HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccla_d@horsa.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: RE: instant addiction
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:54:57 GMT
Distribution: sci.psychology
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu says:

> You point out the problem that exists between clinical definition and
> popular definition.

If the clinics are defining the popular definition, who is defining the
clinical definition?

> Hospitals and other health care institutions ... found it in redefining
> addictions - calling it a disease.

The AMA called it that in 1953. Hasn't the APA followed suit? 

> My book more rightfully calls alcoholism a syndrome, a pattern of behaviors..

No doubt it has a pattern of behaviors, but I've yet to find a pattern of 
behaviors which existed as a cause rather than as an effect, except for
possibly instincts (though it's argued by some that instincts exist in a 
coded form prior to their exhibition).

I'd like to pick up your book. Could you give me the numbers on it?

> Statistically these high dollar rehabs don't have a higher rate of success
> than AA, which is free.

AA doesn't keep track of everyone who walks in the door. Their only data
collection is the General Services Office voluntary response form. There is
no data on the one, two, three time visitor. Everyone who enters a treatment 
center is counted. Unless you sit through a lot of AA meetings in a lot of
places, there's no way you can collect comparable data. About the best you
can get is members' estimates on how many stick around. 

I've sat through about 2,000 meetings over the last 9 years, and watched how
many people picked up their 'tokens' for their time in AA. In one particular
group, the largest and oldest in this area, the numbers of people getting
tokens went roughly:
beginners = 9
30 days = 6
90 days = 2
180 days = 2
1 year = 1
More than 1 year = 1.

This is a weekly average. This group claimed a high retention rate, and from
my experience, they had what they claimed. Most every other group I've attended
has shown roughly the same asymptoic distribution of members' time.

Last AA report I saw showed that of the respondents to the questionaire, the
average time in AA was 47 months. And of those respondents, 53% were on their
second try.

At the 360 House, a student operated drug and alcohol recovery social center
at Purdue, during their 8th full month of operation, out of 410 contacts,
111 were first time inquiries for help. 90 of those were students. All were
refered, as 360 has no counselors. Out of all those, 3 were known to have
received assistance. All through the local rehab, via the university 
hospital. All 3 became members of the house as well as AA.

I don't know if they've attempted periodic data collection since. If they have,
there might be some useful numbers there. In case you're interested:

360 House
360 Northwestern Ave.
West Lafayette, IN
47906
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: mccla_d@offa.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: Instant Addictions
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:32:46 GMT

th@isr.harvard.edu says:

[regarding my previous contention that addictions os out of the realm of
behaviorism]

> You are so wrong it is scary.

If I'm so wrong, so is the treatment center I work for. And if that's the case
then the founder and head of treatment of the largest treatement center in the
world, in Moscow, wasted all that time and money coming here to find out why
we're so good. And she's even more wrong for planning to put what she learned 
into use. 

If I'm wrong, why did the Sorbells (?) take their aversion therapy research
to Canada, for the skiing? They were forced out of their position here in the
US.

> Try to ignore the rantings of the previous poster.

That's right, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He only works 
in the field. 

> That's what's wrong with this newsgroup...

Theory, experimentation, success, practice and experience as opposed to
theory, experimentation, failure and refusal to face facts? My, that *does* 
sound like a problem.

If you have some numbers which indicate that behavioral training has done any
good in addictions treatment, I'd love to see them. All those I've run across
have been pretty abysmal, including the most recent efforts. Strictly lab
work wouldOA be OK, but I'd really like to see some numbers coming from an 
operating treatment center where they actually do real work with real people.
Something with follow-up studies with ex-patients so we can see if they know
where of they speak. Our figures, Recovery Centers of America, are already
published.

Of course, it'll be rather difficult to get data on a treatment mode that's
been considered unethical for a number of years.
Xref: sparky sci.psychology:3250 misc.education:3009 sci.cognitive:241
From: ard@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,misc.education,sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Critical Thinking and Education
Date: 26 Jul 92 12:40:10 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK

In article <1992Jul25.014541.26040@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>Malcolm Bauer) writes:
>> I've become involved in a project to develop a curriculum for high school
>> students that will help them "think critically."
>> I was wondering what researh exists on this subject, especially prescriptive 
>> models of the steps students need to follow, with supporting empirical
>> evidence of effectivenss? Of course, other references, ideas, and suggestions 
>> will be greatly appreciated as well.
>
>Critical thinking is simply the defining goal of a liberal arts education.
>If you believe it's a good thing research doesn't add to your support; if
>you don't you don't care if it works.  Beyond that it seems outside the
>empirical model to assemble evidence for the skill to analyze evidence.
>How would you decide when you had increased critical thinking 30%?
>Speaking as an unrepentant empiricist, I don't see how objective tests
>apply here.
>
>-- Jon

I'm assuming that critical thinking is what is now also known as
``Informal Logic''; the problem with books on this is that I often
find that they are wrong.  Eg, recently, I was reading Fisher's book
``The Logic of Real Arguments'' and some of the arguments he says
are valid I think are invalid.  Someone using that book is likely to
mislead students.  Just one concrete example, Fisher wants to show
that Malthus's arguments about population are wrong.  One of Malthus's
premises is that food production only increases in an arithmetical ration.
Fisher argues that this fale because food production---he says---can
increase more quickly, citing that well known agriculturist Engels
as an authority.  He fails to realise that even if food production
only increases in an arithmetical progression that has the consequence
that one day an acre of land will produce 100,000,000 tons of potatoes
or whatever.

So, what's my point?  Teaching critical thinking and informal logic
is a dengerous thing and may teach people WRONG principles of
thinking and reasoning.  Fisher's students, eg, will have a warped
understanding of reasoning because Fisher's own reasoning is wrong.

Antoni Diller
From: simmons@texhrc.uucp (Bob Simmons)
Subject: Re: Black Gavan Chapter four -what if he dropped out of high school
Organization: Texaco EPTD
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:44:15 GMT

In article <tgee.711947344@cunews> tgee@alfred.carleton.ca (Travis Gee) writes:
[arrogant putdown deleted]
>     Point 4: I wasn't able to make heads or tails of most of what was
>being said in the half that I read, but what I did understand was that
>little of it had much of anything to do with psychology. Find the
>proper group, and post there. Or, if it has something to do with
>psychology, put a little paragraph at the beginning, so people who are
>interested in other areas can hit 'n' before wasting too much time
>trying to figure out what's going on.

	Here's some psychology: what makes some people so gol danged
	concerned about form that they can't even see substance?

-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Bob Simmons          | Standard    | simmons@Texaco.COM
E&P Technology Dept. | disclaimers | uunet!nuchat!texhrc!simmons
Texaco Inc.          | apply.      | (Inside Texaco) simmons@texhrc
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Olympic Freud Bashing
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:10:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1992Jul21.051046.18878
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Distribution: sci.psychology
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <3917@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>
> Ian Wickramasekera:
>   "...Good placebo responders, like good hypnotic subjects, inhibit the
> critical, analytic mode of information processing that is characteristic
> of the dominant verbal hemisphere.

How would we know if they didn't?  What would be different?

> Good placebo responders will tend to be individuals who are prone
> to see conceptual...relationships between events that seem
> randomly distributed to others.

Same question.

> They will inhibit the interfering signals of doubt and skepticism,

Same question.

> which are the consequences of more analytic mode of information
> processing typical of the dominant (left) hemisphere..."

Category mistake.  Processes have modes, not hemispheres.

> Seen in this light I suggest that the dominant methodology in Acadamia
> Academia is training in left-brain dominance and neurosis.

Category mistake.  Organisms have training (or don't), not CNS.

What would be different if null hemispheric specialization
or opposite to the one you suggest obtained?

> Zen and Shambhala training in contrast teach methods whereby
> left-brain conceptual dominance is subverted by awareness of
> physiological processes (breathing) and disempowerment of the
> thought process....

Care to present your data?  What CNS measurements have you collected?

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:56:11 GMT

TERILEE EDWARDS writes:
> TA is as valid a form of therapy as any other.

Then "valid", "therapy", and "form of therapy" are meaningless.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: mccla_d@aelle.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: Instant Addiction
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:49:18 GMT

jpk@Ingres.COM says:

> Last I checked, the addictive power ("potential for abuse") of substances
> was measured by operant methods.

Please explain operant methods? I'm clashing operant conditioning with
something different which you seem to be saying.

> The groups aren't unscientificf, they're nonscientific.

They're downright anti- from what I've seen. And I've seen a passle of 'em.

> If someone wanted to do science, they offer opportunities.

Not overtly. If I could find a group willing to cooperate, I'd move to go
work with them. I've been wanting to for some time. I've had offers to
work with some rather closed environments such as VA hospitals, but I
wouldn't consider the results to be representative of the population.

I am doing a few single case studies involving inpatient treatment center 
patients, individuals getting the same information informally, and others
attending 12 step groups exclusively, but too few to get any major ideas from
except what directions to take next. Just feeding the serendipity muse as
it were.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Addictions
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:10:36 GMT

dennis mcclain-furmanski writes:
> Behavioral techniques are well used to measure behavior.

Or sensation.  Or drug effects.  Or toxic effects.  Or development.
Behavior technology is fun and useful.

> But I'm afraid I can't see that as a justification for using them to
> alter behaviors when learning isn't the cause of the behavior.

But we use plaster of paris to fix broken arms when the arm wasn't
broken by plaster or its lack.

In clinical and medical settings, we aren't greatly concerned with
whether a treatment relates to a putative cause, what we want to know
is whether it works.  As technology, we are delighted and profited to
discover applications in other areas.  As science, we value parsimony
in our models, we do care to understand how a solution relates to a
problem in some deep sense.

> No doubt when addiction occurs, learning does also. But I see too
> much evidence that learning doesn't change addiction -- that they
> occur simultaneously possibly, but independently.

Of course they do.  The above applies.  We don't know all about
learning or all about addiction.  As science, what we've learned about
learning does tell us something about addiction.  In the clinic, I
doubt anything is this simple.  Some behavior technology may be useful
and some may be useless.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: thorn@phoenix.radonc.unc.edu (Jesse Thorn)
Subject: GIFs of Jung
Organization: Radiation Oncology, NCMH/UNC, Chapel Hill, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:29:01 GMT


Can anyone suggest a source of GIFs of Carl Jung?

Thanks
Jesse
From: tdelaney@penn.Gwinnett.COM (ted delaney)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: books on combatting paranoia?
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:30:58 GMT

I have a friend who admits that he is troubled by paranoia.
he is a severe incest survivor and acknowledges that some of his
paranoia may stem from that-
what he/I was wondering is- can anyone recommend any books/techniques on
easing/combatting paranoia?
also, does it tend to be cyclic/brought on by certain stimuli etc...
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose)
Subject: Re: left & right handed
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc, Cupertino CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.120425.12956@email.tuwien.ac.at>, boehmig@eapds5.tuwien.ac.at (Stephan Boehmig) writes:
> 
> 
> Hi.
> 
> 
> Does anybody know, if there is any research done about left-handed
> people having been forced to get right-handed in childhood? And is
> there a possibility to check out whether one has originally been left- 
> or right-handed? 
> 
> -- 
> 
> S. Boehmig
> Institut fuer Allgemeine Physik
> TU-Wien Austria
> Internet: boehmig@eapds5.tuwien.ac.at

It must be your lucky day!  A recent book, "The Left-Hander
Syndrome" by Stanley Coren discusses many aspects of left-handedness.
He covers theories of why people become left-handed, discrimination
against left-handers historically and in current tool design,
and the types of problems left-handedness seems to be a marker for.

For those interested in a shorter summary of the book, there was
a review in "The Atlantic" magazine, April 1992.

The book has plenty of references to other studies, and apparently
Professor Coren has done quite a bit of research over the past
two decades on the subject.  You might want to look up the articles
mentioned in the book, do a search of the literature for reports
he's authored, or write him directly (he is at the University
of British Columbia).



____________________________________________________________________
Ken Rose    (kenr@storage.tandem.com)
The Usual Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, not
those of my employer (who is kind enough to allow me Usenet access).
From: jmarlan@titan.nmt.edu (Jon Marlan)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Kawika Ohumukini -- please read
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:54:46 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech


My e-mail to you has been bouncing.  Is there another
address where you can be reached?

Jon
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ken@dakota (Kenny Chaffin)
Subject: Re: When is it time to fire your shrink??
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:27:00 GMT

In article <14kjmqINNdkr@agate.berkeley.edu> templin@grayling.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Fred Templin) writes:
>I'm posting this question hoping that people can give
>me some suggestions on how to make an informed (rather
>than emotional) decision for myself on this subject.

	You bring up many doubts about whether your therapist is helping you
or not. I think one of the first steps is to bring these things up the the 
therapist and see what kind of reaction you get. If she brushes them aside
or some such then it is definitely time to find a new one. 
	If you discuss your concerns rationally and come to some agreement
as to progress etc that you can live with, give it a chance.
	I think one of the biggest problems in the patient/therapist 
relationship is in the developing a contract between the two. Often the 
patient approaches it like the therapist is the authority and they must do
as the therapist says. Therapists can certainly take advantage of the situation
so I'd say what you need to do is discuss your concerns with your threapist,
evaluate the progress so far, and develop an agreeable contract/expectations
for the future. Then go from there. Treat it as any other business relationship
you are paying some amount of money for a service which should meet your
expectations (provided they are reasonable).

KAC


Kenny A. Chaffin                      {...boulder}!uswat!ken
U S WEST Advanced Technologies         ken@dakota.uswest.com
4001 Discovery Drive  Boulder, CO 80303	     (303) 541-6355
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: RE: Instant Addiction
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:07:05 GMT

dennis mcclain-furmanski writes:
> Addictions has been out of the realm of behaviorism for quite some time.

Last I checked, the addictive power ("potential for abuse") of
substances was measured exclusively by operant methods, as are
the better measurements of their pharmacological, toxicological,
and teratological properties.  Respondent methods offer some
advantages, however.

> Exactly where it is now is a matter of contention.

My impression is that we discovered it was a hard problem, much
like schizophrenia, wasn't likely to be solved anytime soon.
So research continues for both but isn't sexy, you don't hear
about it much.

> some of the most significant
> results incorporate the eminently unscientific 12 step groups.

The groups and methods aren't unscientific, they're nonscientific.
They have no mission to do science, they're clinical or self-help
groups.  If someone wants to do science they offer opportunities.
For example does a twelve step group get better results than just
spending an equal amount of time hanging out with sober friends.
(My hunch is it does.)  Are all twelve steps required, or are there
say three key steps?  (My hunch is there are).  And so on.  The
groups are exactly as scientific as rats, you can do science with
rats but its no slur on rats to say that they're not by themselves
doing science.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Instant Addiction
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:28:07 GMT

dennis mcclain-furmanski writes:
>jpk@Ingres.COM says:
> A confounding factor is the wide range of individual response.
> Some are prone to addiction to some or many substances. Some are
> quite resistant to one, or to many.

True, but some substances have demonstrated more addictive power
over a wide range of individuals than have other substances.

> Ice addiction has been seen occurring before withdrawal symptoms
> are evident.

I didn't make myself clear here -- addiction doesn't depend on
withdrawal, withdrawal is a distinguisher between addiction and
operant behavior.  In point of fact some elegant research has
demonstrated that withdrawal isn't what maintains addictive
behavior.

> Tolerance occurrs independently of addiction. While it virtually always
> accompanies, it has little to do with the addiction.

Again, it's a distinguisher between addiction and operant behavior, a
point of confusion a few articles back.  Organisms don't develop
tolerance for reinforcers (satiation isn't tolerance) without
addiction.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Critical Thinking and Education
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:08:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: kuhub.1992Jul30.090841.42000
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

>>I've become involved in a project to develop a curriculum for high school
>>students that will help them "think critically."
>>I was wondering what researh exists on this subject, especially prescriptive 
>>models of the steps students need to follow, with supporting empirical
>>evidence of effectivenss? Of course, other references, ideas, and suggestions 
> What is critical thinking?  Unfortunately, it is not easily defined,
> identified, or tested.  It cannot be taught, but only exemplefied.

I wonder if 'critical thinking' in this context would more rightly be
called creative thinking.  As opposed to methodolgical 'analytical
thinking.'
I have always related creativity to functional 'loose associations'.
So that facts are related in non-linear fashion, resisting empirical analysis.
The scientific leap that is not purely logical but leads to
breakthroughs would be an example.

Analytical thought being more structured proceedural way of thinking.
This would be more accessable to empirical study, and could be
represented by law maybe, or possibly mathematics. 
-- 
Rick 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology