HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Genomes
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:05:54 GMT

Are there species which have more active genes than the primates? Junk DNA
doesn't count.
Are there any theoretical models for punctuated equilibrium yet? Please brief me
on email:
onar@hsr.no


Onar.
From: frank@vatmom.COM (Frank M. Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: mosquitoes like goldenrods
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:24:39 GMT
Organization: The Vatmom Organisation


I am not versed in biology at all.

I was in my backyard today and saw a goldenrod in bloom.
Looking closer, I saw a mosquitoe apparently gorging itself
on nectar.  I didn't think they were attracted to flowers.

Does anyone know if this is typical behavior?  I suppose I
should be thankful it wasn't gorging itself on me.

Thanks.

--Frank
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Haynes                 406 Pinetree Circle   Decatur, GA 30032
+1 404 279-4626                                     frank@vatmom.COM
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Plant Oxygen
Date: 4 Oct 1992 08:55:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   I am interested in studies of plants' ability to produce
 oxygen, mostly in the photosynthesis cycle.
 I am not a botanist and need to a report on this subject.
 I was told that there is a great difference in different
 plants' abilities to produce oxygen and also how well
 defined are to two cycles, respiration and photosynthesis.
 I am interested in determining what plants are generally
 considered to be the highest or most efficient oxygen
 producers.  One report I read stated that the grasses
 generally are the highest producers, however algae and
 certain trees have also been named as high producers.

 Any information on this subject would be appreciated.
 Thanks.   Mike Romano.  U of Cal  berkeley


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.med
From: aep@icd.ab.com (Alexander E. Pensky)
Subject: Re: Carcinogens
Organization: Allen-Bradley Co., Highland Heights, OH
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.151553.8252@cs.rochester.edu>, 
fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
> 
> Promoters:
> 
> This is where your hormones come in.  There are a variety of substances
> and conditions that, in general, encourage cell growth.  For many hormones,
> cell growth promotion is part of the function of the hormone; thus,
> luteinizing hormone encourages the growth of follicular cells in the
> ovary.  These substances become cancer promoters when there is a cell,
> already partly along the pathway to becoming a cancer cell, whose growth
> is promoted by the substance. [...]
> 
> Although I don't think the final answers are in, it appears that
> estrogen treatments of women tend to increase the (rather low)
> probability of ovarian cancer while decreasing the (much higher)
> probability of breast cancer.
 
Some types of breast cancer are dependent on estrogen, progesterone,
or both for their continued growth.  The lab tests performed on excised
breast tumors often include receptor assays designed to gauge the tumor's
responsiveness to these hormones.  

I don't know exactly how estrogen interacts with an estrogen-dependent
tumor, but I've always assumed that estrogen was a "promoter" as described
above.  

If this is the case, are you sure that estrogen treatments DECREASE
the probability of breast cancer?


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Alex Pensky    	(aep@icd.ab.com)		         (216)646-5211
 Allen-Bradley Company             747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights, OH 44143
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Venomous Mamals?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:11:02 GMT

Yes, my mother-in-law...

Ron 8^/
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Venomous Mamals?
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.194357.28853@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
>Its easy to think of examples of insects and snakes which [are
>poisonous], but as far as I know there are no poisonous mammals,
>birds or even fish.

Fish -- There are lots.  Stonefish, scorpionfish, the common aquarium
lionfish -- I think these are all of the (Order? Family? I forget...)
scorpionidae. (sp?)  Stingrays are cartilaginous as opposed to bony
fishes.  And even the lowly catfish has a mild venom in its spines
which can produce painful stings.

Birds -- I don't know of any.

Mammals -- I only know of two.  The male Duckbill Platypus has a
spur on its hind legs with a venom similar to that of a rattlesnake.
And some shrews have a saliva which is toxic to their prey, insects.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
LSI Logic/Headland Products               No whimper, no blast.
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp                  His life's goal accomplished,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                         Zero risk at last.
Xref: sparky sci.bio:3435 sci.math:12584
From: mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Chui)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: References Wanted: Emergent Behavior/"Swarming Theory"
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:58:07 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington


	I'm looking for references to theories/models of emergent behaviors
of large numbers of organisms, e.g. the phenomenon of an entire school
of fish, or flock of birds, appearing to turn all at once, etc.

Michael Chui
mchui@cs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: wade@ucs.ubc.ca (Doug Wade)
Subject: Lewis Thomas
Keywords: Whats he up to?
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:33:47 GMT

Anybody know what Lewis Thomas (author of "Lives of a cell...."
and "The Medusa and the snail..") is up to? His last books I've got
or even found in the university library were "The youngest science"
and "Late night thoughts ....", both from 1983.
Along with Stephen Gould, he was (is) my favorite author for popular
biology writings.

___________________________________________________________________
Doug Wade (Internet: wade@ucs.ubc.ca  Bitnet: userice@ubcmtsg)                      University Computing Services    
     Room 100G                             
     University of British Columbia         
     Vancouver, B.C.                    
     Canada
     V6T 1Z2
___________________________________________________________________
Contributions to the "Send Doug to Europe Fund" graciously accepted.
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.med
From: cease@carina.unm.edu (Cecilia De Blasi)
Subject: Re: Carcinogens
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 20:44:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep29.151553.8252@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>In article <dl10697.717637409@ehsn3.cen.uiuc.edu> dl10697@ehsn3.cen.uiuc.edu (Duc Trieu Le) writes:
>>
>>hi Everyone,
>>
>>I have just read in a book that lists Progesterone, Testosterone,
>>Estrogens, and Androgens as being carcinogenis substances. I was
>>under the assumption that our bodies have certain amount of these
>>sex hormones. I was wondering why these hormones are carcinogenic
>>and what effects do they have on our bodies if excess amounts are
>>detected. thanks in advance.
>>
>>--
>>Duc T. Le
>>led@sunfs1.dsd.northrop.com
>
>I'll try to keep this short and unpedantic :-)
>
>The currently accepted theory of carcinogenesis offers some useful
>distinctions here.  Substances which formerly might all have been
>called carcinogens are now divided into (at least) three categories:
>

[some text deleted]

>
>Promoters:
>
>This is where your hormones come in.  There are a variety of substances
>and conditions that, in general, encourage cell growth.  For many hormones,
>cell growth promotion is part of the function of the hormone; thus,
>luteinizing hormone encourages the growth of follicular cells in the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>ovary.  These substances become cancer promoters when there is a cell,
>already partly along the pathway to becoming a cancer cell, whose growth
>is promoted by the substance.
>

Just a comment, although I realize this was not the main point...
I think it is follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) that encourages the
growth of follicles within the ovary.  Luteinizing hormone (LH) promotes
ovulation and supports the existence of the corpus luteum for a short
while.

- Cecilia De Blasi


-- 
| courtesy of Cease of the Not Well Defined at This Time |
|        cease@unmb.bitnet    cease@carina.unm.edu       |
|    We're only immortal for a limited time.  - Rush     |
**********************************************************
From: inpd@mel.dbce.csiro.au (Ian Davidson)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Simulation of Human Behavior in Data Collection Processes
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:33:23 GMT
Organization: CSIRO, Div. Building Constr. and Eng'ing, Melb., Australia

Hi,

I am creating a computer simulation model that models the collection of
information using automatic data collection devices (such as bar code readers).
Essentially the system can be loosely described as people walking around with
bar code readers recording items (such as furniture, chairs, desks) that have
been bar coded and scanning in the codes.

This model must also take into consideration the behavioural effects of people
doing rather mundane and repetitive work over a potentially long period of
time.

What I would like to know is people's views on the behavioural effects of
people doing this type of work.  For example how will the work rate change over
time, what are the effects of fatigue.  Specifically I would appreciate it if
people could provide me with details on any studies/papers done in this area.  
I am about to receive some papers on the Hawthorne experiments that will see theeffect of external factors on behaviour.


  Thanks in anticipation,

-- 
| Ian Davidson       CSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engineering |
|                    Post Office Box 56, Highett, Victoria, Australia   3190  |
| Internet: inpd@mel.dbce.csiro.au   Tel: +61 3 252 6000  Fax: +61 3  252 6249|
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ben@archsci.arch.su.oz.au (Ben Colbron)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: Design Computing Unit, The University of Sydney
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:56:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.070307.17896@pony.Ingres.COM>, jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
|> Ben Colbron writes:
|> > 'empirical results' are only as good as the theory 
|> > which underlies them
|> 
|> Counterexample: intermittent reinforcement increases
|> response strength.
|> 
|> -- Jon
|> --
|> Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  


Point taken. To qualify my statement, instead of 'theory' I guess
I should have said 'epistemology' - I was waxing philosophical.

Ben
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Query: research on bullying in schools? (cited here last year)
Keywords: bully school
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:24:17 GMT

hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts) writes:

> 
> A year or more ago I followed a thread in sci.psychology about research being
> done on gradeschoolers in a Scandinavian country (if my memory's serving me).
> I've lost the cite; the little I recall is that the study was ongoing and
> involved both giving the 'bully' attention and teaching the 'wimp' how not
> to act in ways that triggered the bullying behavior.
> 
> I'd appreciate pointers to that or further research in the area.

I started the thread and I'm still interested in the phenomenon.

The Scandinavian researcher we discussed was Dan Olweus, who has
published numerous books and articles.  He does have an ongoing
program of remediation and research and it is apparently having
some success as the press reports that measures of bullying are
down in schools that implement his program.

I've been involved in something a little different myself so I
haven't followed the developing story as closely as I probably
should have.  I think, though, that most of the focus is on the
bully rather than the wimp since Olweus's first major finding --
from about fifteen years ago -- was that the main characteristic
of the wimp is physical muscular weakness rather than any
particular pattern of behavior, so how could you change the wimp
other than by strength training, which no one knows how to do with
children anyhow.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:47:04 GMT
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.

Elizabeth Lane writes:
> Thanks for pointing out my complete and
> utter lack of understanding.

You're welcome.

> I suppose it's my own fault for basing my statements on such
> widely scorned books as _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_, 
> _The Tao of Physics_, _A Brief History of Time_,
> and _Stalking the Wild Pendulum._

Hawking would be amused at his company.

> If we were all to post only articles that the collective "you" can 
> understand, it would bring conversations on the networks to a screeching
> halt, and remove any potential for learning and intellectual growth
> that discourse provides.

Nice dodge.

Where's the example?

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey)
Subject: Re: Ecstasy
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:16:52 GMT

scannon@bluemoon.rn.com (Sam Cannon) writes:

>RE: MDMA
>I don't have any personal experience with the drug, but I've heard
>that the original therapeutic focus was the increase in rapport without
>any particular addictions or side problems.  Sounds like soma to me!
>I would enjoy knowing about the discovery of the drug and how it
>moved so quickly from new, experimental substance to the street. It's
>completely synthesized, isn't it?  No natural ingredients?  
>
Unless some wise individuals no more but aren't telling, as far as i
know MDMA was designed originally around 1914 as an appetite
suppressant.  It has been tested on laboratory animals in the 1950's by
the military (army?), although they deny human experimentation.
Therapists were using it in the early to mid-eighties before the FDA
clamped the lid on it, making it schedule 1.  Magazines and newspapers
ran a series of articles on it and the uproar from members of the
psychological community, but i have seen little about it since 1986.
In form it is similar to MDA, but less potent (?), and it patterned
after some natural substances (nutmeg).
 
>I have an 'Andrew Weil' interest in this and also the peyote thing
>with the Western Indians.
  
Who is Andrew Weil?!

>It's interesting to see some interest in MDMA from the scientific
>perspective.  Any interest in getting up a discussing on this 
>topic?

I am curious about how psychologists feel today about MDMA.  Is it still
valued as a therapeutic drug?  Has there been any further research done
on it?  Has the FDA's position changed?  What are the effects of the
drug in terms of street usage (high, sustaned dosages)?
?
>(Will be computer-less in the Washington desert for a month, so
>I might miss a response here.  Drop personal mail and we can
>chat later, if you have any interest.  Ciao.

> 
>scannon@bluemoon.use.com        -----------------------------------------
>Sam Cannon - CMHC Systems, Inc.  The Eupsychian Network - Abraham Maslow
>Dublin, OH (614) 764-0143       -----------------------------------------
>                                           
>                "Support mental health or I'll kill you"
>
I would get rid of the extra stuff, but i don't know how to do it short
of erasing my entire message.  Sorry to make y'all go through it!
Kyrsten :-> 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:22:59 GMT

probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>>oh? is really a claim made about NLP? i thought claims about theory-free
>>>observation went out about the time that Skinner bit the big one on that
>>>very point...
>>Oh?  I still see people using Aristotelean (sp) physics.  
>okay, okay, you've got me now... can you explain that in less than a screenful
>of words? thanks.

Basically, nothing ever 'goes out.'  People will cling to old ideas for
a *very* long time.  So, we will have people making claims about
theory-free observations forever, or about 1000 years after people no
longer use aristetelian (sp) physics (e.g. an object in motion tends to
come to rest...).

Frank Fujita
P.S.  I hope I came in, in less than a screen
From: probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.213813.103600@ua1ix.ua.edu> elane@ho07.eng.ua.edu (Elizabeth Lane) writes:
>In article <BvLLEo.IF8@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>>
>>TRUTH is the one thing you will not find in physics. 
>
>[ con mucho deleto ... ] 
>>
>>So yes, Cosmology is perhaps the only corner in the edifice of science, 
>>where one may find *faith* lurking.
>>
>>A physcist has spoken......
>
>Indeed. Thanks for providing another view. 
>
>I'm not sure why it is that the whole concept of NLP seems to make
>people here so "testy." I have seen no NLP proponents claiming that the
>ideas cannot or should not be tested; only that they were first drawn from
>observation rather than theory. 
>
oh? is really a claim made about NLP? i thought claims about theory-free
observation went out about the time that Skinner bit the big one on that
very point...

scott


Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ben@archsci.arch.su.oz.au (Ben Colbron)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: Design Computing Unit, The University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:52:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.202712.557@spectra.com>, ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:

|> 
|> 	"What is true or real to YOU may not be what is true or real
|> 	 to ME."


Is this phenomenology? Existentialism? If so, it opens up a
Pandora's box. I might be being pedantic, but my point is that
when the theoretical underpinnings of positions are taken to their
logical conclusions, they are often shown to be logically incoherent.
This is important because the fact seems often to be overlooked in
psychology that 'empirical results' are only as good as the theory 
which underlies them. If the theory is untenable, the results must
be brought into question.

Having said that, however, we may be talking at cross-purposes here.
You seem to be discussing NLP from a purely pragmatic point of view
(in terms of its 'usefulness') and not holding it up as a psychological
theory. [Here I must apologise, I have not read all the posts on NLP
and may be merely restating the obvious, but...]
 

|> >There is folk-psychology and there is science. Then there is simple
|> >logic. To which do you subscribe?
|> 
|> 	I don't claim to subscribe to any of the above, I let you
|> 	decide which one.  What I do subscribe to is results.  


If NLP 'works' for you - great. I hear religion works sometimes, too.
So do sugar pills labelled "aspirin". As a scientific psychologist, however,
I am trained not to take such 'results' at face value but to investigate
*how* and *why* such phenomena 'work'. This is why I question some of 
the terminology you have been using. If this is not the level at which
you are discussing the topic, however, what I'm saying is probably
redundant.

Have a good day, too.

Ben
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology (not unlike Re: NLP and whatever are we talking about???)
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.

Gary Murphy writes:
>> if psychology is worth anything, psychologists should be saying to
>> B&G "Very nice observation! Ingenious apparatus!  Can you try this
>> here? My bet is it won't work in this case

I ask:
> And should they be saying this to the phrenologists, too?

I'm still interested.  Should they?

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: g580785c@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Counseling Session
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:26:13 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

What type of counseling are you doing?

		J.C.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Keywords: NLP  NeuroLinguistic Programming
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:10:37 GMT

Lee Lady writes:
> most people with a scientific turn of mind find it a
> little unsatisfactory to simply know that something
> works but to not know why it works.

Sure.  And even less satisfactory not to know whether
it works.  To have a number of claims but nothing but
anecdotal accounts.  An explanation of why something
works can wait until we know whether it works.

> "NLP has made me feel a lot better" or "NLP has changed my life"
> ...that's not really evidence for the validity of its claims.

You bet.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com