in the below source Paul McHugh says of Bettelheim, "Bettelheim was a habitual liar, thankless friend, vicious bully and brazen plagiarist." And so, if we say in our article that he was largely exposed after his death for misrepresented credentials, plagiarism, and abusive treatment of patients, I think we are being very middle of the road. And yes, McHugh does say it more aggressively than most, but as someone in the field who actually had the credentials, I can kind of see where he's coming from. And somewhat more temperately stated, this is largely what the journalistic references do say after Pollak's bio from 1997 forward. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak yes,(Summoned by bot) I hesitated over this one. Clearly 'psychologist', especially in its infancy, did not have the kind of regulation that medical doctor has/had. Despite being largely discredited after his death, psychology appears to have been what he did, was regarded as during his life, and was paid for. BTW, "self-professed psychologist" - present wording - appears to me to be very unclear and simply an attempt to discredit him in the opening sentence. Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Bettelheim: a cautionary life, Baltimore Sun, Paul McHugh, Jan. 19, 1997.

" . . no qualifications as a child psychiatrist or psychologist, . . "

" . . glibness with Freudian theory . . "

" . . As it turns out, Bettelheim was a habitual liar, thankless friend, vicious bully and brazen plagiarist. . "

" . . Pollak documents how many of our academic and publishing trend-setters abandoned elementary critical standards, allowing Bettelheim to deceive, defame and denigrate honest people for over 40 years. . "

Paul McHugh was the director of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. So, yes, you can imagine what he might think of someone without any real credentials. But, and here's my main question, how much is it our job to water-down our references? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Puzzle That Was Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, November 11, 1990.

" . . He studied at the University of Vienna, where he took a Ph.D., though it is not clear to many of his former colleagues in what subject. Sanders and Cohler, his successors at the Orthogenic School, got the impression from Bettelheim that his doctoral dissertation was in art history. In some of his writings, Bettelheim implies that he wrote a disseration on the philosophy of education. Ralph Tyler, who first brought Bettelheim to the University of Chicago, says he assumed Bettelheim had two Ph.D.s: one in art history, another in psychology. Yet the university`s official biographical sketch credits Bettelheim with only one Ph.D., and doesn`t specify a field. . "

So, within a year of his death, real questions were being raised about Bettelheim's credentials. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Monster of the Midway, Chicago Reader [indy news weekly], Letter to the editor, Alida M. Jatich, April 4, 1991.

' . . . He was NOT a member of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. He did NOT study under Sigmund Freud. Bettelheim had absolutely no qualifications to diagnose mental illness or to practice any type of therapy whatsoever! I did not know this and neither did my parents. He had no right to label me or anyone else "emotionally disturbed." We were bullied and intimidated by this "expert" who was no expert at all. Somehow I had gotten the impression that he had studied under Freud, which was untrue. I could not believe that the University of Chicago would have made him a tenured professor unless he had some qualifications or training in his field. It simply never occurred to me that he had none! . . . '

This is another important aspect to the story. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with Bettleheim and unless all editors are on the same page, I can't say I'm motivated to invest a lot of time in his article. I was asked to comment and so I'm commenting (hopefully) on behalf of people in the field.

It's only an educated guess that Refridgerator Mother led to Bateson's Double-Bind Theory of Schizophrenia and who knows if you'll ever find Bateson acknowledging a connection. I've met numerous academics saying such theories should be ignored because blame is unfair. But this is an irrational and anti-science position: blame being unfair doesn't make a theory more or less accurate.

Yes my preliminary opinion is that Bettleheim is mostly notable because of his role in the history of psychology and/or the development of the field. If he was a liar, it doesn't significantly change his place in either. I need to add that therapists are often very tribal, so we need to be careful and look for balancing opinion.

Based on over 20 years in the field, I am stating that there are a lot of reasons for therapists to not bother with qualifications. Clearly, the university agreed. What would actually be studied and tested to be awarded such a qualification? There is minimal agreement even now on what works. There's also a huge divide between academia and therapists with 100x as much experience testing things. Qualifications themselves don't help people.

As per pejorative language, WP is about relevant NPOV accuracy. That goes for implications too. If something is implied which is biased, it should be removed (or balanced in the same section). WykiP (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

And, thank you for your reply. And most of all, thank you for your 20+ years helping people. :-)

I understand that the big symptom with schizophrenia is auditory hallucinations, which can be managed with medication as long as the MD doctor is willing to patiently tinker with such medication.

But I also understand this doesn't always happen, because the doctor doesn't always accord the patient middle-class status. And thus because of bad side effects, a number of patients stop taking the medication, which in a way might even be a rational decision.

Although I suspect, like anti-depressants, if a person is going to stop, he or she is highly recommended to phase down, and not stop cold turkey.

The "Double-Bind Theory" is basically just a person in authority telling you to do two opposing things. It can be a parent. Or, it can be a job which says "highest possible ethics" but we're got to "have the numbers up," and we're not going to talk about it. It's both kind of stupid, but also given human nature, pretty common.

Anyway, if we have a reference which says Bettelheim influenced Bateson, we can go with it. But if we don't, we need to hold back. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heavy Reliance on One Source

The entire article relies heavily on one source, Richard Pollak's biography, and quotes it, and reviews of it many times. This seems to go against NPOV given Pollak's critical stance and should perhaps be supplimented with competing sources. Likewise, the Misrepresented credentials section spends an in-ordinate amount of time talking about Pollak's motivations for writing a biography of Bettelheim, rather than on the credentials itself. This is no doubt due to FriendlyRiverOtter's enthusiastic quoting and dilligent work here, but I think that there should be less about Pollak and more about what his work says about Bettelheim. Whenelvisdied (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the references are reviews of Pollak's The Creation of Dr. B (1997), but there's also a fair number of references predating this or talking about other aspects. For example . .

SOLVING THE PUZZLE THAT WAS BRUNO BETTELHEIM, Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, Nov. 11, 1990.

" . . . He also abused the power and privilege of his position.

"Of the 19 alumni of the Orthogenic School interviewed for this story, some are still bitterly angry at Bettelheim, 20 or 30 years after leaving the institution. Others say their stays did them good, and they express gratitude for having had the opportunity to be at the school. All agree that Bettelheim frequently struck his young and vulnerable patients. . . "

Bettelheim Accused Of Plagiarizing Book, Chicago Tribune, Sharman Stein, February 7, 1991.

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker, 8 December 1995.

" . . . despite claims to the contrary, possessed no psychology qualifications of any sort. . . "

This is a review of Nina Sutton's 1995 biography of Bettelheim.

Bruno Bettelheim: a cautionary life, Baltimore Sun, Paul McHugh, Jan. 19, 1997.

Yes, this one is a review of Pollak's book. But it's in a major newspaper, and the reviewer holds a faculty position at Johns Hopkins. What else would we want? It's the kind of solid secondary source which we're asked to use.

At a minimum, we should include that Pollak was left reeling from a conversation with Bettelheim about his (Pollak's) family, then worked in journalism for a number of years, and then went back to the subject of Bettelheim. And I think we need to include a quote or two, to give our reader some kind of context and hopefully let them decide for themselves, Okay, even if Pollak picked his topic for deeply personal reasons, did he deploy his journalism tools in a fair manner? This reviewer Paul McHugh seems to think so.

And yes, our article includes a number of other reviews of Pollak's book.

And these other reviewers, even the ones who think Pollak has a lousy and repetitive writing style, seem to agree with his conclusions. To me, this is pretty definite from the reviews. And again, this is using secondary sources like we're asked to use. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

At least three former students have written books about their experiences at the school:

• Tom Lyon's The Pelican and After: A Novel about Emotional Disturbance (1983), a fictionized, roman à clef novel as it were, in which the head of the school is a "Dr. V," brief overview in the book The Positive Side of Special Education

• Stephen Eliot's memoir Not the Thing I Was: Thirteen Years at Bruno Bettelheim's Orthogenic School, (2003), brief summary, largely positive of the school

• Roberta Carly Redford's memoir Crazy: My Seven Years at Bruno Bettelheim's Orthogenic School, (2010) brief summary, largely negative about the school.

If anyone can find reviews of these books or other good (secondary) sources on Bettelheim, please go ahead and add them to the article or share them here, whatever you have time for. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)