HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:59:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: feminists

On 11 November, Tim Tumlin writes:

>I don't know exactly why feminists are like that as a class,

        What is a feminist, Tim?  You are defining them as a
"class."  I'm curious as to how you categorize people as
"feminist" or "not feminist."


>but they seem to be working overtime to fit the description.
>The postings here have certainly reflected that.

        That is, the postings here reflect bitter, angry, and
what was the other word--?

>It has
>something to do with a special form of victimhood but that's
>not all of it.

        You mean, being bitter and angry has to do with a
special form of victimhood?  I'm not clear on what you are
trying to say here....


>There are theories that conflicts
>are bloodier when the conflicting groups are closer, e.g.
>the old knights were worse with each other in European wars
>than on the Crusades.  Could be that feminists take this
>conflict

        What conflict?  There have been several trotted out
in this discussion.  Could you clarify what you see as the
fundamental conflict?


>much more bitterly because they see the enemy as
>people they have been and will be close to.  Ergo, all this
>talk about Trojan Horses, crushing teeth, kicking butt,
>jerks, etc.

        So, to be bitter means that one will use violent
images?  Or what do you mean to imply here?


>The most abused and oppressed group in our society has not
>spoken up because it's not represented here -- children.  I
>never hear such talk when people speak up for children,
>although it's rare since, as I said, most people get their
>dander up for getting the goods for their own
>group.


        Oh, I have heard "such talk" in defense of children--
in fact, I've heard worse!  Just ask Kenn White what he'd
like to do to the people who sexually abused some of the
children he worked with in Boston, for example.  Another
aquaintance of mine from East Los Angeles told me gleefully
once of a time he and a friend castrated another man (without
any anethesia, I guarantee you) because that man had raped
his friend's sister.
        I beg to differ.  People's danders can get just as
riled when the group they're defending is not their own.
Just for the record, my husband is pretty riled at what he's
read over my shoulder of this discussion!
        --Kathy Morgan
        kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet

By the way, Tim--I really do want some clarification on your
statements.  These are not rhetorical questions!
From: 054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Matthew Simpson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Changing of a person's ways
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:38:49 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              9 Nov 1992 13:18:41 MST from <mmartin@ACS.UCALGARY.CA>

On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:18:41 MST <mmartin@ACS.UCALGARY.CA> said:
>
>Do you really think that anyone will ever change their ways?
>Even if a person is forced to accept that the world is changing,
>that doesn't mean that they will change how they feel. I think
>that as they are slowly defeated, the fight will become more
>intense.
>

The person may, as they are slowly defeated,:
1. fight and never give up.
2. slowly give up.
3. change over night and argue that s/he has always been the way of the new
   change.

Options 2 and 3 may have the person actually change how s/he feels.
The secret to winning the fight is not in winning the battle.  It is
in never having seen the problem.

As someone's grandmother or mother says, and I agree, "You always pick
your own battles."

-- Matthew Simpson
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:54:22 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Prull" <PRULLM@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU>
Subject:      Low freq. words

Jorge Dasilvaalvo writes:

>Can any of you correct or confirm the Francis & Kucera, 1982, book called
>'Frequency analysis of english usage'? Here in the UK there are two books
 called
>'Frequency analysis of English Vocabulary and Grammer: Based on the LOB Corpus
>V1: Tag frequencies and word frequencies', and 'V2: Tag combination and word
> combinations' by Johansson and Hofland, 1989. Are these similar to the one
>by Francis and Kucera?

There are so many word frequency books out there that it sometimes is hard
to choose one to use.  I think the first one printed was Thorndike and
Lorge, who tabulated word frequencies by hand (!), back in 1944.  Since
then, however, many books have been released that have updated Thorndike
and Lorge...for example, I'm sure the words "computer," "calculator,"
"microwave," etc. were not used in 1944 to the extent they are today.
Also, the point was raised that word frequencies may vary depending
upon the culture or country.  Use of certain words in England, for example,
may be much more frequent than USA, or wherever...

But enough of the history and musings!  I myself am not sure of the overlap
between Johansson & Hofland and Francis & Kucera.  Perhaps J & H is the
UK equivalent of F & K??  Check research articles to see what the standard
source is for word frequencies in England, perhaps that will help.
Good luck.

Matthew Prull
The Claremont Graduate School
Department of Psychology
130 E. 9th St.
Claremont, CA 91711

prullm@cgsvax.claremont.edu
From: lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Preferential treatment
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:03:00 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 7 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 (beta-1)


     Aren't color/gender-blind selection systems unfavorable to minorities in
societies that are not blind to color or gender?  (And for those hoping
that the cited articles on sexual discrimination are obsolete, did anyone
watch the program last night on female professors denied tenure presumably
because of their gender? -pregnancy, more specifically-).
     nangel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:28:00 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         CASE ELIZABETH <PSYGRDDEC@ORION.DEPAUL.EDU>
Subject:      feminists

>    Whew! You really waved the red flag in front of the old can of
> worms, Ken. Just when they were wiping the foam from their mouths.
> Defending Clarence Thomas, even against the bitter-angry-humorless
> hordes of righteously injured feminists, seems like Sophie's Choice.
> T.


Why is it that people assume everyone who stands up for women's rights
are bitter, angry and humorless?

Elizabeth
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 8 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 (beta-1)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:23:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Sexism and language a la Preferenti

    David,
     If you read my posting you will notice that the implication I
referred to (that a female is -by definition- human) is not mine, but
Webster's. I am aware of both the existence of females in non-human
species, and the fact that sarcasm sometimes gets lost in e-mail.
     Nangel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:33:19 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments:     Resent-From: Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA>
Comments:     Originally-From: Revised List Processor (1.7e)
              <LISTSERV@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      PSYCGRAD: error report from WATSON.IBM.COM

=== From: "Gerri Oppedisano (8-863-7225)" <gerri@watson.ibm.com>
=== To: PSYCGRAD@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA
=== Subject:  What dictionaries say about FEMALE or MALE

It's been stated a few times that the definition for both male and
female refer to their reproductive roles in order to distinguish
between the sexes. The only comment of objection so far has been
whether the female definition should say female ARE CAPABLE OF
giving birth rather than DO give birth.. Also, there's been this
issue regarding whether female refers to humans only, which I think
has been pretty soundly refuted.. The Webster's Dictionary I have
does not refer to humans in the definition of female.

I guess I don't quite understand the reason for this discussion..
Are we trying to come up with the perfect definition so someone
can DO something about it (like make sure all dictionaries change
their definitions)?? Or is all of this just idle banter? Just
wondering..

gerri
******  The following is a COPY  *****************************
=== From:         Steve Lang <lpzsml@UNICORN.NOTT.AC.UK>
=== Subject:      Re: Sexism and language a la Preferential T
=== To:           Multiple recipients of list PSYCGRAD
 <PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
=== In-Reply-To:  <2B005CC0@courier.sscnet.ucla.edu>

In article <2B005CC0@courier.sscnet.ucla.edu> you write:
>
>     Don,
>     According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
>Language, female IS a noun ["A human being of the sex which becomes pregnant
>and gives birth to young"  (sic!!!)].
>     Perhaps the definition tells us something about the way females are
>viewed in society?

What is the definition of male according to the above dictionary.
Is a female _penguin_, a penguin that is a _human being_ of the sex which
becomes pregnant and gives birth to young? (sounds like a naff dictionary).

Steve Lang.
From: winzar@newsman (Hume Winzar)
Subject: Anyone interested in Discrete Choice Modelling?
Keywords: Consumer economics, Mathematical Psychology, Utility theory
Organization: Commerce, Murdoch University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 09:02:18 GMT

Is anyone studying Discrete Choice Modelling?

The term goes under a number of names depending on which discipline or 
paradigm you're operating in.  But what I'm looking for is different 
perspectives on the problem of the individual person choosing one from a set 
of alternatives. e.g. selecting one brand from all brands on the 
supermarket shelf, selecting one university course from those 
offered, selecting one item on the menu, deciding whether to take the bus or 
to drive.

Clearly there is a strong overlap amongst (Lancaster) Economics, 
(Thurston) Psychology, and Mathematical Psychology.

I'm looking for Theoretical contributions, Measurement techniques and, 
especially,  Forecasting or Prediction techniques.

I've become somewhat of an expert in Conjoint Analysis techniques, so I 
guess I'm more interested in alternative theoretical perspectives and 
prediction.

  - - - - - - - - -
 |      _--_|\     |   Hume Winzar
 |     /      \    |   Commerce School,
 |     *_.--._/    |   Murdoch University,
 |           v     |   Perth, Western Australia
  - - - - - - - - -  
                       E_Mail winzar@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au
                       Phone: (09) 310 7389
                       Fax:   (09) 310 5004
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:33:01 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Gerri Oppedisano (8-863-7225)" <gerri@WATSON.IBM.COM>
Subject:      initials and preferential treatment

I agree.. Why not have APA require everyone to NOT use initials, but use
their full first and last names.. Initials are ok as long as one other
name besides last name is spelled out, for example, Kathryn could sign
her papers Kathryn Irene Snyder, or K. Irene Snyder, or Kathryn I. Snyder,
whichever she prefers, but she would not be allowed to sign K.I.Snyder.
I think it's important to know who the author is, and I think it's silly
to resort to initials for fear your paper won't be accepted or acknowledged.

My 2 cents.

gerri
******  The following is a COPY  *****************************
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:41:00 EST
Reply-To:
 "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
 <PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender:
 "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
 <PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From:         "Kathryn Irene Snyder" <IRENES%UNC.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re: Preferential treatment
To:           Multiple recipients of list PSYCGRAD
 <PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

I don't like the idea of using just my initials on my publications. It
hides my identity. For one thing, I presented at a conference last year
in wwich all abstracts were listed by author's first initials, and
there was another K.I. Snyder presenting. Lots of people got confused
trying to look us each up. My name is something I am proud of and
I think it's important that people know who I am.
Kathryn Irene Snyder
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:31:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         DON GALLOGLY <GALLOGLY@CWU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment

Kathy Morgan writes...

>>If science is male dominated, does it follow that psychology
>>is as
>>well?
>
>        I think Psychology IS dominated by men--that's the
>observation/suggestion/whathaveyou that started this lively
>discussion!

I think you are right.  However the assertion that "women are discriminated
against BECAUSE science is male dominated" has a logical flaw.  This is the
statement that prompted Larry's response above.  Science may be male dominated
because women are discriminated against, but not necessarily.  More
conservatively and possibly more likely, male domination of a field and
discrimination against women covary.  But it is certainly not necessarily the
case that women are discriminated against because of male domination.  Please
don't misinterpret me.  I am not disagreeing with either the statement that
science is male dominated or that women in science are discriminated against, I
just meant to point out, once again, that correlation does not imply causation.

Don Gallogly
GALLOGLY@CWU.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:56:06 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tim Tumlin <UFTRT@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: feminists

   Kathy,
   Sorry I couldn't get back to you fast enough, I had a little work to do.
Someone pulled the plug on my mainframe's modem ports (HMMMMM,
and the comics section of a Ms. magazine was found near the back door
of the computer center).
   Re definition: What's this ... Socrates? I have to define my terms
before I can play?  Maybe defining feminists is like what the supreme
court justice said about pornography (you can assume this is not about
C. Thomas) -- I can't define it but I know it when I see it.  Or maybe
we ought to try a DSM style chinese menu form of defining the BAH
feminist syndrome: diagnose if five of the following nine symptoms are
present and have been present more days than not for the past six months:
Naaah, I'm not going to step into that one.
   If you're afraid you're a bitter, angry and humorless feminist, I'm not
the one to give the personal feedback.
   Actually, I was a little concerned you'd write back to say that you were
a feminist AND an ultra-religious-right anti-abortion type as well and what
the heck did I mean by ultra-religious-right etc etc.  All I need is Faludi
AND Pat Robertson on my trail.  Shades of the Blues Brothers: WE are on a
mission from God.

   Stephanie: I haven't forgotten Santa Cruz, but among all those pious
and righteous neo-nazis were some courageous progressives.
I recall Elliot Aronson telling me the story that he was actually in some
fear for his well being when confronted by some "liberal" students who were
mad because he had a part in inviting Jensen to speak at the campus. No one
, including Elliot, thought Jensen was right, but his political incorrectness
got the BAH students upset and they demanded he be banned from visiting
that City on a Hill.

T.
From: 054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Matthew Simpson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: To paraphrase The Torch...
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:54:58 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              11 Nov 1992 16:29:54 -0700 from <WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU>

Larry,

I agree with the notion that a statement is more like a flame if it is
less subject to falsification.  Good call!  If I say, "Ulysses is a
dunderhead," I am providing little with which people may argue.
However, if I assert, "Ulysses material is completely outdated
and irrelevant to the concerns modern people," I leave the idea
open to debate.  Interesting that you note the parallel with
Popperian Falsification.  I like it.

How open are we to having our ideas refuted?  Flexibility, honest, and
fair relinquishing does wonders for the education, as long as we
build strong ground as we travel our song lines.

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:13:15 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: feminists
              11 Nov 1992 11:28:00 CST from <PSYGRDDEC@ORION.DEPAUL.EDU>

On Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:28:00 CST CASE ELIZABETH said:
>Why is it that people assume everyone who stands up for women's rights
>are bitter, angry and humorless?

Everyone?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 28 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 (beta-1)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:07:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Sexism and language a la Preferenti

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
>>Language, female IS a noun ["A human being of the sex which becomes pregnant
>>and gives birth to young"  (sic!!!)].

>Do you have a better definition to offer the dictionary?  Remember, the
>definition must adequately discriminate the organism as only being female.
>What is your complaint about the definition?  How is the definition
>different from the definition for "male," besides the essential
>discrimination between the two forms of the species?

     I guess I would like for females to be defined not only in terms of
their reproductive role in the species.  While most females are equipped for
the job, not all "become pregnant and give birth to young".  Are those
individuals then not females? Or is the definition a bit narrow? Really, this
seems to have been taken out of The Handmaid's Tale, or other horror story!
           I'm not at home right now, so I can't check on the definition of
"Male".  However, I seriously doubt that it fosues exclusively on their
ability to impregnate the female.  Although, who knows?  Maybe this is the
way Webster's views the world...  But I can appreciate a good thing
when I see one: I'm grateful for Webster's implication that females are -by
definition- human!
               Nangel

--Matthew Simpson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:36:56 -0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "(Tor Neilands)" <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The PSYCGRAD Digest: November 7, 1992

>========================================================
>      4.3 Re: gender imbalance in psychology--discussion
>========================================================
>
>=== Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:51:00 PST
>=== From:         GALLOGLY@CWU.BITNET
>=== Subject:      Re: gender imbalance in psychology--discussion
>
>Dave Stotz writes...
>
>>Tor,
>>
>>     Someone once said. . .
>>
>>          "There are two kinds of people in this world; those who
>divide >           everyone in the world into two kinds, and those
>who don't." >
>>     . . . but I can't remember who it was.
>
>The way I heard it was, "There are two types of people; those who
>believe in dichotomies and those who don't."  But perhaps that's a
>hypostatization.
>
>Don
>GALLOGLY@CWU.bitnet

Exactly. I think these notions are validating my original point which was
that it may well be impossible for folks *not* to categorize. So, if we're
gonna do it, why not do it both ways and try to admire the beauty in the
diversity out there and try and learn from each other instead of going
towards homogenization instead? (my favorite new PC term I've heard is
"lookism"--discrimination based on attractiveness level. I agree that we
should try not to discrimate to the maximum extent possible, but to
seriously consider elimating the perceptions of all differences among all
people? Please).

Speaking of "hypostatization", that reminds me of the cartoon featuring the
"stat family". It's a drawing of a very Cleaver-esque family sitting 'round
a dinner table and dad and mom each recite some esoteric percentage (e.g,
"Groundhogs recite The Ten Commandments an average of 19.35 percent on odd
numbered years when the moon is full") and each family member does this
until they come to the smallest boy who comments, "Statistics are wrong 33%
of the time". :-)

Go figure...

cheers,

Tor


Tor Neilands
Systems Analyst
Statistical Services Group
Computation Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX  78712

Phone: (512)-471-3241, Ext. 263

Internet:  TBN@Utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
___________________________________________________

"Life is too short to self-verify"   --- Shawn McNulty

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I, I took
 the road less traveled by, and that has made all the
 difference".                                 --- Robert Frost
___________________________________________________

Disclaimer:  All of the views expressed above are soley
those of the author. Any relationship between my own
views and those of the University of Texas and/or The
Computation Center at the University of Texas are
due merely to regression to the mean.
____________________________________________________
From: G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: Preferential treatment
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:04:55 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
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

Tim,
Have you ever filled out an application for anything serious that did not
require that you give your name in full?  In almost any serious application
form there is a line that is reserved for the applicant's name in full.  If
you are applying for a job or a credit card, the person(s) deciding if you
get it know a lot about you.  The people who make such decisions cannot
be blind in  most cases when they know who you are.  The biggest thing that
can come from the name is an assumption of whether the application is
from a man or a woman.  Many names can also be judged to have some distinct
ethnic origin.  Your roomate's sister was indeed clever, but how can the
rest of us avoid the fact that individuals making choices about us have
information that can bias them?

Tammy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU