HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Vmsmail-To: @PSYCGRAD.DIS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:51:18 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "(Vann B. Scott, Jr.)" <SO92006@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU>
Subject:      Preferential Treat. Exp.

The idea to do some investigation of the preferential treatment
phenomenon is a GREAT idea!  That's the kind of stuff I had hoped to
get out of the discussions!  By the way, I have enjoyed the discussion
about preferential treatment.  Also, I DO appreciate the efforts by the
ladies to not use 'Good ole boys'.  I can see where it is a bit difficult
to come up with another phrase to describe exactly what you mean.  Just as
long as you acknowledge (as you have) that not all men feel that women
should not be working in science, I think most of the guys on the list
will be happy.

Just a note about the initial deal...I think it is a mistake to use only
your initials to label your work (I agree with Tammy).  Women should be
proud of their accomplishments and should use their full names when
submitting work for publication.  I think using only initials will only
solve the problem in the short run.  Think about it, if all women used
only initials, then the overall representation of women within the ranks
of published work will be masked to a great extent.  And after a while,
initials will become synonomous with a "woman's name" anyway.  So what
will be acomplished?  The sooner women begin showing their strength by
their numbers, the better off we all will be.

Just my two cents...Let's keep the idea of researching this thing alive,
okay?

Vann
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:56:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject: Re: Help with Hippocampi

Thanks, Don!  I don't think I can use that in a grant
proposal, though!  :-)

--Kathy Morgan
kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:05:05 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sexism and language a la Preferenti

On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:32:00 PST Someone said:
>     I'll reiterate my disclaimer:  The implication that females are -by
>definition- human, while males are not necessarily so, is Webster's, not
>mine.  I am aware that other species have females too.  I have nothing
>against female (or male) penguins or dolphins.

If you are angry with Webster's Dictionary, the best thing to do is to
either write to Webster, complain about that particular dictionary, or
offer some correction of the definition.  I would not use the definition
as evidence supporting the notion that men define women by their
sexual reproductive roles.

>     So, are adjectives higher than nouns in the grammatical hierarchy?

One thing is only higher than another on a hierarchy relative to the
constructive purpose of the hierarchy.

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
Original_To:  PGLIST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:26:00 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Betty Harris <B1H6017@TAMVENUS.BITNET>
Subject:      FYI. Teaching of Psych listserv

Hiya,
was cleaning up my dir and found this old posting.  Haven't
subscribed to it, so I dunno if it's a high traffic list or not.
Betty
original posting begins here
---------------
From: Bill Southerly <E2PYTIPS@FRE.TOWSON.EDU>
Subject: (6) Announcement: NEW LIST - TIPS (Teaching In the Psych. Sciences)

TIPS  on LISTSERV@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU
      or LISTSERV%FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

                TEACHING IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES

A forum for the open discussion of all aspects of TEACHING IN
PSYCHOLOGY.  Though the psychological sciences are the primary content
focus of this group, membership is open to all who share an interest
in exchanging ideas and information about teaching.  The primary goal
of this computer conference is to foster growth in teaching by
providing a forum for teachers to talk to each other.  Topics such as
the exchange of experiences, teaching demonstrations, reviews of
teaching materials, and the sharing of teaching resources are
encouraged.  Announcements regarding teaching conferences are welcome
as well.

The list is structured so that REPLY's go to the entire list in an
effort to stimulate discussion.

To subscribe to TIPS, send e-mail to LISTSERV@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU  on
Internet or LISTSERV%FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU on Bitnet with
the following command in the BODY of mail:

    SUBSCRIBE TIPS Yourfirstname Yourlastname

For example:  SUBSCRIBE TIPS John Doe

To send a message to TIPS, send your e-mail message to
TIPS@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU  on Internet or
TIPS%FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU on Bitnet or
use the REPLY command if supported by your system.

Owner:  Bill Southerly  TIPSOWNER@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU
                        TIPSOWNER@FRE.TOWSON.EDU
From: fishkin@SCF.USC.EDU (Stephanie Fishkin)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: feminists
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:46:02 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
              92 10:16 pm

Gee Tim,

I guess either it's been so long since you've been at Santa Cruz you've
forgotten all that Bettina Aptheker and others tried to instill in you,
or you never learned it anyway... :)

Imagine if someone had written your comment about "feminists", only instead
of feminist is said something like "those white male patriarchists" or
something like that.  I think the responses -- while coming from another
segment of the psycgrad population -- would have been similar.

************************************************************************
FEMINISM is the radical notion that WOMEN are EQUAL
Stephanie Fishkin
fishkin@scf.usc.edu
************************************************************************
From: KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: Preferential treatment
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:54:00 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"

May I suggest that Tim and others who believe that preferential
treatment is a problem look up the working definitions of
affirmative action at their institutions?  It may well be that they
are seeing something that I do not--here, affirmative action in
recruitment of new students means that target students who are
members of minorities are sent recruitment materials that they might
not ordinarily get (and some professional organizations make it
easier for these students to be located--for ex., APA's Minority
Fellowship Recipients).  After that, nothing more is done.  Whoever
"bites" the hook has to compete for admission, just like everyone
else.  The same is true for the working definition of affirmative
action in hiring.  I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound
like preferential treatment to me--it sounds like increasing
opportunities.
--Kathy Morgan
kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:46:38 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         TBN@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject:      Dampling the flames

Kathy Morgan writes:

>=== Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:25:00 EDT
>=== From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
>=== Subject:      Re: Attenuating the unintended insult (flame)
>
>Irene,
>
>I requested that this memo be sent out, in response to some of the (to
>me, anyway) hostile "YOU"-directed statements that have been going
>around lately in the "Preferential Treatment" discussion.  Specifically,
>the dialogue about sports talk and men and women and the like. It seemed
>as though that dialogue was getting unnecessarily personal and heated.
>In keeping with the spirit of the list, I asked Matthew to run his
>posting on damping the flames a little.  My apologies if I jumped the
>gun in asking for moderation.
>
>--Kathy Morgan
>kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet

Kathy: I'm not sure what you mean here by apologizing for "jumping the gun
in asking for moderation". It seems to me, and maybe I'm being naive here,
that we all have an equal say in the tones our conversations on PSYCGRAD
take and that you have no need to apologize for asking for moderation, and
not coincidentally, clear thinking, too.

I'll reiterate what I've said before about this whole discussion: It's a
tough, complex issue, and everyone who's posting about it is to be
commended for exhibiting their willingness to get their hands dirty on this
issue and wrestle with it. I feel like I've benefitted a lot from the
dialogue that's been exchanged, and I thank everyone for contributing to
the discussion.

cheers,

Tor
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:10:52 -0400
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment

Jason,
I thought I might be saving some feelings in using the term 'good old boys'
but I like 'jerks' too.  It is simple and very definitely descriptive.
Unfortunately, jerks do tend to make up a lot of hiring boards!
Tammy
From: jlbugg@UCCS.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: Preferential treatment
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:42:47 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

As my mother would tell me, you choose your own battles.  With both of us
working from different ends, we might actually get some things kicked, er
I mean, changed.  Thanks, Kathy.
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:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:34:46 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment

Margaret says:
>...You will be criticized more harshly than your male collegues [sic]
>even if you are twice as bright as them, since science is a male dominated
>field...
Many of these statements bother me.  If science is male dominated, does
it follow that psychology is as well?  Isn't science supposed to be
critical?  If so, how do you determine the severity or appropriateness
of the criticism?   Do you believe that someone who is "half as bright"
(whatever THAT means)  should receive more criticism?  Isn't the merit
of someone's work dependent on the quality of their output, not the
intelligence of the creator?
However, these are merely quibbles.  What really disturbs me is the
implication that Margaret makes here that the cause of any difference
in treatment of women stems from men.  Not only do I believe that this
is OBVIOUSLY untrue (women are clearly not powerless here), I find the
implication to be sub rosa, based in anger, and divisive.  If WE really
want to "get along" (to use some PC jargon) I submit that we must first
try to get our thoughts straight and then try to articulate them with
the goal of generating a common SOLUTION, rather than casting blame
haphazardly, trying to avoid the issue by circumvention, or suggesting
"strategies" in the "battleground" of academia.
I believe we in striving for advanced degrees are priveleged and that
we must use that privelege with some care.  We may have more impact on
culture than is apparent in the isolated settings we tend to congregate
and in which we tend to converse.
I will trust my meaning is clear.  I hope I am not sounding defensive.
I hope this is not seen as an attack.  I believe we are in a special
situation and we have some responsibility to tread with some caution.
Maybe not, although I hope I see some glimmer of the truth here.
Sorry this is so long.  I didn't expect it to lead so far.

Larry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:30:46 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Kenneth V. White" <kwhite@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      ADD and overdiagnosis...

I've been working in this area for a while (mainly with a neuropsych.
orientation), and I don't think it's at all an overstatement that
many of the kids labled ADD are not.  Check out the January 1992
issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that documentekids
test-retest diagnosis, using primary pediatricians and then trained
neuropsychologists, was not only low, but often less than chance!

I was talking to a pediatric psychiatrist at NIH the other day who
referred to several national surveys in which something like 40-50%
of family docs (the most likely dispensors of Ritalin) said that
the way they confirmed their initial diagnosis of ADD was whether
or not the children became more focused on meds.  Unfortunately Judith
Rappaport and others have shown that *everyone* taking Ritalin
become more focused and less attentionally impulsive.

Rather depressing, eh?

Kenn
kwhite@wam.umd.edu

p.s., No, I'm *not* Republican.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:08:51 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tim Tumlin <UFTRT@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment
              5 Nov 1992 17:04:55 -0500 from <G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>

Tammy,
You're right, you can't always make everything blind and fair. And whenever
humans have information about groups we will show bias, whether its about
race, gender, height, weight, attractiveness, etc.  Group-blind decisions
are possible in many situations of opportunity such as undergrad
applications. My point, stated before, is that preferential treatment to
pump up group ratios is a hollow and shallow solution that is made more
for political reasons than for the benefit of society and does more
harm than good. A perfect case in point is Clarence Thomas, who wasn't
even on the list of possibilities when a white Supreme Court justice was
to be replaced but became the best choice in the entire country when a
black justice was retiring.
Tim
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:25:32 -0400
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment

>but do you really think that cleverly hiding your gender is the
>solution to discrimination?

Nangel,
This question was definitely a good one.  It can be applied to many of the
topics discussed lately.  Hiding behind your gender is not the solution!
I hate the fact that in some situations it appears to work and has made some
women think that it is the answer.  I can see why women resort to hiding their
name and using initials to identify themselves, but do not really understand
why they would want to.

Tammy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:08:45 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         jlbugg@UCCS.EDU
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment

You don't make the world a more tolerant place by validating the acts
of discrimination.  To use your initials is to hide your gender which
tells the world that you accept their right to deny you certain
priviledges on the basis of your gonads.  It also says that when rules
which have organized society for eons are uncomfortable for you, you simply
get around them... I can't blame you but it does compromise your integrity.

I use my initials in two places... the phone book and on my luggage
identification.  When I do good and when I do bad, I want the credit
for whatever my actions - that's a matter of individual pride and not
gender identification.

Jennifer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:57:23 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Preferential treatment
              8 Nov 1992 11:49:40 -0400 from <G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>

On Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:49:40 -0400 <G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA> said:
>I am really glad that there are an increasing number of men out there that
>realize that women are capable of achieving goals other than motherhood.
>Please do not see the term 'good old boys' as a classification to all men,
>for it certainly is not.  If you can think of another term that is not
>quite so offending to you (or others) please tell me what it might be.

Prejudice men.

Pick accurate adjectives.  Without being tuned into this culture, I would
find "good old boys" to be different from "those who discriminate on the
basis of sex when they should discriminate on the basis of other
factors."

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
From: G9226406@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: Clark Debate
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:49:44 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

Thanks to whoever brought this subject up.  I have been trying to think of
the name of the debate since my stats prof gave a precursor paper.  Try as
I might I could not think of the name "Clark"!!

Tammy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: SUNY at Plattsburgh, New York, USA
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: SMITHSR, SCAR5755
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:20:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         SCAR5755@SNYPLAVA.BITNET
Subject:      CONGRATS

Date sent:  9-NOV-1992 19:17:54
I DIDN'T SEE THE MESSAGE THAT YOU FOUND THE TEST BEFORE I WROTE BACK TO YOU
.  GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU FOUND THE TEST.  BE MORE CAREFUL NEXT TIME!! BYE!
From: 054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Matthew Simpson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: Attenuating the unintended insult (flame)
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:22:13 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:08:00 EST Someone said:
>Just a query:
>Is it now policy that all potentially controversial posts be identiied
>as "flames"? There's something to be said for self-censorship, I suppose

Absolutely not!  A flame is a public attack on an individual through the
content of an e-mail posting.  On the other hand, a public attack on an
*idea* through the content of e-mail postings is not a flame.

For example, a flame would say the person is stupid.
To say the idea is stupid would not be a flame in as much as the insult
is not attached to a person.  If you have linked the person with the
idea and then attack the bluntly insult the idea, the person is flamed.

(Excuse me if I am quick to defend the no-flaming policy, which was
mentioned above.  These clarifications are not linked with policy.
They are operationalizing (sp?) a concept).

To attack something (person or concept) takes two forms.  The first
form is the blunt and base insult, eg. x is stupid.  The second form is
much more preferred.  This is to disagree and take issue with something,
eg. "I disagree with x for reasons y and z."  I would think that it would
be fine to use this second form while still giving a person credit for
producing the object of attack.

Have fun!  Debate! Debate! Debate!

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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:02:08 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         jlbugg@UCCS.EDU
Subject:      RE: Anita Hill

Sybil, thanks for your words.  I have something of my own to share for
those of you who don't "believe" Anita Hill.  Prior to grad school I worked
as an administrative assistant at two separate companies (Ball Aerospace
and Schlage Lock) and at both places I was "harrassed" by all legal terms
but did nothing... and here's why.  At Ball, the sexual conotations took
place between me and my direct supervisor who was married. One day when I was
typing and he was in my officei moved my chair and my skirt which was far too
short showed about the bottom half inch of my stockings - not pantyhose and he
 saw them.  No big deal - we kind of laughed about it.  But when I moved to a
 new
department, he actually sent me a life sized poster through interoffice mail of
some model wearing stockings with the hand written caption "Does she or doesn't
 she."  At Schlage, one of the married managers would rub my shoulders while I
was typing - which made me uncomfortable but didn't make me that upset.  After
I left that job, they through me a going away party at which he grabbed my -
guess what - in front of about 5 people.

Now, I don't consider myself to be a victim and if anything, I may have been
just a little responsible for at least the first episode (I was young).  But
neither of these men frightened me physically, I didn't want to make a fuss
and I needed those jobs which meant that I needed to get along and "pick
my battles."  AND NEITHER OF THOSE MEN WERE BEING APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME
COURT.  Anita Hill wasn't asking for compensation - she wasn't playing the
victim.  She was trying to help her country understand that the honor of
our judicial system was at stake.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:19:30 EST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:19:30 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "(Eric Zorrilla)" <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Help with Hippocampi
              Nov 11, 92 1:44 pm

Take a look at work by Sapolsky and his crew out of Stanford.

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