HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:16:00 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         TBN@UTXVM.BITNET
Subject:      Reposting of Bathroom study that


Isn't the whole self-report business sort of played out? By that I mean
is it not the case that most investigators acknowledge its biased
nature and garner convergent validity info whenever possible, but at
the same time they recognize that no measure is perfect, esp. when one
is trying to get at latent traits with manifest measures of same.

in addition, some of the interest here would seem to be in the
discrepancy between the self-report and the 'objective' measure
cited--you know, along the lines of kahneman and tversky and others--
e.g., the one study that showed that 90% of people surveyed thought
they drove better than 50% of the population! :-)

My original question about the original post was the same about k and
t type research in general? What is the overarching social purpose of
this research?

Now, about all of this football business, it's been interesting, esp.
the psychoanalytic interpretation, as well as the 'it's just a game
interpretation'. I bet for different people, it serves different
functions. Here's another interpretation--it serves as a social
learning model for young men (and some young women, too, I'd wager).
The successful team celebrates, gets to where they want to go in
the end (the endzone) and the "superhuman" efforts of "contenders"
are glorified. A friend of mine once remarked that it was interesting
that a beefy white guy always seemed to get lavish praise from
announcers for being the 'walk-on try out work ethic king' whereas
the black 'superstars' tended to have 'natural big play talent'. Now,
taking a social learning perspective, what does that type of subtle,
implicit message tell us as viewers?

And here's an even wilder interpretation: Football is a focused
microcosm of capitalism at its most exultant, specifically in that
kicking, punching, holding, and otherwise getting ahead is rewarded as
long as it works towards getting the team into that endzone. My favorite
comment associated with this from announcers is, "Well,Dick, if they
didn't see the holding, it's not a penalty, it's a good play." And
then we express puzzlement and understanding about why kids employ
violence and cheating to get ahead,esp. if they come from disadvantaged
backgrounds! Capitalism is being modeled for us out there, folks, during
football games and everywhere else...

Enough wild-eyed ramblings! Back to work!

cheers,
Tor

p.s. keep the good and interesting football interpretations coming,
please...I think as psychologists, it not only behooves us to understand
the real world (what a novel notion), but also it's good analytic
practice as well to 'chew' on this type of issue--plus, it shows
how varied our respective viewpoints are of a fairly well-defined
phenomenon in our world (football). My, I'm quite the prolix preachy one
this morning,aren't I?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:39:29 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Todd D Nelson <nelsont1@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: CowPlop Fans
              Jan 28, 93 1:08 am

>
> GOOD GODD!!!
> Todd, do you have to reply to everything?!?
> Bye all means, please continue!  If your don't, I'm afraid we won't
> get anything interesting here!
>
> O======================================================================O
>  | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
>  |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
>  |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
>  |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
> O======================================================================O


Matthew,

GOOD GOD Y'ALL!! HEH!  (that's my James Brown impersonation, for all you
non-hip types out there)

YES I DO.

Todd
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:22:06 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Margaret Joppa <joppa@PSYCH.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Re: CowPlop Fans

Oh no, is it here again already?  The Stupor Bowl, I mean.
Will someone please explain to me why people, particularly men, get so
excited about sports, particularly football?  I personally beleive that it
( the Stupor Bowl) is a yearly ritual for men during which they are express
their "manliness" with drunkenness, grunting and growling, farting and
belching, and being otherwise grotesque, because generally most men don't
get to act that way the rest of the year.  I mean, how many women out there
watch football with men?  And I don't mean with just one man, or at a bar
with men you don't know.  And if you watch football with men, do they or
do they not ignore you?  So I don't like football in general.  So sue me.

Go Cowboys!!  (har har, :) )
Margaret
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:55:43 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Todd D Nelson <nelsont1@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: deep thought 2

>
> => I believe we should preserve the planet
> => for our children
> => but NOT our children's children
> => because I don't believe children
> => should be having sex
> =>
>         Sort of depends on the _age_ of those children, doesn't it?
>
>         Of course, most children don't think their _parents_ should be
> having sex, so . . .
>
Rick Adams,

Awwww, you're not supposed to be SERIOUS and wreck the fun......its a joke.
Ever watch saturday night live?

Todd...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 14 Jan 1993 17:45:04 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Graph Applications

Fred,
I think there are many on-the-fly decisions made based on xy graphs.
These are a few examples which I imagined.

1)  Real-time analysts of satellite data.
2)  Nurses/Doctors/Paramedics reading charts measuring EKG, EEG,
    and many other vital "bio-funtions".
3)  Seismologists during earthquakes.

Let me know if this helps.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:57:19 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Stephanie Fishkin <fishkin@SCF.USC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ethics
              93 11:59 pm

BArry-

I like the idea of submitting the forms to the review board, but wouldn't
that in and of itself be unethical, as these folks would by unwittingly
aiding in an experiment?  And wouldnt you first have to get permission
from the REview Board to do exactly that experiment?

By the way, you are getting your classic unethical Social Psych experiments
confused.  Milgram did the shock study (S's thought they had to continue
to give shocks to the confederate even after it seemed as if the confederate
had been shocked to death); Zimbardo did the Prison Study you referred to
(has anyone else heard rumors that this whole experiment was fabricated?
Now here is a new vein in this ethics discussion: as a grad student, I've
been told that some of the "classic" or well-known studies I learned about
as an undergrad may not have been as 100% true as I was led to believe. The
Zimbardo study was one rumor I've heard about.  I've also heard the same about
some other fairly current research. So, should we assume these rumors -- told
to me by both fellow graduate students as well as professors from other
institutions besides my own! -- are false, or if they are true, how do
we stop perpetuating the myths?  Just a thought.  Now back to the original
posting).

Stephanie "the Social Psychologist" Fishkin (who sometimes maliciously
fantsizes about what great deception research she could do if only the
revew board wasn't so strict!)

:)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Everyone feels instinctively that
 all the beautiful sentiments in the world
 weigh less than a single lovely action.
           --James Russell Lowell

Stephanie Fishkin, Univeristy of Southern California
fishkin@scf.usc.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RICHINSP
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:18:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Philip Richins, Continuing Education, CWU,
              (509) 963-1504" <RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Eurocentrism?

Tim,
The question is not one of disparaging psychoanalyitic theory because
it may be eurocentrist, but rather to remain open to the possibility that
the assumption of psychoanalytic thought may not be universal.  Much of the
assumptions around Oedipal wishes, penis envy are not biological, but cultural.
The role of the the parents is based on Western models of family.  Thus, some ar
   e
lead to question if it applies to all ethnic groups within the US or to the
actions of person outside the Western culture.

Philip
RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:28:06 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         barry <CMSPSY20@UGA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questionnaires/validity of self report data

Betty,
If you can't find the S-D scale in the library, let me know.  Then I'll
send it your way.

Barry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:03:18 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Deborah Gibbons <dg4t+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: SES Measure for Kids

To assess family SES based on young kids' viewpoints, it seems that you
would need to look at a cluster of kid-level items and behaviors:  How
many bathrooms do you have?  How many brothers and sisters?  Do your
parent(s) "dress up" to go to work?  Which magazines do you have at
home?  How often do you get to order (Scholastic, Weekly Reader, etc.)
books from school?  Do your parent(s) help you with homework regularly?
Which subjects do they help most with?  Do your parent(s) buy all your
clothes for you?
You ought to be able to ask more direct questions at the high-school
level; I am sure they have a good idea about their family's SES.

When you have it all together, I would like to see your questionnaire.
I am interested in the relationship of school/classroom composition to
individual performance.  Because the overall scores of American kids
(SAT, CAT, etc.) haven't improved despite considerable attention,
goal-setting, bussing, remixing of classrooms, implementation of various
new programs, etc. within school systems, I am curious about outside
cultural influences on school selection and performance.  SES is
obviously an important factor which might interact with individual
ability, even within the same classroom.  Some studies have suggested
that mixing low achievers with high achievers in the same class improves
the performance (across the board) of the initially low achievers, but
at great cost to the initially high achievers.  I don't know what
(culture, different standards, personal interaction?) is responsible for
this.  There must be a way to isolate the benefits to the slower kids
and maintain those without sacrificing our bright kids.  Any thoughts
from the educational psychologists out there?

Debbie Gibbons
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: psycgrad@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
X-VMS-To: IN%"psycgrad@acadvm1.uottawa.ca"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:40:23 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Prull <PRULLM@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Attractiveness

Tor Neilands writes:

>I think the last point raised about "couples who look like one another" is
>an interesting phenomenon---one has to wonder how much of that happens from
>similar others getting together (folks of similar attractiveness levels)
>vs. two people getting together and changing each other such that they
>become more similar to each other over time? Is it the chicken or the egg?

You know, I could swear that Robert Zajonc did some research on this
on this a while back.  I'm pretty sure that he generally found that
couples that have lived together for many years, like 30-40 or so,
begin to resemble each other facially.  That is, their faces change
over time so that they begin to resemble each other.  Don't ask me
what the reference is, it's been a while since I looked at that one!

If we can say that this is true, how can we explain it?  Seems to me
that when someone is deeply enamored or attached to a significant
other in their life they tend to imitate that person in various ways.
Every once in a while I catch myself talking like my girlfriend, using
some idiosyncratic verbal inflections or whatever.  Basically,
sometimes I sound like her.  I've even temporarily adopted some
mannerisms exhibited by those professors whom I respect and admire.
Anyway, maybe it's possible that when two people who are emotionally
attached to each other for a long period of time and unconsciously
imitate each other for years and years simply are using the same
facial muscles, and, subsequently, begin to resemble each other
because they act alike.  ???  This is a stretch, but it does pose some
interesting thoughts.

Matthew Prull
prullm@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:52:26 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Todd D Nelson <nelsont1@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the matching hypothesis
              employer of dubious verbiage" at Jan 26, 93 3:24 pm

>
> Did anyone go to WPA in Portland last year?  That was the conference I
> was referring to...there were many studies about attractiveness and
> physical interest (including one with a poster of people in bathing
> suits, it caught my attention, but I can't remember what it was
> about!!).  Also commumication styles and attraction...etc.  I put my
> name on all the lists to have stuff sent to me (it's one of my
> interests) but alas, like me, they are probably woefully far from
> getting the reprints out.  Are there any psychgradders who presented?
> Speak up!!!
>
>
> trace

Tracy,

All the cool people hang out at MPA. :)

Todd
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:11:34 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         PCABE@PEMBVAX1.PEMBROKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Ethics

Re the commentary on fraud (and cognates) in science: The PBS segment
called "Do Scientists Cheat?" is a real eye-opener, in a number of ways.
Some of the cases reviewed are psychological (e.g., the famous Cyril
Burt case extensively studied by Leon Kamin) and some closely related
(e.g., medication effects on mentally retarded individuals).

We always hope that we have the guts not to cheat ourselves and to blow
the whistle on the fraud we might uncover. But in the real world, one's
actions have consequences that are not always salutatory--one might not
get a job/tenure/promoted if one does not publish something, and given that
the bulk of what gets published goes unread, and further essentially none
of it gets replicated, who would ever know the difference if you just made
one (or two or three or...) up out of whole cloth? We celebrate the
courage of whistle-blowers, too, don't we? Don't bet your career on it...

HERE is an issue with some backbone; it'll be interesting to see where it
goes.
Pat Cabe
Pembroke State Univ.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:46:38 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         barry <CMSPSY20@UGA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More on Bathroom behavior studies. (try again)

Can't help but wonder does this set of findings help explain the relatively
long lines at women's bathrooms as compared to the shorter lines at men's
in busy public places....  Could be there's a gender based difference
in the way we cope with personal space invasions?

Any ideas?

Barry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:18:11 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Todd D Nelson <nelsont1@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Stereotyping

Are you Prejudiced?

Well, that may depend on the time of day.

Just perusing through some of my advisor's prolific writings, and
came across this one I thought you all would find interesting:

Bodenhausen (1990) assessed whether people who are 'morning persons' or
'night persons' evidenced any differences in their tendencies to
assess guilt to stories of crimes committed by two types of people
differing in name only. The subjects read that one of the alleged
criminals had a hispanic name. The other suspect had a non-hispanic name.
 Probability estimates of judged guilt of the alleged
criminal differed within groups between those who were asked to make the
judgment at a time that mismatched their acrophase (peak performance
time.....ie, the acrophase for morning people is morning). So, morning people
who were asked to make the judgment in the afternoon/evening were MORE likely
to stereotype and assess guilt to the hispanic suspect. Night people who
were asked to make judgments in the morning also were more likely to
stereotype, and believe that the hispanic suspect was most likely the
criminal.

Thus, Bodenhausen concluded that we all have regular variations in our
motivation and ability to perform complex cognitive tasks, centering
around our circadian rythems (ie, acrophases). As Allport (1954) said,
"so long as we can get away with coarse overgeneralizations, we tend to
do so....because it takes less effort."

Bodenhausen, G. V. (1990). Stereotypes as judgmental heuristics: Evidence of
  circadian variations in discrimination. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 1 (5),
  319-322.


Best to all,

Todd D. Nelson
Michigan State University
Email: NELSONT1@STUDENT.MSU.EDU (internet)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 1993 00:08:42 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "David K. Stotz" <STOTZDK@DUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Lefty Bias

     As a somewhat ambidextrous left-hander (I bat right handed and would
play guitar that way naturally if I could play at all), I enjoyed a decided
advantage over the rest of my high school gym class in fencing. This was
because all my practice was against opponents whos weopons were on the same
side of the body as my own, and because theirs was all against opponents
whos weopons were across the body. (I was also fast, I must say :>  ).

     During that class I felt a closer kinship than usual to my remote
ancesters who were members of the Scottish Clan Kerr, who were noted (and
still are for all I know) for the unusually high proportion of left-handers
in the family. In fact,left-handedness was so much a part of their lives
that they built their spiral staircases with the spirals in the opposite
direction from the usual spiral staircase. This made it easier to defend their
castles, because they could reach better around the corners with their sword
hands while descending the stairs fighting off invaders. On the other hand,
this might have made it easier for a right handed enemy to fight on the way
up, but I guess you are already at a disadvantage fighting a lefty!

Sinistrally yours, Dave Stotz, Drexel, Philadephia.

P.S. - I am onof three left-handers in a family of five.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:39:29 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Stephanie Fishkin <fishkin@SCF.USC.EDU>
Subject: Re: CowPlop Fans
              "WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU" at Jan 27, 93 5:48 pm

Larry writes:
>
> Football, like anything meaningful, must be understood to be
> appreciated.  If you don't understand symbolism, you are unlikely to
> enjoy good literature.  If you don't fathom variations on a theme you
> will probably tire of a symphony.  If you think the scientific method
> is a form of birth control, psychological journals will undoubtably be
> unreadable.  And if you don't know the difference between an end run
> and a "hail mary", you'll probably say foolish things about people who
> enjoy football.

My reading of the football literature, and its symbolism, is that it is
an accepted means for the expression of ritual homosexuality and rape:
        "The object of the game, simply stated, is to get into the
        opponent's enzone while preventing the opponent from getting
        into one's own enzone... [T]his is what is involved in male
        verbal dueling.  One wishes to put one's opponent down; to
        "screw" him while avoid being screwed by him... The so-called
        three-point stance involves bending over in a distinct stooped
        position... and it does make one especially vulnerable to
        attack from behind, that is, vulnerable to homosexual attack...
        In symbolic terms, I am arguing that the end is a kind of
        backside and the that the enzone is a kind of erogenous
        zone...[I]n essence, American football is an adolescent
        masculinity initiation ritual in which the winner gets
        into the loser's endzone more time than the loser gets
        into his!"
        (From Into the Enzone for a Touchdown:  A Psycoanalytic
        Consideration of American Football. In A. Dundes (1980)
        Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington:  Indiana University Press)

I've watched these games before, only in the company of several others
who were very engrossed in the game. I was more facinated with their
interaction than the game (except for the facination with the Half Time
Spectacle).  Personally, I think I'm going to write to NBC (see earlier
post about connection btn. Super Bowl and violence).

>
> "Stupor bowl", indeed, only to the ignorant or boorish.
>

Ignorantly and boorishly yours,

Stephanie

PS:  I do tire of symphonies, if I can't have a picnic at the same time.
I do enjoy literature, and think fondly of a teacher I once had whenever
I encounter some blatent symbolism.
:)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Everyone feels instinctively that
 all the beautiful sentiments in the world
 weigh less than a single lovely action.
           --James Russell Lowell

Stephanie Fishkin, Univeristy of Southern California
fishkin@scf.usc.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:32:23 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Jewell John Gerard <jjewell@CORAL.BUCKNELL.EDU>

psycgrad john Jewell
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU