HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Fishing for Nukes
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:58:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.205126.23032@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
>When will the biologists wake up to taking a strong stand on the
>destruction of nature?

Perhaps when it becomes a biological rather than an ecological issue?

You might as well ask when corporate lawyers will do the same; after all,
they live on the planet too.

I get tired of people expecting me to be "on their side" of an issue because
they believe my field of study encompasses it.  I'm not a biologist (my
primary fields are physics, mathematics and computer science), but I find
that even solid-state and theoretical physicists are "expected" to have
specific opinions on "nuclear winter" (an unevidenced, without actually
having one, climatological and meterological phenomenon, for the most part,
related to physics only in that nuclear physicists have made it possible for
engineers to build devices which can supposedly bring it on).

I also find that computer scientists are expected to have opinions on the
"dehumanizing effects of a cashless society", obviously a sociological study
topic, and one with an expected conclusion already contaminating it.

Perhaps a better question is "when will students have enough education to
properly ascribe topics to the correct fields"?

I don't mean to say that there isn't interest in this group on the topic
of the purported "destruction of nature", just that this is not the proper
venue and maybe talk.environment, sci.environment, or talk.politics would
be a better choice.

					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       terry@icarus.weber.edu
 "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: gude@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (David J W Emrich)
Subject: Electric Blankets and Sterility
Summary: Is there any connection?
Keywords: Electric Blanket Sterility
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:21:26 GMT


I have an interesting subject to broach, one that has caused my
curiosity to be piqued during a recent discussion.

The idea is this...
Recently, I heard a theory that Electric Blankets (eg. a fairly heavy
cotton/synthetic mix double layer cloth, with two interleaved woven
heating coils sandwiched in between), emit enough electromagnetic field
energy that, if the user sleeps on one all night for some period of
time, it can cause sterility, in people (of both sexes) who are already
pre-disposed to sterility.  THere is also some notion that they can
cause cancer.

  Does anyone have any more info on this.  ??
Namely...
1.  What does it mean to be "pre-disposed" toward sterility?
2.  How long is "some period of time", months, years ?
3.  Is there any field emitted when the blanket is switched off?
4.  What about the cancer risk?

Obviously, the simple answer is, no one really knows yet, but it would
be safer to use the device to just heat up a bed, and when one actually
climbs in to bed, the blanket should be turned off.

I think there has been some research done on this, but I would be
interested to see people's reaction.

Please Email me with your ideas/suggestions/statistics, and I will
compile a summary of all the best and fairest answers.

David Emrich
gude@uniwa.uwa.edu.au

Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025))
Subject: Re: COMPUTERS AND SEX DIFFERENCES
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:23:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.183137.544@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_maraiajj@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
>A FEW MONTHS AGO, I HEARD THAT SOME SCIENCETISTS WERE WORKING ON A COMPUTER TO
>TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW PEOPLE COULD FIGURE OUT HOW PEOPLE COULD TELL WHETHER A
>PERSON WAS A BOY OR A GIRL BY LOOKING AT THEIR FACE.  HAS ANYONE HEARD ANYTHING
>ABOUT THIS? 

Wasn't this on the PBS 4- or 5-part series on the history of the computer?

Ron Nadel
From: happy@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Rusty Soots)
Subject: Help!  Need Help Doing a Video Segment!
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:57:57 GMT

 
   For my materials in science labs class, I have to videotape a
segment(s) outside of the classroom that can be used within a science
classroom to help explain a concept or principle.  It can be anything from
biology, physics, earth science, etc.  However, I'm out of ideas!!
   Only limitation is that it can't be ants carrying food to their
lair because that was already shown in class.  There are parks and
lakes nearby as well if that helps any.  The segments can also be
contrived (not taking place outdoors and can use actors and so forth to
demonstrate a principle).  
   Segments are to be no longer than 10 min. if possible and the
segment must include materials or methods outside of classroom (i.e.
it can't be done in a classroom).  
   I did have an idea about possibly using a pool table to explain
kinetic energy, friction, and so forth but don't know if there are a
significant number of concepts that I could portray.  Any ideas would
be very helpful, esp. from all of you bio people.  :)
   If anyone has any ideas, I'd greatly appreciate your help!  Please e-mail
me if you can help.  thanks again in advance!

								rusty
????????????????
From: kate@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Kate Jeffery)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: sexual selection
Keywords: peacock tails
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:45:52 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug19.015201.27032@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	The way that features such as brightly colored feathers would
>do that is by advertising that their owner is in good health; a sick
>bird would probably not be able to produce lots of shiny and bright
>feathers.

Well, so, why don't *all* male birds have long brightly coloured
ornamental bits to their anatomy if it's such a good indicator of
health & hence desirability? It seems a little unlikely to me. Why not
find an indicator of health that doesn't compromise the survival of
its owner?! Like shiny feathers or a blue spot on the chin or
some arbitrary sign that only occurs when a bird is in top-notch
condition. 

I vaguely remember coming away from Dawkins' book (which I read quite
a while ago so I might've misremembered it) thinking that he was
arguing that selection of male ornaments by female preference happened
just because it happened - a kind of positive feedback loop. It could
just as easily happen the other way - that a small excess of females
in the population prefer boring brown mates and so by the feedback
loop they eventually come to predominate - only we don't study those
because they aren't so interesting to us.  It strikes me as being a
little analogous to why all clocks run clockwise(!) or nearly all of
the world's population drive on the right, or magnetic materials line
up one way and not the other and so on - the balance is tipped just a
little one way and not the other right from the beginning.

Afetr reading Dawkins' book I started wondering whether sexual
selection might account for another puzzling ornament - breasts! I
know they are not entirely without function but other primates seem to
manage perfectly well with very small ones. Anyone know why humans
females are thought to posssess them in such relative abundance?...

Kate Jeffery
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:04:45 GMT

Suh Jung Yul <jysuh@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:


>References: <78rmr+c.sheaffer@netcom.com> <cmgyoB4w164w@cellar.org> <_13ma9-.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Aug11.225224.13677@s1.gov>
>Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:48:18 -0500

>  
>  If "men only allowed" sign is an alarming one, then why don't
>  you fight "women only allowed" sign with equal vigor ? 
>  That will elminate another
>  sore excuse for it. Your lame argument that the women should have
>  unfair advantage in legal protection does not sit well with your
>  cary for equality. Maybe what  you all feminist really 
>  want is some form of revenge
>  such as having unfair advantage for 2-3 millenia over men to punish men
>  for what their ancestor did for millenia.

>  When it comes to fairness, feminists are always in double-standard.
>  I have never seen any feminist who unequivocally reject "men only"
>  as well as "women only", which make me conclude that women are
>  interrested in underhanded method to achieve not "equality"
>  but "superiority".

  Sorry, but you're wrong here. I know many feminists who reject the above
 and who try to achieve the "equality". 
						Pinar

>    In short, I think they are cheap and cowardly. 
>    (I have not had a reason to think otherwise yet.)

>Jung Suh

Newsgroups: sci.bio,bionet.molbio.evolution,talk.origins
From: dkempste@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David N Kempster)
Subject: Re: Was There Once an RNA World of Life?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:38:48 GMT

>The seminal work of C. Don Cone during the 1960s and 1970s in fact has
>demonstrated how considerations of membrane voltage and ionic composition
>are critical to understanding mitosis, and that in fact you can make adult
>neural cells divide by manipulating the ionic environment to induce cell
>depolarization (and also block cell division using a similar technique).
>
>It seems to me that biology has become overly infatuated by the recent
>discovery of genetics, trying to explain everything from the origin of life
>to cancer in these terms.  I would appreciate any comments as to what
>current knowledge indicates as to whether the "bubble on the beach"
>hypothesis for the origin of life may have been possible.  --David Scheim.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: an683@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dean C. Gelston)
Subject: subliminal advertisements
Reply-To: an683@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dean C. Gelston)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:00:38 GMT


Atention,could a Pyschology professor knowledgable in this field of study
please answer a few questions about subliminal advertisments.

Great,now that I have your atention and you would like to participate
in a servay,hear is your chance.

First every day each one of us is effected,or should I say each one of us
receives a continual stream of subliminal bombardment.

1.How much do you know about subliminal practices ?

2. How good is your hearing? reason... if I know the level of your hearing I
could play messages just below or right on your current lowest level of
hearing,perhaps even program you or one of your colleagues.

3.How good is your sight?...

4.How much do you know about transparencies? and how well do they work?

5.How much do you know about psychological warfare?...

6.What's the first color that comes to your mind?... Hay just kidding!

7.Finally,what was the first Qustion I asked?

If you do not know whom your enemies are,your paraniod? or is it simply
Gorilla Warfare. Hu CHARLIE.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum)
Subject: Re: NEUROSIS COME TO BE
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr, Calif.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.140454.575@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_templetocd@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>
>
>
>I THINK I AM SUFFERING FROM NEUROSIS
>CAN ANYONE HELP
>IM LOSING IT QUICK
>ALL I CAN THINK ABOUT IS KILLING
>DEATH, DYING, DESTRUCTION
>LIFE SHOULD NOT BE LIKE THIS
>IM STARTING TO ENJOY THE MADNESS
>
>HOW CAN I STOP BEFOORE SOMEONE DIES?
>


1) Take off your "caps lock"

2) If you're serious, immediatly call a crisis intervention ctr. (listed
   in front of most phone book white pages.



                            R ****
                             I
                              C
                          **** K	

Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: NEUROSIS COME TO BE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:51:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.203246.11543@eos.arc.nasa.gov> shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.140454.575@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_templetocd@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I THINK I AM SUFFERING FROM NEUROSIS
>>CAN ANYONE HELP
>>IM LOSING IT QUICK
>>ALL I CAN THINK ABOUT IS KILLING
>>DEATH, DYING, DESTRUCTION
>>LIFE SHOULD NOT BE LIKE THIS
>>IM STARTING TO ENJOY THE MADNESS
>>
>>HOW CAN I STOP BEFOORE SOMEONE DIES?
>>
>
>
>1) Take off your "caps lock"

    iNdeeD StUdIEs hAve sHOWn tHAt ExtINSivE USe OF CaPITols Is OnE oF
    ThE BEsT InICAToRS Of NEurOSis (SeCOnD OnlY TO ExTENsIVE UsE of
    RaNDomLy MiXEd CaSE). sO By aLl mEanEs TRy tAkINg yOur cAP lOoks
    oFf. IF yOu fINd THiS ExtRemEly DifFiCuLt tO COpE WiTh ThEn YoU
    MaY InDeEd HaVE A ProBLem.

    PleAsE eXuSe Me BUt ITs TImE FoR me To tAKe mY mEDiCIne ...

    Ah, thats better :-)

>2) If you're serious, immediatly call a crisis intervention ctr. (listed
>   in front of most phone book white pages.

    Nuff said. (pardon me for being skeptical but I have seen too many
    jokes of this nature go through these newsgroups).


    Joking aside, wouldn't this be classified as a psychosis rather that
    neurosis.

   -kelvin
From: jbtaylor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: MENNINGER INSTITUTE
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:18:10 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <u251014.9@hnykun11.urc.kun.nl>, u251014@hnykun11.urc.kun.nl (Hans Schilderman) writes:
> 
> READING PRUYSERS PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION I BECAME INTERESTED IN THE MENNINGER 
> INSTITUTE, WHERE PRYUSER WORKED UNTILL HIS DEATH IN 1986. 
> I WONDER IF ANYONE COULD GIVE ME THE POST- OR E-MAIL ADRESS OF THE MENNINGER 
> INSTITUTE IN THE U.S. 
> THE ONLY THING I KNOW IT IS SOMEWHERE IN KANSAS
> 
> iF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH OTHER WAYS TO RETRIEVE THIS ADRESS PLEASE CONTACT ME
> 
> BEST WISHES  HANS SCHILDERMAN
>
jhsegal
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Schizofreny?
From: jhsegal@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il (Livy)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:50:52 GMT
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science, Computation Center

Hi.
I am particullary interested in cases of "double personality".
ANYTHING about it...(cases,description,etc...)
I find it to be extremly interesting...
Livy
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:39:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug19.235745.11059@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:

>I _am_ saying that I have seen a lot of
>
>  We did X and Y stopped (or started or ...)
>
>and immediately jumped to the conclusion that X caused the a _real_
>change in Y, rather than a _perceived_ change in Y.

I'm not disputing that selective interpretation is a problem in psychology.
I'm not sure if it can be argued that it's a unique problem (though I can't
argue against that since I'm not familiar enough with hard science research).
It's just bad science, though.  Nothing wrong with psychology, obviously,
but with the SPECIFIC psychologists making those assertions.

>The original paper may have covered that possibility, but the citation
>used to prove the validity of psychological research did not.

No argument here.

>Perhaps nobody mentions this sort of possibility because it's understood...

More likely because it's not understood or because it's deemed to be
"unlikely." (where that leaves science is beyond me).

>then why do "hard" science types _always_ provide equivalent information
>(or have it available on demand) even though inanimate systems are _much_
>easier to study?

Part of the problem may lie in the fact that psychological concepts appear
so accessible to intuition, thus making selective interpretation often
intoxicating.  I'd expect this would be less so in hard sciences (conjecture,
only, of course).  Probably also simply a question of standards - it goes
on because it's allowed (wrong as that may be).


[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.015313.1375@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>Bear Giles writes:
>>> classical conditioning has been used to reduce repeat
>>> offenses of pedophiles.
>
>> Or trained them to better avoid detection.
>
>Perfectly valid issue, but a measurement problem, not
>an efficacy or safety of treatment question.  Measuring
>behavior in the field is hard regardless of the
>treatment whose effects we're measuring.  Fortunately
>field data isn't all we have to rely on here.
>
>Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  

I don't doubt that conditioning occurs.  In fact, I've seen what
appears to be strong conditioning in humans from software.  (If they
press the right buttons they are rewarded with a performed task; if
they press the wrong buttons the system beeps at them, prints nasty
messages and/or loses their data.  After awhile, it becomes nearly
impossible to change the user-interface because the users become
so conditioned that they refuse to try anything else).

But I've also seen some truly bizarre cognitive models, even from
technical staff.  I'm not talking about the slang programmers and
hardware designers use, e.g. "the compiler barfed on my file"
like a dog will throw up if it eats bad meat, but models where the
computer is a free agent acting towards its own ends.

This seems to be a similar situation.

Studies definitely show rats (and other lab animals) can be trained
by conditioning.  Additional studies show that humans can be conditioned
(even unintentionally as mentioned above).  So it would make a _lot_
of sense to expect that it might be possible to condition certain
criminals.

But, a study involving pedophiles is probably using incarcerated,
or at least paroled, subjects.  They have a _very_ strong incentive
to convince the researcher, and indirectly the parole board, that
they have reformed and are no longer a threat to society... and
the researcher may even provide feedback in this frame of reference.

So how can you know that the experiment to condition pedophiles to
avoid repeat offenses hasn't instead conditioned them to respond
to psychologists and law-enforcement officers such that they appear
innocent in future crimes?  After all, no subsequent conviction
(or even investigation) does not mean that there was no subsequent
offense... unless they were under tight survellience.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: nvecchi@cscs.ch (Nicole Vecchi)
Subject: Journal source
Followup-To: nvecchi@cscs.ch
Organization: Centro Svizzero di Calcolo Scientifico / CH-6928 Manno
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:49:50 GMT

I'm having difficulties locating some journals here in Switzerland, 
not to mention back issues (?!).  Could someone point me to a library
that might be willing to send me photocopies of articles (for a fee of
course) or some other method of receiving relevant articles?

I specifically looking for: Human Factors (1972) and an index
			    Journal of Applied Psychology (1979) and an index
		            HR Magazine (1990) and index

Thanks!!
Nicole
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: State investigates therapy tool
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:04:30 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <BsunEn.DIK@ais.org>
shl@ais.org (Stephen Landman) writes:
>>Texas Department of Health officials are investigating the use of a device
>>that measures sexual arousal while patients look at nude photos or listen
>>to explicit audio tapes.
>>    Concerns about the therapy have grown after reports in Arizona that
>>children, some as young as 8, were hooked to the device and forced to
>>inhale ammonia. Several Texas therapists have told the Chronicle they have
> The use of the apparatus and the method of aversive therapy have
> been used since the mid 1960s in the treatment of sex offenders.

I vacationed in Arizona a few weeks ago and I read that not only sexual
offenders were being treated with this method but young boys who were
thought to be highly likely to become sexual offenders.  I can't recall
if that was a fact or a conjecture by investigators,  But if true, I'd
say these therapists have crossed a barrier that they shouldn't have.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: hln@daimi.aau.dk (Henrik Lykke Nielsen)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Personality Descriptions
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:29:50 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark


Personality Descriptions.

In the development of an AI decision system I would very much
welcome any references to formal descriptions of personalities.

I need theories on

- the composition of the personality (which concepts could be
  used in a description of the personality, and how are these
  combined)
  
- how does the personality affect the individuals actions

- which factors affects (and changes) the personality

- the interaction between individuals (which factors are
  important in deciding the interaction)

A formal (maybe even quantitative) description is prefered to
an informal and more blurred one - even when the later is 
considered more correct from a psychological view.

Any pointers to litterature and writers thereof are appreciated.

Please answer via e-mail

thanx

- henrik

E-mail: hln@daimi.aau.dk

Disclaimer: I'm studying computer science and NOT psychology.
            Therefore my lacking knowledge of psychology may
            very well mean that the above is considered absolute
            nonsence amongst most psychologists. If this should be
            the case then please forgive me....
From: blodgett@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Office Environment and Psychology
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:44:20 CDT
Followup-To: nvecchi@cscs.ch
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

I can supply you with a few references that may be helpful to you:

Brookes, M.J. & Kaplan, A. (1972). The office environment: Space planning 
   and effective behavior. Human factors, 14, 373-391.

Campbell, D.E. (1979). Interior office design and visitor response. Jrnl of 
  applied psych, 64, 648-653.

Martinez, M.N. (1990). In search of a productive design. HR magazine, 35(2)
   36-39.


Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Science 
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:24:20 GMT

Thomas Grant Edwards writes:
>>> and maze run times are used as a measure of performance
> we could be testing for whether localized damage due to
> cutting up parts of the brain damages the skills in maze
> running (memory being key here).

What performance is being measured here?  Something about memory?
Something about running?

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology