I AM pleased to see this reprinting of my book, first published in 1954 by the University of Minnesota Press as a special consideration for the then Chair of the Psychology Department after the manuscript had been rejected by several publishers who thought it would not sell. When the book went out of print some years ago, it had gone through seven printings and sold 13,200 copies. This little book made me famous-in some quarters, infamous-overnight; but while almost all of the numerous prizes and awards that my profession has seen fit to bestow upon me mention this among my contributions, the practicing profession and a large segment-perhaps the majority-of academic clinicians either ignore it entirely or attempt to ward off its arguments, analyses, or empirical facts. Thus I am in the unusual position of being socially reinforced for writing something that hardly anybody believes! I have elsewhere tried to explain this resistance to the facts (Meehl, 1986) and have discussed the many objections that have been raised (Grove and Meehl, 1996). One remarkable phenomenon following the publication of this book was the attribution to me of views and positions which I did not hold and that were in no way implied by what I had said. For example, many psychologists have claimed, formally or informally, that I think "objective psychological tests predict better than clinical interviews." How could anybody misread the text to that extent? I took great pains to make clear (pp. 15-18) the distinction between kind of data and mode of combination, pointing out that all combinations of these two factors are