HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:37:02 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Ps

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:32:00 EST Someonesaid:
> The main point that I've been trying to make
>over the last few days (enlightening the unlightened Matthew Simpson) is: We
>as psychologists have to be much more concerned with this pernicious
>perception of psychology and psychologists that, much like a stereotype, can
>lead to all kinds 0 misconceptions and misunderstanding about the SCIENCE of
>psychology.
>Capiche?

If I may be aloud to unenlighten the enlightened.
I propose that we do not need to be MORE concerned than what we have been
taught to be.  I think we have enough concern as it is.  I will even propose
that the amount of concern we have is not a useful concern.

Rather than being more concerned about what other people think of us,
I propose that we focus on the job at hand.  Let's hire someone else
to be concerned about public relations and marketing.  If you are
required to do your own marketing, be that which you market.  Don't
engage in preaching about what you are.  Be what you are, and there
will be no problem with the perceptions of others.  Actions speak louder
than words.

IT ALL COMES DOWN TO
If you think that psychology needs more promoting as a science, great!
Go do it.  And then report what techniques you find to be useful in
certain situations.  When reporting these useful techniques, be very
precise and descriptive.  Then we can discuss what you are proposing as
a specific technique.  We don't all have to agree on the abstract
problem.  We don't all have to agree with the abstract proposed
solution.  Get concrete in order to do something useful.

You see, so far we are jumping from vague situation to vague
situation.  Someone is talking about the grant-review committee.
Another person is talking about the family making a joke.  Someone
is talking about a young group of student engineers.  Still another
person is talking about chit-chat in the hallway outside the
president's office.  Here are 4 vague scenarios which are entirely
different from each other and have different implications regarding
the so-called problem.  In each of these scenarios, only one of them
has been detailed enough to establish that it was just a family joke
(no problem there).

Until we define what we are talking about, none of us will be certain
what the other is intending to say.  Can you be more specific?

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:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:11:09 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Someone else's stats expertise

re
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:42:16 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Kenn White <kwhite@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Credit where credit is due...

FYI re citations (jeez, is this a cryptic beginning, or what?),
the National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism branch of
the NIH Clinical Center has a 12 page policy booklet on the
ethics and proceedures for authorship.

Maybe there is a *reason* why some psychiatric and medical
journal articles funded by the Fed have a million names.
'Course, there's no denying the politics of publishing either...



In desparate need of an end-of-the-semester brewhau,

Kenn in College Park
kwhite@wam.umd.edu
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:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:06:10 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bushisms & Quale Quotes

Todd,
        Those were great.  I haven't laughed so hard for weeks.
Thanks.
Larry.
ps   I didn't ever vote for 'em.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:18:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Todd.Nelson" <22817MGR@MSU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's the Beef? ( Common Se

Eric,

Thanks for the posting and the interesting personal anecdote. I'm heartened to
know that others echo my sentiment!

Todd
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:06:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Todd.Nelson" <22817MGR@MSU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Ps

Tor,

Thanks!

Take it easy, and have a great holiday break!

Todd
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:54:57 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Patty Wilson <398960@UOTTAWA.BITNET>

In reply to the complaints about the student who didn't know how to
analyze the stats for her dissertation and paid someone else to do it.
What I found most interesting about this was the way the writer called
into question the students competency as a clinician, on the grounds of
having an incomplete understanding of statistical analysis.  The fact
that the student had a Masters already and four years experience as a
chemical dependency counsellor (or something like that) was presented in
a manner which I felt was not stating an area of expertise but rather
questioning whether the student should have been acting in that capa-
city.  In other words, there seemed to be an implication that because
the student was incompetent in statistical analysis and research design,
she must also be incompetent as a clinician.  I think there is ample
evidence that clinical skills are not necessarily highly correlated with
one's marks in multivariate stats courses.  Some argue that one might
even expect a negative correlation.  I thought it was also interesting
that the person's personal integrity seemed to be called into question
because she preferred to work at a PhD level, with a higher salary,
than at a Master's level.  Is there some reason why a clinician who
is good at stats should be paid more than a clinician who isn't?
Perhaps what should be called into question here is not the competency
or values of the student in this case, but the system which promotes
the almost inevitable pressures on such students to meet its demands.
Shoddy research will continue to be produced as long as the system
continues to demand that clinicians will be rewarded primarily for
non-clinical skills and non-clinical accomplishments.
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, 17 Dec 1992 15:12:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Philip Richins, Continuing Education, CWU,
              (509) 963-1504" <RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Stats & Therapists

Tim,
I agree with your stand on the licensing exam.  I also agree that there should
be national standards and perhaps the the APA should set them.  My objection
centers around the lobbying efforts in the various states where the APA attempts
to have only APA accredited programs acceptable for licensure.  The clinical
program at Saybrook for instance is based on the APA guidelines for course-
work.  If I take and pass those courses and the program is accredited by the
regional accrediting assoc., then, I beleive, that I have met the national
standard in that area.  In the end, I amof the opinion that the APA is
setting itself up as a "single gate" and like the single exam< I resist it.

I am sure that I am not the only doctoral student on the list attending a pro-
gram which is not accredited by the APA (to include our non-USA companions) and
these persons may feel that their programs are of value and perhaps they are
preparing for licensure.

It all comes back to what I wrote about 2 days ago,  the licesure process needs
to be competency based.  We must be willing to report incompetence and police
our profession.

Philip
RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET

Working at Central Washington University
Studying at SAYBROOK INSTITUTE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:45:47 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Stephanie Fishkin <fishkin@SCF.USC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: authorship
              92 9:55 am

> The only student I feel that should not receive authorship
> is one who is being paid to do some work, but has no clue about what they
> are doing, they're just doing...
> That student is not learning or understanding.
> That student is doing no more than being paid to do housework. Sunni

I find it hard to beleive that there are many graduate students and/or
professors who hire an undergrad and say, "here, run these subject [or
code this data]" without either (a) explaining to them the purpose of
the assignment, or (b) having them engage in another aspect of the research
experience as well.  Then again, perhaps I am very naive...

If this student is hired as a research assistant, then
the purpose of this job is to get some research experience as well as getting
paid to do it.  Therefore, this student should be solicited for her opinions,
included in research meetings, and so forth.  IF the student is hired as a
secretary or a data entry person, then this is entirely different.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:02:29 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         PSYMICK@VM.UOGUELPH.CA

set psygradd nomail
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:07:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "David M. Fresco" <FRESCO@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: History & Systems

Matthew P.,
In my case, the lines were fairly clean.  I wrote about my undergraduate
advisor Lauren Alloy who actually did 2 dissertations, one with Seligman
the other with Dick Solomon.  Solomon was Harold Schlosberg's student.
Schlosberg did a dissertation with someone named Carmichael but was a
close associate to Robert Woodworth.  Woodworth was J.Mck. Cattell's
student, who was Wundt's student.  Voila.
There's a very nice serial called the History of Psychology in Autobio-
graphy.  Also check American Psychologist for obituary/biographies if
these people happen to be dead.  That's how my lineage was discovered.
David Fresco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:55:04 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         jlbugg@UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re: let's hear some opinions

What a great response - now I'll tell the truth.  I've already run her
data.  Wait... the story gets better.  The person for whom I ran the
data did not ask me to be involved as an expert from whom she could
better her analysis.  The entire analysis consisted of a one page
questionaire given to - guess what - mental health professionals and not
one of the 14 chi squares was significant - not even close.  I could have
written a better dissertation after my high school psychology class.

This person reports that she "cried my way through SPSS" as a masters
student in counseling (educ.).  She has been in private practice for
4 years, certified to be a chem dep. couns. and is a licensed LPC.  SHE
has never taken a statistics class as the univer. w/o walls doesn't not
require them.  The point of her earning a PhD is one of financial gain.
In CO., as I'm sure it is in the majority of states, insurance pays more
for therapy with a licensed PhD, her malpractice insurance premium goes
down, and she gets to advertise in the yellow pages that she is a PhD.
In fact, she decided to pay someone to do her stats because she didn't want
to take the time to learn how to do stats as she had already placed her
January yellow pages ad - PhD and all - in October, prior to her having
proposed her dissertation.

In doing the chi square, which was the correct statistical analysis, one
of her "thesis committee" members - another LPC in Oklahoma private practice,
called her up and wanted to know why we weren't doing an ANOVA with posthocs.
AAAAAck!!!  She didn't manipulate any variables on this junior high school
quality work!  There were no interacting variables on which to do
post hoc analysis.  So, cry me a river about my own inadequecies (sp)
on statistical analysis.  I never mentioned assumptions to her and they
never asked.  Also, she didn't have much to say in her discussion section
so I outlined some theoretical possibilities for her to write on....

Her advisor thought the discussion section was short so he had her put
14 2x2 tables of means in the discussion section.

Even if it isn't unethical for me to do it, it feels wrong.  So I left out
means for one of the 14 tests.  Passive aggressive but at some point she
will be asked where they are and she won't know where to get them.  She'll
get by but she will know - and so will the other 3 "committee members" - that
it wasn't her doing it.

Also, I wouldn't want authorship - not that in a million years it would get
published in anything, including teen beat.  I'm a single mom in grad
school; its a lousy excuse but its cash in hand.

Jennifer - UCCS
PS - Keep those opinions coming!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:04:55 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Monika Trzcinska <054470@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: let's hear some opinions
              10 Dec 1992 19:49:36 -0800 from <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>

Tor,
I might be wrong, but if you hired an "x" number of undergraduates to run
your experiments and maybe an "x" number of others to do the stats, shouldnt
they be present with you at the defence?  (No harm intended!)
After all, these people did the hard core tedious work, and you provided the
intellectual interpretations...
In my field you do it all by yourself, or you shouldn`t call yourself a
researcher, but then again I never had to run 1000 subjects.  How many subjects
were you required to run in order to get the "statistically meaningful"
results?  Maybe we often throw the baby with the bath watter by adhering to
number (the greater N the better) instead of looking at the data the way it
is.  Sorry for this babling, but I just came back from a collegues defence,
which was fabulous, and she can say in all honesty that it is her thesis and
hers only!  She is a Dr. now!


                                 _
    ) (    Monika Trzcinska    _- o   ) (   054470@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA
   )   (----------------------- o o  )   (----------------------------
    ) (                        -_ o   ) (
                                 -
   "The most important attitude that can be formed is that of a desire
    to go on learning".
                                                  Dewey (1938)
From: turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu (Carl Turner)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Whitman quote
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:10:35 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida, Psychology Dept.

tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU (Tor Neilands) writes:

>"To thy own self be true".             --- Walt Whitman

Wasn't it Polonius (in Hamlet) who said, "To thine own self be true"?
Where did Whitman write the above, and did he cite his source?

(Obviously, I've been working on this Reference section far too long)


-- 
vxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxv
v  Carl Turner                            Psychology Department             v 
v  turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu   University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611  v 
vxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxv
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:16:34 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         HOFFMANK@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bushisms & Quale Quotes

Three words Todd, Tor & Gary,

                        Get a life.

PS.     I hope four years from now the depth and freshness of your humor will
        be as entertaining.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:55:09 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         jlbugg@UCCS.EDU
Subject:      Re: authorship

GARY,

If someone gives you an idea and you write a paper on it, and you
wrote put the letters down on a piece of paper, that's spelling.l
Writing and the idea are one and the same.  What you describe
is plagiarism.

Jennifer
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:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:51:41 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Colorado cocaine addicts

Jennifer,
        In this case, I'm glad you ignored the advice of your
high school journalism teacher.  Your response eases my mind a
little.
Larry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:04:28 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         ECO_GXC@SHSU.BITNET
Subject:      Re: authorship

if authorship reflects anything other than who wrote the paper then
it's not authorship, it's a byline intended as a scam.  Authorship
means authorship it does not mean "I had an idea"  If you write a paper then
put your name on it.  If you don't write it then don't expect your name
on it.  If the writing (not the experiment) is a collaborative effort
then a division of responsibility (and attribution order) should simply
be decided up front.

If you give me an idea and I write a paper on it, then it's my paper. Not yours.
I should attribute the idea to you via a refcerence to personal communication,
a footnote, or acknodgement -- whatever the style of the particular journal.
But, should I pretend you wrote part of the paper when you did not??
-- gary
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:36:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Todd.Nelson" <22817MGR@MSU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Bushisms & Quale Quotes

David,

I second your sentiment!

Todd
From: bjreilman@UCCS.EDU (Sunni)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: Bushisms & Quale Quotes
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:42:27 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Oh, come on...Todd, Tor, and Gary - I think it is great that you can have
fun with this stuff. I am thoroughly convinced that it takes real intelligence
to have a sense of humor. Keep Playing. Merry Christmas, you guys!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:16:19 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tim Tumlin <UFTRT@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Stats & Therapists

My error then in reference to Saybrook accreditation, taken from your
notes. Mea Culpa.
Re APA: Perhaps it is self-serving, but I think that as the main organization
of psychologists, it seems reasonable that if national standards are to be
set, it should be done by that organization.
I do have an issue with leaving all licensing requirements up to the final
licensing exam.  The regulation of professional training is another safeguard
against ineffective professionals.  I don't think the only gate an
independently practicing professional pyschologist should have to pass through
is getting through a single test.
Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:14:35 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Ps

On Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:31:00 EST Todd.Nelson said:
>On Sat. Dec. 12th, (1:14am ET), Eric wrote in response to Matthew:
>
>  "If you do not feel you have been penalized or treated unfairly because of
>   the associations carried with the label of our profession, FANTASTIC! But,
>   I'm not sure why you seem so resistant to the arguments of those of us
>   who believe that it is a problem. Perhaps you could illuminate us?"
>
> I just want to second Eric's statement/rebuttal. I agree totally. Thanks Eric
>for an eloquent post in defense of 'our' basic position.

Glad you posted this, Todd.  I had missed Eric's statements.
In answer to Eric, if we do not consider yourself a part of real
science as a psychologists, then we are vulnerable to the doubts of
others.  All the "others" have to do is throw a little joke, innuendo,
or even straight forward ignorance at us, and if we do not believe we
are real scientists, we will take offence, miss the joke, and try to
create lengthy lectures (in the tone of "... The lady doeth protest too
much, me thinks...") about how legitimate psychology is as a science.

That upon which one most focuses becomes true.

Why am I so resistant to the idea that this is a real problem?  Because
it isn't a problem.  It is completely useless to rant and rave about
a problem from the pulpit or the lectern.  It does not help any one
person in the profession to promote psychology as a science.  You see,
if you focus on the problem, it is a problem that you will get in return.

If you are a psychologist and you wish to be seen as a scientist, act
like a scientist.  Engage committees like a scientist would.  Make
proposals like a scientists would.  And if you run into trouble, solve
your problems like a scientist would by breaking down the underlying
assumptions and holding things accountable to the data.

Let's try it right now.  I have invited on several occasions an example
to be put to the test.  Provide an example that demonstrates the
problem.  I will and can show in response how the responsibility for
the solution of that problem is the hands of the psychologist.  Try
me.  Let's be scientists and quit preaching.

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