HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth)
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Organization: The World
	<BURKE.93Jan24131538@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>
	<1993Jan28.133545.28410@news.unige.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:54:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.133545.28410@news.unige.ch> swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip) writes:
   In article <BURKE.93Jan24131538@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>, burke@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Robin Burke) writes:


   > But the issue here is not opinions, but behavior.

>The issue concerns neither opinions nor behavior. Democracy is a game
>we agree to play because it is in our mutual interest. If you don't
>like losing and you can't accept the rules when they work against you,
>then those of us who accept the constraints will do our best to expose
>you as a cheat.

>   - philip swann


Democracy does not imply that one is forced to patronize those
businesses/states (little difference in practice) with whom you
disagree, only that those entities and their owners/constituents have
the freedom to hold their own opinions. If you dislike some other
feature of a state's code of law, like the sales tax, you are free not
to live there or visit. If you don't like a corporation's policies on
the environment or on investment in unsavory governments, then you are
free not to buy products from them.

The proponents of the boycott are not suggesting jail for the "non-PC
demons" of Colorado. They just do not want to support a behavior which
they do not agree with. They also have the right to try to convince
others with similar views to do the same.


Not "accepting the rules" is a fairly time-honored way of conducting
political action, by the way. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and
Henry David Thoreau are among the "cheats" who caused major changes
for the good.

-Layne 

-- 
  Layne Ainsworth | lains@world.std.com <or> ...!{xylogics,uunet}!world!lains
	The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. -H.D.T.

Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: cox@cc.gatech.edu (MICHAEL COX)
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Reply-To: cox@cc.gatech.edu (MICHAEL COX)
Organization: AI Group, Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:07:58 GMT

We do not plan to address many of the points made in your response to our
original posting, since there were so few that had any content other than
emotional rhetoric. We think that, instead, better care should have been
taken to edit the homophobic motivations clearly present in the response. 
For example:

In article <16B5CA3FB.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> Did you ever stop to think that such a law might also actually
> discriminate against gays?  Employers might look for telltale signs 
> of someone being gay ...

What are these telltale signs anyway? Do you think that one can really
determine someone's sexual orientation by the way they look? 

Instead, we wish to point out that it is incorrect to consider Amendment #2
as a quota enactment. As we originally pointed out, the amendment makes it
legal to discriminate against gays, and furthermore, makes it illegal to
enact laws forbidding such discrimination. For those who cannot easily
interpret the original wording of the amendment, or understand our first
posting, nor the persons that elaborated on and echoed our statement in
follow-up postings, and who insist, like Focus on the Family/Rocky Mountain
Family Council (the originators of the amendment), that the amendment simply
bars quotas, we wish to cut out a few of the redundant words in the amendment
to illustrate its intent and full force.

	AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)  
   "Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its agencies ...
    shall enact ... any statute ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual 
    orientation ... shall ... entitle any person ... to have ...any ... claim
    of discrimination."

Please check against the full wording of the amendment included in our
earlier posting that there are no significant words edited out of it.
If it is not now unambiguous, we cannot make it much clearer.

_mike_cox

Mimi Recker
From: rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:33:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics
Organization: Human Communication Research Center
In-reply-to: cox@cc.gatech.edu's message of 20 Jan 93 14:13:51 GMT


While the original explanitory posting was obviously sensible,
followup discussion is very misplaced here. There are enough bits of
the net full of waccos, bigots and fanatics without inviting the likes
of Mr/Ms/Dr/Whatever Hartley to start up in this group. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	Don't give up now, we're proud of who you are.
				- PG & KT
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,comp.ai,sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology
From: jrg@punch (James R. Goble)
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation; El Segundo, CA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:56:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.184808.26417@Princeton.EDU>  
sbgreene@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Greene) writes:
> In article <16B5CA3FB.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com  
writes:
> >I guess democracy is okay unless it doesn't meet your selfish goals.
> 
> The claim that those who support a boycott of Colorado are somehow
> subverting the democratic process is a popular one among the anti-
> boycott groups because it shifts the focus from the pernicious effects
> of Amendment 2 to the tactics of its opponents.  However, this
> argument rings about as true as do John Cardinal O'Connor's words when
> he speaks of the importance of the separation of church and state.
> 
> For the record, the people of Aspen, Boulder, and Denver, through
> their democratic processes, had all passed laws that prohibited
> discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  Amendment 2
> invalidates all those laws.  Amendment 2 subverts the democratic
> process by making it impossible for any city in Colorado to decide
> that it wants to protect its gay and lesbian residents from 
> discrimination.
> 
> I believe that all people who recognize the evil of discrimination 
> have a moral obligation to make their opposition to Amendment 2
> known and to encourage its repeal in some way.  Each person
> must decide what action to take.  I will not attend any event
> or do business with any company in Colorado until Amendment 2 has
> been repealed.  Others must decide for themselves what to do, but
> I urge them to take steps not to let what they see as the carrying
> out of their planned activities be interpreted as an endorsement of 
> the current political climate in Colorado.

It is amazing to me the laws that can be enacted in the name of morality.   
The "Moral Majority" seem to be perfectly willing to use Scriptures to  
beat one target group or another about the head and shoulders, but seem  
unwilling to adhere to these same scriptures.  Jesus really only issued  
two commandments, so he must have thought them the most important.  One  
was to love God, and the other to love your fellow man. (Including your  
enemies!)  Now while the homosexual lifestyle is offensive to some (It  
seems strange to me I have to admit.), it seems the second commandment  
would preclude mistreatment of these people.

Maybe I just miss the point.  Perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls will reveal  
that Jesus really said love your fellow man except for homosexuals,  
blacks, Jews, orientals, Catholics, Anyone different,......

Jim Goble,
Los Angeles
From: burke@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Robin Burke)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:15:38 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL


>   What sort of logic is this???  If I understand you right, you disagree with the
>   majority vote in a democratic referendum and you propose to punish those
>   voters by trying to hit them in the wallet. Did you ever change your opinions
>   because someone threatened to punch you in the teeth?
>
>   - philip swann

The "will of the people" argument has been used to justify many
injustices; I would be wary of it. Majorities can and frequently do
commit reprehensible actions.  ("Separate but equal" comes to mind.)
Do you really believe that once "the majority has spoken," there is
nothing that anyone can do? A boycott is a common and accepted
practice of showing displeasure in cases like this.

As far as changing a person's opinion, I argee, a boycott may do
little or nothing.  But the issue here is not opinions, but behavior.
Boycotts can, in fact, contribute to changes in behavior. (NB: South
Africa, Arizona, etc.)



--
robin
=:-{)

institute for learned scientists
northwestern university
Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:1030 comp.ai.philosophy:7370
From: meagher@skyfox
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: RE: AI vs Cognitive Science vs Cognitive Psychology (long)
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:04:20 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: sask.usask.ca

In a previous article, axs@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) wrote:
>This article arises out of recent discussion in sci.cognitive on how to
>distinguish AI and Cognitive Science.
> 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>Nearly all attempts at precise definitions of fields of enquiry are
>pointless, because knowledge has no intrinsic boundaries, and the
>divisions that are found between journals, or between conferences, or
>between departments in a university or college, are normally accidental
>products of particular historical episodes, fashions, academic politics,
>etc.
> 
> 
>Academic disciplines are a bit like species of birds: if you try to
>define species in terms of ability to mate you can find groups of birds
>of types A, B, C, D, E spread across a continent such that A and B can
>mate, and B and C can mate and C and D can mate and D and E can mate,
>but A and E cannot mate.
> 
>Similarly there are different clusters of people who say they are doing
>AI, doing cognitive science, doing cognitive psychology, etc. and if you
>look very closely you'll just find lots of patterns of overlap and
>interaction, with no clear subdivisions.
> 
>
reply,

	I don't want to argue for the long-term distinguishability of 
cog. sci., cog. psyche, and cog. neuro, however I do think that presently
there are some distinguishing features of these areas that arise for
reasons having to do with "stabalizing" factors inherent in science.  
refers to self-authenticating techniques that "harmonize" data, theory, and
methods (for more, see recent writings by Hacking).  I think there are
plenty of examples of self-authenticating techniques in each of these
disciplines and hence that this provides grounds for demarcating them.
To make this argument requires alot more space (and thought) then is
possible here, however, I think prima facia evidence for this contention
is provided by looking at the different types of admissible evidence, the
different types of methods (e.g., single-case, statistics, simulations), and
the fact that we can have "theories" of memory in cognitive neuropsyche,
cogn. psyche, cogn. science, and cogn. neuroscience that make little or
no reference to each other (or gratuitious reference).  I think that we
are buying into too much of the rhetoric of each of these disciplines if
we believe that they are trying to develop a unified theory of mind.  

Paul D. Meagher
Dept. of Psychology
Univ. of Saskatchewan
meagher@sask.usask.ca
Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:1032 comp.ai.philosophy:7382
From: eriksson@gvaadg.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: RE: AI vs Cognitive Science vs Cognitive Psychology (long)
Date: 25 Jan 93 08:57:16 GMT
Reply-To: eriksson@gvaadg.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <24JAN93.19042016@skyfox>, meagher@skyfox writes:
|>	I don't want to argue for the long-term distinguishability of 
|>cog. sci., cog. psyche, and cog. neuro, however I do think that presently
|>there are some distinguishing features of these areas that arise for
|>reasons having to do with "stabalizing" factors inherent in science.  
|>refers to self-authenticating techniques that "harmonize" data, theory, and
|>methods (for more, see recent writings by Hacking).  

Could you give references to the articles/books (Hacking's) you're referring
to?

Jan Eriksson
Digital Equipment
Geneva,Switzerland
Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:1040 comp.ai.philosophy:7401
From: meagher@skyfox
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: RE: AI vs Cognitive Science vs Cognitive Psychology (long)
Date: 26 JAN 93 02:42:40 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: sask.usask.ca

In a previous article, eriksson@gvaadg.enet.dec.com wrote:
> 
>In article <24JAN93.19042016@skyfox>, meagher@skyfox writes:
>|>	I don't want to argue for the long-term distinguishability of 
>|>cog. sci., cog. psyche, and cog. neuro, however I do think that presently
>|>there are some distinguishing features of these areas that arise for
>|>reasons having to do with "stabalizing" factors inherent in science.  
>|>refers to self-authenticating techniques that "harmonize" data, theory, and
>|>methods (for more, see recent writings by Hacking).  
> 
>Could you give references to the articles/books (Hacking's) you're referring
>to?

Here is a ref:

Hacking, I. (1992). 'Style' for historians and philosophers. Stud. Hist.
	Phil. Sci., 23(1), 1-20.

For more by Hacking see references therein.

Also, along the same (constructivist) lines I would recommend:

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of
	Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hope they are helpful.

Paul D. Meagher
Dept. of Psychology
University of Saskatchewan
meagher@sask.usask.ca

Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Cog Psych vs. Cog Sci
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:07:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.161249.19173@ils.nwu.edu> pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler) writes:
>Christopher Green says:
>> Nevertheless, I would characterize cog psy's function with 
>> relation to cog sci as the supplying of data. Certainly it's theoretical
>> work of late has been none to impressive, on the whole.
>
>I'm sure you don't want to name names, but what areas of cognitive psychology
>do you have in mind?  Cog psych seems to be doing a pretty good job in
>memory, analogy, and judgement IMO (perception, too, from what I hear).
>
Well, I don't want to name names. Problem is, naming topics is just
as incriminating. Memory theory is at least highly
developed. Whether it's close to right is another matter. Analogy, judgement,
reasoning, concept formation etc. are in awful shape, as far as I'm concerned. 
I have seen little in those areas that I would recognize as a theory...
and they have been my central areas of interest, so it's not as though
I'm not familiar with their literature. What more can I say?


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey)
Subject: newbie quest ... FAQ?
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:55:39 GMT

Before i start asking tons of uninformed questions could someone point
me towrds the FAQ and/or some good, tho not too extensive, introductory
material on cog sci?
I am an anthropology major and am curious about how anth can tie into
the various facets of this/these discipline/s ...
Thanks in advance for any responses!

--kyrsten

Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: hughes@gloin.cis.udel.edu (John Hughes)
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:02:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.150758.15760@cc.gatech.edu> cox@cc.gatech.edu (MICHAEL COX) writes:
>In article <16B5CA3FB.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>> Did you ever stop to think that such a law might also actually
>> discriminate against gays?  Employers might look for telltale signs 
>> of someone being gay ...
>
>What are these telltale signs anyway? 

Hmm. Pictures of your Sweetie on your desk? Bringing your Pookie to the
Cristmas party? Occasionally talking about them as if you love them, plan to 
spend the rest of your life with them, and include them in it as much as 
possible?

>Do you think that one can really
>determine someone's sexual orientation by the way they look? 

More to life then looks, buddyro.

Or perhaps we should only be nice to people who hide the joys of life in a
closet somewhere. Everyone knows it's so unpleasant to feel icky and 
uncomfortable. 

It's such a drag to share.


John
hughes@cis.udel.edu
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: gpmenos@firestone.Princeton.EDU (Gerard Philippe Menos)
Subject: SUBJECTS NEEDED FOR PSYCH. STUDY
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: gpmenos@firestone.Princeton.EDU (Gerard Philippe Menos)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:03:39 GMT

I am posting the following announcement for my sister.  She is looking  
for subjects, primarily in the New York City area (the closer to  
Manhattan, the better) or in the vicinty of Princeton, NJ, to  
participate as subjects in a study on the psychology of the postpartum  
period.

At this point, my sister is in greatest need of subjects for the  
control group --females between 18 to 40 years of age, with no  
children, who are not presently pregnant.  If you can participate or  
if you know people who can participate, please read on.  The telephone  
nunber to call is listed below.

Thanks,
Phil Menos

--------------------------------------------------------------
                      SUBJECTS NEEDED

I AM A Ph.D. CANDIDATE IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, CONDUCTING A
STUDY OF THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD, A LONG NEGLECTED AREA OF
RESEARCH.

                IF YOU ARE 18-40, FEMALE AND

O    EITHER RECENTLY GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD (WITHIN THE LAST
     NINE MONTHS)

O    OR DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN AND ARE NOT CURRENTLY PREGNANT,

YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY THAT WILL TAKE 15
MINUTES OF YOUR TlME WITH ME.  AFTER THIS BRIEF MEETING, YOU
WILL BE GIVEN A PACKET OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORIES THAT WILL
TAKE 40 MINUTES TO 1 1/2 HOURS TO COMPLETE (DEPENDING ON
WHETHER YOU CHOOSE TO DO THE ABBREVIATED VERSION OR NOT), AT
YOUR LEISURE.  THE PACKET WILL BE SELF-ADDRESSED AND STAMPED.
WHEN YOU ARE DONE, JUST PUT IT INTO THE MAILBOX.

AFTER THE REBULTS HAVE BEEN ANALYZED, IF YOU WISH, I WILL
CALL YOU TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT
THE 5TUDY AND TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK REGARDING YDUR TYPICAL
MODES OF FUNCTIONING ALONG VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY,
YOUR TYPICAL SHIFTS IN PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION UNDER STRESS,
YOUR PERSONAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND OTHER PATTERNS OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING SUGGESTED BY YOUR RESPONSES.

THE STUDY IS BEING CONDUCTED ALONG AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION RESEARCH GUIDELINES.  ALL DATA IS STRICTLY
CONFIDENTIAL.  YOU WILL BE IDENTIFIED WITH A CODE NUMBER.
INFORMATION LINKING YOU WITH THIS CODE NUMBER WILL BE
DESTROYED ONCE WE HAVE HAD OUR TELEPHONE FEEDBACK SESSION.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING OR GETTING MORE
INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL:

                           Micka
                        (212) 666-2174.

              PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO A FRIEND.

                        THANK YOU.

--------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
G. Philippe Menos [gpmenos@firestone.princeton.edu]
Systems Administrator,   Princeton University Libraries
voice:  609-258-5183     fax:  609-258-5571
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip)
Subject: Re: Lesbian/Gay Rights and the Cognitive Science Meeting
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:35:45 GMT


In article <BURKE.93Jan24131538@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>, burke@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Robin Burke) writes:


> Do you really believe that once "the majority has spoken," there is
> nothing that anyone can do?

Of course not. You can wait a few years and try again. You can try to
convince the Supreme Court(s) that the vote was unconstitutional etc. etc.

> But the issue here is not opinions, but behavior.

The issue concerns neither opinions nor behavior. Democracy is a game
we agree to play because it is in our mutual interest. If you don't like losing
and you can't accept the rules when they work against you, then those of us who
accept the constraints will do our best to expose you as a cheat.

- philip swann
From: kqs@cs.bham.ac.uk (Kelly Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Cog Sci vrs Cog Psych
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:38:27 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham

I'm currently taking a course in Cognitive Science and have also taken 
courses in Cog Psychology and Cog Neuropsychology.  It seems to me that
there is no difference in the aims of the three fields - they all attempt
to discover and model cognitive processes.  BUT there is a difference in
the methodology used.

Cog Psych tries to model brain behaviour based on data from experiments,
mainly on students (!), who are considered "normal" subjects (students?
normal?).  For example, the time taken for subjects to read briefly 
presented words or name upside-down objects is measured and used to
model cognitive processes.

Cog Neuropsych also tries to model cognitive processes but based on data
from subjects who have suffered brain damage to some degree  e.g. from
head injury or some types of brain surgery.  Such subjects may have
deficiencies in certain cognitive processes.  By studying these 
deficiencies, Cog Neuropsych evidence can be used to infer processes in
"normal" subjects.  (By normal, I mean subjects who do not appear to have
cognitive processes differing from the norm).

Cog Sci again tries to model cognitive processes but it yet another way.  
It draws on aspects of Philosophy, Linguistics, Psychology, and Computer
Science (in particular AI) to produce computer simulations of cognitive
processes.  (AI does not necessarily model human cognitive processes,
instead it tries to produce intellegent systems - I think there is a
difference!!!).

I think all three fields have an important role in the study of
cognition.  Cognitive Science can simulate the findings of Cog Psych
and Cog Neuropsych, and may stimulate experimental research in new 
directions as a result of interesting emergent properties.  In addition,
a computer simulation can be damaged in a far more ethical and reliable
way then a rat or a human.  This means that the effects of brain damage
can be simulated and related to the Cog Neuropsych literature.

To finally finish, I think that Cog Sci, Cog Psych and Cog Neuropsych
can all add to the study of Cognition - they just have different 
emphases on research.


Looking forward to comments/queries/criticisms.

                                     Kelly.
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: pmgt1425@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Problem Solving (Newell and Simon 1972)
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:30:32 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

	According to Newell and Simon (1972), problem solving is a process
of searching through the problem space.  It seems to involve the linear
search within the working memory and the association with the LTM.  Prietula
and Simon (1989, p. 122) seem to suggest that after a first approximation of
solution is found in LTM through association, then the solution is refined
through linear search again, "combing" through possible solutions.
	Would somebody comment on my interpretation, please?  I am just
not certain if it is correct.  Thanks.

Pete
PMGT1425@SELU.EDU