Talk:Hans Eysenck

Misconduct

It appears that there is evidence that a large number of his publications were based on fabricated data/analyses. See here and here. This should probably be included in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that needs an update. Seeing as this was a concerted investigation into his broader body of work (as opposed to any single research area), I'd suggest it merits a section of its own, rather than being integrated into the existing topic-specific sections. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also important enough to mention in the lead. --Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It is unusual to begin the bio of an eminent personality with generalized criticisms. It is not controversial that he made some errors, but "His rich theoretical writings laid the foundation for literally thousands of experimental studies that continue to test the various hypotheses generated by these theories": Saklofske D, H. J. Eysenck's Contribution to the Study and Analysis of Creativity, 1998. Revelle W, Oehlberg K, Integrating Experimental and Observational Personality Research — The Contributions of Hans Eysenck, Journal of Personality 76:6, December 2008. Gottfredson L, Hans Eysenck's theory of intelligence, and what it reveals about him, Personality and Individual Differences 103 (2016) 116–127.

Bear in mind also that it is generally acknowledged that there has been, and probably still is, a concerted effort by social scientists to discredit areas of his work that are accepted in the mainstream by most leading psychologists.

The article needs greater balance.

Parzivalamfortas 23:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

For instance, mention is made of his 64 or 87 articles that are very questionable: but shouldn't that be put into context of the fact that he published more than 1,600 journal articles and 80 books? A couple of examples of more balanced 'encyclopedic' -style enries can be found in his obituaries, for instance in Nature and a more critical (newspaper) one in The Independent. Even scientists make mistakes, that is the nature of science. The importance is that they are corrected, but even more important is the lasting value of things they got right, and the proportion. https://www.nature.com/articles/39755 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-professor-hans-eysenck-1238119.html By all means a separate section on controversy would be appropriate. Especially on tobacco companies. But historically his influence is on psychological theories of personality, creativity and intelligence, not on tobacco. If his critics are quoted, then authoritative material, properly and accurately worded would need to appear earlier. There seems to be quite a big difference between what he said on race and intelligence for instance and what he was 'paraphrased' as saying. Rather than risk further controversy a general statement to such effect might be appropriate. Importantly, where some of his theories were partly correct and partly incorrect, they have been refined by subsequent researchers (e.g. the exact percentage of genetic influence of intelligence.) Proper criticism is important, but it should not, in my opinion, degenerate into 'cancel culture'.Parzivalamfortas 11:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"He received his PhD in 1940 from University College London (UCL) working in the Department of Psychology under the supervision of Professor Sir Cyril Burt, with whom he had a tumultuous professional relationship throughout his working life." Fascinating. Cyril Burt was also a known manipulator of data and his work was largely deemed fraudulent in the 1970s and later. In the light of Eysenck's apparent data fraud activities, this early influence might be significant. Note this is just a comment. Original research is of course well out of Wikipedia's scope.Cross Reference (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ronald Grossarth-Maticek

I've stubbed an article about his main co-author. More info is in German but I don't speak it. Please help expand, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Diagram caption

Although it's been changed slightly since, the description added by User:Sciencia58 here, ie

"Diagramm of the misleading reasoning applied by the critics of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek, as revealed 2019. believing Eysenck and Grossarth had hypothesised a "cancer-prone personality" and "heart disease-prone personality", although Grossarth has spoken out intentively in favour of psychologically assisted smoking cessation." seems a million miles from the actual description at File:Eysenck Argument.svg which says

"Diagram of argumentation and reasoning employed by Hans Eysenck. Other workers such as Doll and Peto established that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Eysenck hypothesised that having a 'cancer-prone personality' would cause cancer, and might also cause people to smoke tobacco, publishing several papers claiming to have found evidence for this. In 2019, an enquiry found that 26 of Eysenck's papers, including those on personality and cancer, were fraudulent. Evidence was found that Eysenck had been funded by the tobacco industry, attracted by the apparent weakening of the link between smoking and cancer that his work implied.

Boseley, Sarah (11 October 2019). "Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled 'unsafe'". The Guardian.

Pelosi, Anthony J. (2019). "Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal". Journal of Health Psychology. 24 (4): 421–439. doi:10.1177/1359105318822045. ISSN 1359-1053.'

@Chiswick Chap: is Sciencia58's version as much original research and an NPOV violation as it looks like? Doug Weller talk 19:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The diagram and the cited text that I wrote were based directly on the cited sources, including Pelosi's damning and comprehensive report, as can easily be verified. I am hardly surprised that Grossarth didn't like the report given what it implied about him, but that doesn't justify stating "the misleading reasoning" in Wikipedia's voice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, after seeing further edits by Sciencia58 below (including edits to his own text): yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Eysenck and Grossarth never claimed that a "cancer-prone personality" would cause cancer. Grossarth found out in his study, that the combination of cigarette smoking and certain psychological factors like stress or depression enhances the risk of getting cancer in smokers. They showed that smokers with good self-regulation also get cancer from smoking, but at a lower percentage. The scientists researched about the synergistic effekts of physical and psychological faktors. Therefore the diagramm of argumentation is the personal opinion of someone, who has not read Grossarths original publications. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Synergetic Preventive Medicine with link to readable source from which you can copy and paste into the DeepL Translater, while being aware that publishing unauthorized translations is not permitted. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I see the main problem in this discussion in the fact that the book Synergetic Preventive Medicine has not yet been translated into English. If it were available in English, things would clear up immediately. This book contains procedures and evaluations of the randomized prospective intervention study, a long-term study in which 30.000 people in the Heidelberg area were regularly examined with questionnaires over 20 years. Grossarth's results refute the so-called "cancer personality" claimed by other authors. But since some ignorants put this nonsense on the Internet, that he would claim the "cancer personality" there are always people who mistakenly believe it. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Californian scientists Lydia Temoshok and Andrew Kneier invented the term "cancer personality" or "type C personality" in the 1980s.[1] It is a fallacy to think that Grossarth would have joined this notion simply because he had studied the synergy effects of physical and psychological factors. He never denied the severe harmfulness of cigarette smoking. The essence of his results is (I have just chosen the numbers as a freely chosen example just to show the principle):

If out of a number of happy and relaxed smokers with good self-regulation 30 get lung cancer and out of the same number of smokers suffering from severe stress or depression, 50 get lung cancer, it does not mean that stressed and depressed smokers have got cancer from stress or depression. They got cancer from smoking just like the others. Those with good self-regulation have their immune system in better shape, so on average they fall ill a little later. And by all means of logic: If a smoker is even more at risk of contracting the disease due to psychological factors, this means that he should stop smoking immediately. And people with good self-regulation should not smoke either, because every addiction, including nicotine addiction, is a disease in itself. It would therefore be absurd to interpret the results of Grossarth and Eysenck in such a way that they would have wanted to express that cigarette smoking makes no difference. That would have been irresponsable and incompatible with their professional ethics.

Ronald Grossarth-Maticek developed his autonomy training together with Helm Stierlin in order to enable people to strive for real joy and happiness, so that they are not susceptible to any addiction. That is all Grossarth wanted to say. Sciencia58 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Grossarths results show, that people of type V in his typology, who can't really handle emotions, who are not the happiest ones, about which authors believing in "cancer personality" would say, they are emotionally cold and therefore have a higher risk to get cancer, often stay perfectly healthy if they use their intelligence to lead a healthy life-style. Sciencia58 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, supposing all that is true (for the sake of argument), that would still make very little difference to this article, which is about Eysenck first and foremost (as its title indicates). Pelosi has demonstrated with exhaustive evidence that the papers were falsified; the question how far Grossarth might be to blame is not for us to decide, and not really a concern of this article. Further, this talk page is not a forum for such debate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Could Pelosi prove that the authors of secondary literature he cited correctly understood the works of Eysenck and Grossarth? There are always possibilities to misinterpret something. Has Pelosi completely read the original literature and understood the differentiations? Does he understand German? Or did he rely on his collection of secondary literature? The validity of the statements made by other authors can only be proven when genuine replication studies have been made on the Heidelberg prospective study. These do not yet exist.

A comparable example would be the inclusion of monosodium and disodium glutamate as flavour enhancers. Some humans do not notice unpleasant effects, others get overexcitation conditions, sleep disturbances, Mirgäne attacks. The fact that some people tolerate it relatively well and hardly notice anything does not mean that this food additive is harmless. It was necessary to investigate, why some people react more strongly to it. It has been shown that some can metabolize it quickly and transform it into GABA, while others accumulate it in the synapses. It has been shown, that people with a genetic dispositon for Migräne have far more worse reactions on the substance than others. Thorough scientists try to find out what the differences are between the people studied. Some are patients, others are not. Genetic differences also play a role. If an author who is paid for by the food industry or by the flavour enhancer manufacturers investigates this and then claims that the substance is harmless, because it is a neurotransmitter in the human nervous system, one can assume that there are fraudulent intentions. Eysenck and Grossarth never made this claim about tobacco.

I haven't read anything from Eysenck. I only know Grossarths books. In any case, Grossarth is not a coward who was inhibited from telling the truth to the manufacturers of any product. The dangers of tobacco smoking were not so well known at the time. It could be that producers really wanted to know that, and now they know it and have to put warning signs on the packages. It is still the case that some people get sick quickly and others slowly. The same applies for alcohol, some get drunk immediately with a low dosis, others who drink more don't show much of negative effects in the beginning. Research has been done about the differences in the metabolism of men and women and other differences including psychological faktors. Still alcohol in a more than low dosis is harmful to health for all of them and very dangerous for unborn children and children in general. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The current situation shows that it would be very important to prepare an equivalent replication study. Because it must be a long-term study with the same methods and conditions, we can make a judgement at the earliest in 20 years. In order to carry out the replication study, hundreds of students in part-time jobs with exactly the same questionnaires have to visit the interviewees at regular intervals, because Grossarth did not only investigate about patients, but also about people who stayed healthy all their life long. The same family conditions and personal habits must be asked. The statistical evaluation procedures must be the same. Doing that would make more sence than selectively seeking confirmation of prejudices and spreading rumours without being able to prove anything. The replication study is the correct scientific verification procedure that has yet to be carried out, which requires a great deal of effort. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Grossarth is relevant in this discussion because the doubts about Eysenck's statements are justified by the fact that the figures he quotes partly come from Grossarth's studies. Grossarth had a statistician who made the evaluations according to a procedure confirmed as correct by Werner W. Wittmann. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, but all your analysis of what Grossarth did or didn't do, should have done or should not have done, and what would or would not make sense to Wikipedia editors is out of scope. Our job is simply to report on what has been reliably reported, and at the moment Pelosi is by far the most significant secondary source, as he analyses a large number of Eysenck's primary sources, and he also cites a large number of other objections to Eysenck's papers by earlier scientists. If further studies are done on Eysenck (and Grossarth)'s work then of course those would be relevant here too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I have made these remarks is that I find the use of this graph highly suggestive, because it does not show proven facts, but the personal opinion of a particular person who openly professes to want to influence others to agree with his view. Since Eysenck did not make these statements in this way, the graphic is a form of denunciation of a person, which violates our Wikipedia rules. The image will quickly spread to other wikis. The readers will not question the context. This is a manipulative approach. It is perfectly sufficient to quote in the text of the article that Eysenck was accused of making false statements about the dangers of tobacco smoking after corruption by the tobacco industry, although that is not true. It is someone's view that can be quoted here according to a literature source. The discussion page should only contain contributions that serve to improve the article. It would be a significant improvement of the article to do without this graphic and delete it from Wikimedia commons. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a "personal opinion" but the findings of a published commissioned report, which itself cites a wide range of evidence, supported by over 20 earlier papers which suggested the same thing about individual papers by Eysenck; and the image is based closely on the cited material. There is therefore no manipulation here, that is an attack, forbidden here on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Then the diagram should show the source of the statement made. The name(s) of the author or authors of the statement should be written on it. It is not enough if this is stated in the explanation, because the images can also be used by other wikis. We have to refer to sources, then those authors are responsible for their statements, then this is correct for us so far. Sciencia58 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Then the source belongs on the file description page, see File:Eysenck Argument.svg#Summary - that way, all other wikis get the same information. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Still the grafic is a strong simplification and therefore misleading.

Of course, it's great that you can create SVG graphics. My objection to the existing ones is not a criticism of your person. The graphic shows in the current version a scientifically inadmissible simplification of the facts. The choice of words "tobacco smoking" is the problem. It is not about the plot, but about the fact that the tar and many other substances are carcinogens. Since the degeneration of cells when they become cancer cells is due to genetic changes caused by the carcinogens, the effectiveness of the repair enzymes plays a role. This varies from person to person.

I know a person who started smoking at the age of 15 and still has no cancer at over 50, but he got a cardiovascular disease. Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was a chain smoker all his life. He became very old, but then he needed several bypasses on his coronary arteries. Of course he is an exception. I know a neighbour, her husband, a smoker, died of lung cancer at the age of 50. She was a chain smoker and is now languishing with an operated half lung. Even after her husband's death and after she had fallen ill herself, she still had great problems stopping. One should not expect too much from stopping when already seriously ill, because the tar and carcinogens have already been incorporated. The only fully effective prevention is never to start.

In any case, it is legitimate to ask why some people get cancer or coronary diseases more quickly than others. The individual differences do not change the carcinogenicity of the substance and the fact that it is criminal to produce something like this for consumption.

Grossarth's outstanding finding was that people who had a secure motherhood as babies and children (Attachment theory see secure attachment) and who successfully separated from the dependent motherhood completely as young adults generally have a higher average health status in adulthood because they usually lead a healthier life. These findings from the Heidelberg prospective study were already available when Grossarth and Eysenck met. The interactions of the factors that affect general health and regenerative capacity were the subject of the investigations that Eysenck then followed up. It is understandable that some authors do not immediately understand such a differentiated argumentation based on data, because we were accustomed to monocausal thinking. Grossarth or Eysenck were never interested in denying the harmfulness of tobacco smoking and in assigning the development of the disease - monocausally - to another cause.

The fact that a product manufacturer has given a scientist money can be interpreted in such a way that the scientist then makes scientifically inaccurate statements in favour of the product manufacturer. This can happen if the scientist is offered to get the money afterwards. If the scientist has already received the money before, he can tell the truth and leave room for interpretation by internal differentiation, on the one hand in order not to offend the donor and on the other hand to leave no doubt that the product is one of the risk factors that should be avoided. This approach can be considered as legitimate, as there is no linear correlation between tobacco consumption and the development of disease. I personally wouldn't proceed that way, I would be straight forward and not even accept money from such criminals, but it was his decision at that time.

Therefore, if authors want to make a simplification, their name should be on the graphic. Another point is that they can be influenced by each other and that the number of publications is not a statement about their truthfulness. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

As Pelosi is the one who started the campaign, it would be sufficient to have his name on the diagramm. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing the same point again and again, against consensus, and at great length, and giving the appearance of wishing to favour one particular point of view in the debate (something that's forbidden here); you are at risk of tendentious editing, another thing that Wikipedia deprecates. For the sake of harmony I'll consider adding an attribution to the diagram but you should clearly understand that this is going far beyond what is required by policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We should not favour either point of view, especially not by presenting the point of view of one party as the only truth. It is a matter of balance. Our articles should be neutral, which means that both views can be presented in a balanced way. If one emphasizes one point of view one-sidedly, as was the case with the graph, another may make the other point of balance. This is not tendentious but serves to preserve neutrality. Additional labelling makes it clear that it is the view of one party, which would do justice to the principle of neutrality. (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Sciencia58 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, so what we have done is to report, plainly and factually, on what has been reliably reported about Eysenck. The diagram is part of that neutral report on the facts as stated in the independent sources cited. It is properly captioned, including a citation, and that is sufficient. My comment about your possible tendentiousness refers to your very long comments above; I am glad that your last comment is briefer. I think we have now both/all said pretty much all that can be said without repetition on this matter until any new events are reported. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Grossarth's study showed that psychological factors lose their effect when physical factors such as cigarette smoking occur. This result has been taken into account in the joint publications with Eysenck. However, Marks and Pelosi claim the contrary, that Eysenck allegedly wrote that physical factors are attenuated by mental factors, as shown in the graph. This is an erroneous assumption that they make because they have not read the work thoroughly, do not understand it or do not want to understand it. Marks and Pelosi's claims have nothing to do with Grossarth and Eysenck's multi-causal research programme, which demonstrated that mental factors lose their predictive function when disease-causing physical factors like carcinogens are taken into account. Familial hereditary predisposition can cause, for example, bronchial carcinoma to develop earlier when people smoke. Marks and Pelosi use sources selectively, tearing statements out of context with which they try to justify their claims. They ignore the other contents of the publications. That is why we cannot speak of a reliable report. It is simply their opinion. We can give their opinion here, but the name Pelosi should be on the graphic. You offered to do that. Sciencia58 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I considered it carefully, and have decided against it. It would be wrong to give the impression all this was Pelosi's "personal opinion", as it was instead the output of a detailed, reasoned, fully-cited, publicly commissioned report based on analysis of plentiful evidence, i.e. many separate people's opinions over many years. It is much better to refer readers to the cited sources so they can see where the arguments came from. We cannot make decisions based on the opinion of an editor who holds one particular point of view on one side of the argument. For me, I have no side here, other than finding the account of Eysenck's life interesting. I will reiterate, I hope for the last time, that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for debating the rights and wrongs of the matter: our task is only to report the salient events, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the report is a major event for the Eysenck article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that the use of that diagram is unfair. It is not an informative diagram; it is a satirical cartoon. It portrays Eysenck as being a paid stooge of the tobacco industry. I thought Wikipedia wanted a NPOV on each subject. How can it be right to include a hostile cartoon as a factual representation?Dean1954 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hans Eysenck Jewish ancestry

Dear Wikipedia editors, let me refer you to this fascinating article about Eysenck's ancestry: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916302598 It turns out Eysenck was half-Jewish according to standard genealogy and 100% Jewish according to Halacha and, importantly, also to the Nüremberg race laws. For some unknown reason Eysenck tried to conceal this fact even after WWII and even to his closest friends. ImTheIP (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? Except Nazis, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

But it´s important (not unimportant) in order to understand his CV - his personality and activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2A7F:9D00:2442:C26F:16A1:773E (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How so? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

---

The first reference goes to a questionable link. It might be an ad by a copy editing service. Lmlmss44 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)