HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccla_d@aelle.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: [Prescription Privileges]
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:48:00 GMT

Eric Zorrilla says:

> What do mental health professionals see as the future of prescriptions
> privileges vis a vis clinical psychologists?

I expect it'll soon fall to those working in a hospital setting. As it is,
many already write them and have the clinic psychiatrist review and sign them.

I suspect this will evolve into local lists of those drugs clinicians can
prescribe themselves, and from there to generally accepted prescibing powers.

I also tend to think it'll beome part of the curricula of Psy. D. programs, 
since they're entirely clinically oriented, as opposed to Ph. D. programs.
Even though the latter do end up as clinicians quite often, their training is
more oriented to the theoretical than is the formers'. This might well result
in a class of psychological workers with precription privileges as a group,
and with that, a slight restructuring of the relationship between the
various types. I think Psy. D. will end up being explicitly between
clinical psychologist and psychiatrist, instead of just sometimes, and then 
only implicitly.
From: kehoe@netcom.com (Thomas David Kehoe)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING STORY
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 05:51:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


I've heard that another technique in long exams is to
remember to breathe, if you're stuck on a problem.
Apparently, some students get so anxious they hold
their breath or breathe shallowly, and their brain
sort of shuts down.  So if you stop and concentrate
on breathing a bit, the answer sometimes come to you.

I laughed out loud when I read Mark's typo about
the student with the learning ability.  Very good...
-- 
"Why my thoughts are my own, when they are in, but when they are out
they are another's." - Susannah Martin, hanged for witchcraft, 1692.
Thomas David Kehoe          kehoe@netcom.com         (408) 354-5926
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Online PSYCHLIT
From: <NOJCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 13 Sep 1992 14:15:40 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I am looking for online databases of education/learning journals
of abstracts like ERIC.  I use ERIC on CARL.  Is there a better?

Where might psych abstracts be found?
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:02:50 GMT

In article <5SEP199223103986@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>            ATTENTION!
>  Please step only on the BLACK squares
>without any explanation of why they should do this.
>It was about Milgram's experiments, of course, the ones that
>demonstrated how people accept authority.

Tell me why I should listen to _you_ when you describe this exhibit.  You have
in articles elsewhere suggested that people treat news sources with too much
authority.  Therefore, there are obvious motives for you to post an article
which describes an experiment where people follow authority.  Tell me, then,
why I should not treat your report of this exhibit as a hoax, just like you
wish others to treat reports of fighting in Yugoslavia?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ffhoust@eos.ncsu.edu (FORREST FRANCI HOUSTON)
Subject: Has anyone heard of this?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:00:57 GMT

I am starting a research project/experiment for a class which involves
taking recorded speech, both machine and human produced, and inserting
gaps into the voiceprint.  The best analogy I've heard is listening to
the radio while someone keeps changing the volume from 0 to some set
level.  I was wondering if anyone out there has done, is doing, or has
heard of similar research.  I have found something similar in an 
experiment conducted by George A. Miller, but that was back in the 50's.
Has anything been done like this more recently?  Please e-mail me as I
do not always have time to read this group.

Thanks in advance
Forrest
ffhoust@eos.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: na
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:46:11 GMT

Eric Zorrilla
> My philosophical "solution" of mind/body relations is that feelings and
> substances are identical things.  One does not cause the other.  One is not
> associated with the other.  One IS the other but observed from a different
> viewpoint (in Frank's words - the "emergent" properties of the system).  There
> isn't a good analogy for us to use because nothing approaches the complexity
> of the human brain. (at least nothing that I know of)

Substances have mass and occupy space.

We can measure how much mass and how much space.

How do you proposed to do this with feelings?

> However, the mental MUST have a physical instantiation.
> Otherwise, what would it be?

"The mental" -- mostly a category mistake.  When you refer to mentality
as an object (as opposed to a process, a function, a set of capabilities,
for instance) you always run the risk of category mistakes.

We might as well insist that fictional characters MUST have physical
instantiation.  "But where does Batman go when the movie ends?"

"Instantiation" is yet another nice cover.  When the phone rings,
have we just observed the "physical instantiation" of the phone
call?

> How can you even DO behavioral neuroscience without recognizing that the
> behavior (or if you're ballsy enough - the cognitive activity) you're
> examining is instantiated in physical matter?

Totally separate question.  Behavior is physical and has been usefully
studied as such.  "Cognitive activity" is inferred but needn't involve
category mistakes, we may speak of functions performed and so on.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:56:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <lavvskINN5l5@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:

>>>After you remove advances in genetics, biology, and chemistry, which
>>>aren't under the province of psychology

>>Why does all of academia have to be artificially compartmentalized?

>I agree with this sentiment whole heartedly. But it is my understanding that
>major advances in the above areas were not made by psychologists. If this
>is untrue please inform me.

Behavioral genetics, psychoneuroendocrinology, psychoneuroimmunology,
behavioral endocrinology, behavioral immunology.

(Of course, psychologists do not have exclusive rights to these domains any
more than anyone else does)

[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP  (WAS Re: Xanax
Keywords: NLP  NeuroLinguistic Programming
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:33:24 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Sep10.003648.19808@news.Hawaii.Edu> lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>to go far to find an actual elevator to have the subject get in.  The
>videotape I mentioned shows a woman with a phobia of bees.  In the
>follow-up interview they actually have a jar full of bees for her to
>hold and for a while she even let a few of them crawl on her arm.  (Her
>comment:  "Gee, I never realized before what really interesting
>critters these bees are.")
>
OK, send me the words to cure the bee phobia.  I don't know if it
is an actual phobia, but someone I know (and many of you do too)
goes wild if a bee (or anything looking similar) starts buzzing
around him. We'll test it out and report back to you.




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.psychology:3670 sci.misc:1593
From: tdh@ksr.com (Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:59:09 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham MA

> The explanatory text next to it didn't tell the
> viewer that he'd been conned into st[e]pping only on the black
> tiles, but asked why he did it -- the authority of the museum or
> because he'd seen other people do it?

An open question at the end, with suggested answers, would be a hell
of a lot less sophomoric than one presuming that complying with -- or
defying -- the sign's exhortation meant slipping into any sort of
sheepishness.

> I doubt whether very many people got the point of it all. 

Ditto.  Did the exhibitors themselves?

				David Hudson
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:05:19 GMT
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep10.054504.9549@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM d(Jon Krueger) writes:

>> by measuring brainwaves and REM activity, we can tell,
>> _TO_ _GREATER_ _ACCURACY_ than the subject herself exactly
>> how much dreaming she has been doing.

>What we have measured is not dreaming.
>Physiology, behavior, and CNS events are not dreaming.
>The use of "dreaming" above is simply a category mistake.

Physiology and CNS events may be physical instantiations of the phenomena
that we experience as dreaming.  Clearly, however, this is not 100% provable.
I don't think it's a category mistake as much as a problem in 
demonstrability.


[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:10:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>Eric Zorrilla writes:

>> What _you_ refer to when you say dreaming is different.....What sleep
>> researchers refer to when they talk about dreaming IS brainwaves, REM
>> activity, phasic movements, etc.

Jon Kreuger writes:

>If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Wrong analogy.  If you call a leg a collection of vascular, muscle,
bone, cartiliginous, dermal and other connective tissue, how many collections
of vascular, muscle, bone, cartiliginous, dermal and other connective
tissue does a dog have?

Four?

Yep.

From a layperson's definition, the "leg" referent suffices.  An anatomist
might prefer the latter referent if he or she wanted to characterize the
leg.  Both terms refer to the same objects, BUT AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
This is NOT a category mistake.  It is linguistics.

The only unique thing about the dreaming example is that the utterers of the
referents have different vantage points of the referent.  The unique problem,
again, is demonstrating that they, in fact, are looking at (and referring to)
the same thing.

[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 11 Sep 1992 23:36:44 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In any event, the reason that I am dismayed with NLP is that there are
>established ways to study some of their claims...
>
>Lee Lady, in particular, is resistant to any approach like I am suggesting.
>He writes frequently about how this or that works...
> 
>I am suspicious of the claims because of the resistance of NLP posters
>to offer anything like scientific data on the topic.

I don't perceive Lee Lady as being resistant to some scientific study of
NLP; on the contrary, several times I have seen him call for such study
to be undertaken.  He is an NLP *practitioner*, not a psychologist.  He
has noticed that a set of models and techniques seem to be very effective
at helping some people to change the way they think or feel about some
things; he thinks these techniques work better than the more mainstream
techniques he's familiar with; and he thinks that that makes NLP a good
candidate for some scientific study by those scientists of psychology
who are qualified to carry out such a study.  Since none of those
scientists seem interested in investigating the phenomena that he has
observed, he posts messages to try to increase the interest of those
people.  If you believe his observations, I would have thought that some
of them would be pretty interesting to people in this forum.  If you
don't believe them, he's offered some relatively simple tests that
wouldn't require much investment to persue.  He doesn't sound so
unreasonable to me.

Dave
-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: na
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:31:40 GMT

Eric Zorrilla writes:
> What _you_ refer to when you say dreaming is different.....What sleep
> researchers refer to when they talk about dreaming IS brainwaves, REM
> activity, phasic movements, etc.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Five?

No, four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

"Dreaming" is a well understood term.  If folks choose to overload
it, they do so at the peril of being misunderstood.

But that's OK, the rest of us know what we mean when we use the
term.  You, for instance, are clear in that it refers to private
events:

> "Dreaming" refers to images, typically experienced as uncontrolled and
> variably coherent that humans report having experienced during sleep.

Nor is anyone confused about what's referred to by:

> "PGO Spikes and asynchronous brain wave activity" are neurophysiological
> events associated with dreaming.

But statements like:

> If it can be shown that the latter do not
> cause but ARE the former, simply at a different level of analysis, then it is
> correct to say that the latter is "dreaming."

are simply category mistakes.  "At a different level of
analysis" is a nice cover, though, I must remember to
say that "at a different level of analysis, Holmes
resents Doyle's control over his life".

> Clearly, my argument rests on the assumption that private events are
> perfectly accessible by knowing their representation in public events.

No, your argument rests on a feat whereby private events become
public events when it is convenient for us to say so.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: NLP
Keywords: NLP   NeuroLinguistic Programming
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.142841.22382@philabs.philips.com> ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch) writes:
}To what extent can one actually develop ones visualization abilities? Is this a 
}skill that gradually develops over time? Why are some people so much better 
}than others at visualizing to begin with?

Would someone who thinks visually (pictures Venn diagrams, works out organic
chemistry problems by picturing the molecule and twisting it,...) have an
ability with this?  I really have not looked into NLP in depth.


Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: kehoe@netcom.com (Thomas David Kehoe)
Subject: Re: Meyers-Briggs Personality/Temperament Types
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:59:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I'm more impressed right now with VALS 2, developed by
SRI (Stanford Research Institute).  VALS 2 divides people
into 8 types, based on values and lifestyles.  There are
43 questions, such as "Could you stand to skin a dead
animal if you had to?"  The types apparantly correlate
between spouses, and even within zip codes.  Several
companies will sell you lists of zip codes linked to
VALS 2 types.  The instrument has been successfully used
by advertising and marketing firms.

In contrast, the MMPI questions were so vague I couldn't
answer any of them (maybe I'm confusing it with Meyers-Briggs).
There's almost no correlation between spouses, much less
larger groups.  I don't see what you could use it for,
except individual counseling.

Before I get flamed, I mean using it for prediction: this
person will enjoy living in this community, will get along
well with this person, will understand these concepts if
presented in this way, will buy that product if advertised
a certain way.
-- 
"Why my thoughts are my own, when they are in, but when they are out
they are another's." - Susannah Martin, hanged for witchcraft, 1692.
Thomas David Kehoe          kehoe@netcom.com         (408) 354-5926
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:40:32 GMT

In article <19950@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>: Tell me why I should listen to _you_ when you describe this exhibit.
>I have no reason for you to listen to the original poster, and I have no
>reason to believe any other bit of news he may have.  But in this one
>instance, he's probably right.

Of course he's right.  I was just pointing out his own double standard:
he expects people to believe there's no war in former Yugoslavia because
all we have is secondhand information, yet he wants us to believe his
description of an experiment from secondhand information, as long as the
information comes through him.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: mccla_d@aesc.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: Myers-Briggs Personality/Temperment Types
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:32:30 GMT

In message vrvn2nl.noring@netcom.com:

> I would like to get some feedback and discussion concerning Myers-Briggs

I've been studying it and testing with it for a little while now.

> accuracy

In assessing or predicting what? It has pretty good test-restest validity, and
good validity between forms. For the reliability and validity figures, see
_Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator_
 
> approach

If you're wanting an assessment of the dimensions it tests, it's great. It's
primarily an extension of Jung's personality types theory. Validity with other
measurements vary widely, even with some the purport the measure similar 
things. In testing approach, it's quite usable. As for the results, depends
on what you're looking for. I personally like the positive approach to the 
type desciptions, and to the suggested uses for the results in therapy
(pp 63-76 in the current edition of the above manual).

> applicability

Begs the question 'to what'? The publisher seems to think it's supremely
useful in inter-employee relationship testing and such. Most likely because 
they sell two or more tests per testing session, and companies love to spend
money on quality-of-workplace-environment-improvement whether they can 
understand it or not. I'm considering doing a test-retest on undergrad
roomates to see if the matching of type correlates with satisfaction with
the roomate. In all the data they offer, I don't find any particularly 
supporting this focus on people matching.

I'm a bit perturbed that the the standardization was not done on a census
proportional population. Virtually all testing is on higher SES class 
groups.
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:16:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Sep11.201607.7617
Distribution: na
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <88430@netnews.upenn.edu> zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.054504.9549@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM d(Jon Krueger) writes:
>
>>> by measuring brainwaves and REM activity, we can tell how much dreaming
>>> she has been doing.
>>What we have measured is not dreaming.
>>Physiology, behavior, and CNS events are not dreaming.
>>The use of "dreaming" above is simply a category mistake.
>Physiology and CNS events may be physical instantiations of the phenomena
>that we experience as dreaming.  Clearly, however, this is not 100% provable.

Sigh. Does science *ever* provide 100% proof?

Clearly not; however the quality of evidence available is certainly much
more convincing than Jon's `proof by category assertion.` In the Cambridge
philosophy department during the seventies it was common to dismiss the idea
that brain-states and mind-states could be the same thing, because the words
describing these entities could not be substituted one for the other (the
original use of the phrase 'category error', as far as I know).

Try substituting 'molecular kinetic energy' for 'warmth' everywhere
you see it - ie. "He basked in the warmth of the sunlight". Our choice of
categories is not mandated on tablets of stone from the seat of heaven.
Reductionism can sometimes be successful even though requiring the
redrawing of category borders.

>I don't think it's a category mistake as much as a problem in 
>demonstrability.

I am unaware of any psychologists that dispute my assertion. Are you?

>| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
>| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |

Regards,
	Max G. Webb