HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:23:40 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Monika Trzcinska <054470@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Someone else's stats expertise

On Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:21:39 EST Jason Evan Mihalko said:

>On Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:17:13 -0500 Sunni said:
>>And why is it ALWAYS, ALWAYS the professor who gets first authorship whether
>>he has done ANY work, or even has a clue about what you are doing?
>
>     That's not the case in my department at least.  When papers are
>published, even if done in part of a professor's on going project, the
>student will get first authorship if he/she did most of the work.  I've
>seen a professor take third author behind two 2nd year students.
>
>                                 ---Jason

So did I!  In fact when my prof and I were publishing our first paper I got
the first authorship, since the experiment was mainly based on my design.
Besides, she knew how important it was for me to get the first authorship, in
terms of building up the CV, and in terms of future grant applications.
We have a "system" in the lab, where we alternate authorship with our
supervisor, i.e: if the first paper was published with my name as the first
author, the second one will be published with her name as the first author.
In a way this makes sense, since both the student and the prof need the
"first authorship" status once in a while, to keep their heads above the
academic waters, so-to-speak...


                                 _
    ) (    Monika Trzcinska    _- o   ) (   054470@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA
   )   (----------------------- o o  )   (----------------------------
    ) (                        -_ o   ) (
                                 -
   "The most important attitude that can be formed is that of a desire
    to go on learning".
                                                  Dewey (1938)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:58:07 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tim Tumlin <UFTRT@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Common-Sense Knowledge In Ps

I think Matthew and I are esconced in the same factor on this one.
As I asked before, which turned into the "what's the beef?" series of
messages, I'm not clear on the point of this upset over psychology's
reputation as a science.
  The general public (remember that half of them have IQs under 100)
isn't quite sure of the difference between astronomy and astrology.
If our peers in the scientific community don't know that this is
science, then they're stupid. They may use this to get the goats of some
people in this business, but I think some people are more easily gotten-
to than others.
  There IS a factor of campus politics and there is also a big pecking order
among science types, usually with physicists getting the top spot in snobbery.
But that's more complicated than whether psychology's t-tests qualify it for
the Science Big Leagues.
  After all, if you're looking for understanding nature, then engineers are
nothing. If you're looking for applicability, then astronomers are complete
bums. If you're looking for certitude,then a lot of theoretical physicists
are a total waste of time.
   I just don't see not getting myself upset over this as being an ostrich.
Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.ST-AND; 17 DEC 92 11:29:40 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:20:35 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Paul Leonard Gardner <plg@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Value of response latency measurement in CBT

Tom Downey,
        Hello.  I can't be of direct help with your query but I am very
interested in the area of CAL etc and would like to exchange ideas with a
colleague in the field.  Things here are fairly hardware driven rather
than conceptually so they tend to arrive at fairly pragmatic solutions
to the limitations of the technology.  I would be interested in seeing
what other people are doing in psychology and finding out their personal
experiences of using computer based materials.

Cheers,
Paul
St. Andrews
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: aa.elden@avh.unit.no@avh.unit.no (ke Elden)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: EEG
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:24:16 GMT
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11b


    
Could someone help me?

  I am a student in psychology and I`m writing on my master
degree. I have my interest in the field of cognitive/neuro-
psychology and I`m going to do a research prosject about
brainmapping and eyemovements in a comparison between dyslexic
and non-dyslexic persons (n=20, 10 in the experimental-group
and 10 in the control-group).
  Then I figured out; is there a connection between electric
brainactivity and eyemovements?
The setting are measured with EEG (Bio-logic Brainatlas II)
and using 21 electrodes using the 10/20 system (Jasper, 1958).
If there is a connection in what kind of spectre should I
look?
  Galaburda have found something strange in posterior
pareital areas in the dyslexics, should I then look in the
alpha or lower beta spectre?
  What is lamda-waves, is it particular a dyslexic phenomena?
Have have also looked at the research-studies of F.Duffy
and R.John, but I havnt found something useful for my project
yet.

Equipement:
Biologic Brain Atlas II and
Permobil Meditech Ober2,eyemovements.

The experimental settings are:
The test person are using a pair of glasses (infrared), which
measures eyemovements looking at a pc-screen where he sees
different kind of objects moving in the X and Y-axes. While
the person do this I`m going to measure the EEG.
What do you think about that?
Could someone please answer me, privately or on this list:



















--------------------------------------------------------------------
AAke Elden                         tel: +47 7 59 19 60
Department of Psychology           fax: +47 7 59 19 20
University of Trondheim,           email:aa.elden@avh.unit.no 
  ****   
   ''   Have a nice day!            
  \__/
       "Praeteria censeo coitum nimium brevem esse"       
====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:05:59 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Stephanie Fishkin <fishkin@SCF.USC.EDU>
Subject:      RE: authorship
              92 12:08 pm

I am one of the persons who first acquired research experience with
a work-study position.  This is how I got through college (along with
a state grant that paid for my tuition).  This is also how I got my
first taste of research, as well as interacting closely with a professor
who became my unofficial undergraduate advisor and with graduate students.
Trying to get this research experience on top of a full course load and
20 hours a week of work-study would have been an impossibility (or I would
have had a nervous breakdown under all the stress).
        Thanks to this experience, I got to learn about the research
process, run a study (and analyze the data) that eventually became my
senior thesis and I presented it at APS last summer. Were it not for
this work-study job, I don't think I'd be in graduate school today.  If
we ever create a manuscript based on this work -- where I work on the
manuscript as well -- you better be damn sure that I expect to be placed on
there as an author!
        In other words, I don't see the difference between giving authorship
to a work-study student as long as he/she is involved in the entire process
(or a large portion of the process), from creation to write-up.
        My $.02;  now I've got to go study for finals.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Everyone feels instinctively that
 all the beautiful sentiments in the world
 weigh less than a single lovely action.
           --James Russell Lowell

Stephanie Fishkin, Univeristy of Southern California
fishkin@scf.usc.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:32:58 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What's new and exciting in Social Psych?

Hi John Kraft!
        Tom Pyszcynski is on faclu





ty here at University of Colorado at
Colorado Springs. He is on sabbatical in Germany until summer of 93
but he is constantly working on new stuff here, so contact him. He will
gladly correspond with you.
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:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:21:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Personal experience challenge

Sybil,

        Your point is well-taken, and I agree with Matthew
about his interpretation re:  my chair's remarks.  It did at
the time seem otherwise (and still does on occasion) when I was
trying to pry loose some $ for improving lab facilities in our
department.
        How about this personal example.....only it's really
rather a public one:  The Behavioral Science Summits that APS
sponsored for a few years, in order to develop the Human
Capital Initiative.  There were quite a few reps there from
Washington who told us all that we psychologists didn't know
how to get along and play nice with one another, and that a
lack of a unified front as scientists is part of why nobody in
Congress was interested in funding psychological research.
        Certainly, the existence of APS and the recent
recissions of behavioral science research grants also testify
to a real problem in the view of psychology as a science.
However, now that I think about it, perhaps whoever it was that
paraphrased "Pogo" in this discussion was right--"We has met
the enemy, and they is us."
--Kathy Morgan
kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet


PS--I know, I get "challenged" a lot.  And I ask for it.  I was
just having a "bad hair" day, of something.  Sorry for my
snapping back!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:24:47 -0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tor Neilands <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: translating research findings to public knowledge

Betty writes:

>
>On a side note here... It's interesting how the zeitgeist seems
>to be swinging back to the 1960's question of what good is it?
>How can it be applied to social problems?
>
>Betty

That's the way it appears from reading many postings on this list, but I
wonder how representative psycgrad subscribers are of the grad student
population as a whole? That is, I've seen more discussion of issues
pertaining to psychologists in the social problem/field of psychology
meta-issues variety in a week here on Psycgrad than I have in 4 plus years
in my dept. I think that Psycgrad subscribers are a unique breed of grad
student, more willing to get their hands dirty with these types of issues,
as opposed the attitude I've encountered among more than a few (though not
all, thank goodness) of my colleagues here who are of the attitude, "Hey,
don't bother me or upset me with that crap. Can't you see I'm trying to be
productive and publish so I can get ahead here?"

cheers,

Tor


Tor Neilands
Systems Analyst
Statistical Services Group
Computation Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX  78712

Phone: (512)-471-3241, Ext. 263

Internet:  TBN@Utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
___________________________________________________

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

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I, I took
 the road less traveled by, and that has made all the
 difference".                                 --- Robert Frost
___________________________________________________

Disclaimer:  All of the views expressed above are solely
those of the author. Any relationship between my own
views and those of the University of Texas and/or The
Computation Center at the University of Texas are
due merely to regression to the mean.
____________________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:01:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Anna <ROMERO@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's new and exciting in Social Psych?

> I had an interesting phone call from a prof of mine at the
> school I attended for my MA.  The school has a masters program
> that puts out experimental, couseling and school psychology
> majors.  The program is very strong in the areas of statistics
> and computers and to a lesser extent in basic research design,
> but has a definite behavorist bias. They're restructuring their
> program a bit and he's tryin to decide whether to add an upper
> level undergrad social psych course or some other course.  He
> asked me "Hey Betty, What's new and exciting in the
> field of social psychology?"
> Well... I didn't have a real good answer for him.
> I rambled a bit bout attitudes and persuasion eg the
> elaboration liklihood model, Chaiken's model; measurement
> issues in attitude behavior consistancy ala Fishbein & Ajzen,
> Epstein, Snyder & Ickes, Mischel, but I was a bit disappointed
> that I really couldn't make a strong case for the social
> psych course.  *shrug* now it's buggin me!  Does anyone out there in
> Psygradland have any better answers for him???
>
> He also asked. "Why should I teach a social psych course?
> Will that help prepare them for grad school better than
> some other course?"
> On this one I leaned toward measurement and methodology
> eg Fishbein & Ajzen, Epstein, Snyder & Ickes on measurement issues
> and Cronbach and Meehl, Campbell and Fiske on construct
> validity.  As I think this would better prepare people for PhD
> programs that a general social psych course would.  How
> would you respond to his question?
>
> Time to go give a final exam!
> (Jeeeez it's nice not having to take final exams!)
> Betty

Betty,
     There is a lot going on in the field these days.  Just as an "off
the cuff" example, the work that Caryl Rusbult has been doing in the
area of interpersonal relationships, the work on Discontinuity by
Insko & Schopler (and many others), the prior knowledge work by Wendy
Wood, ect.  If you want more information (I've taught Social at the
undergraduate level for a year and studied it for 3 years), please
e-mail me personally with specific questions - I'd be happy to help
if I can (including graduate-level books, advanced undergraduate texts
and specific citations for coursepaks).
                               Have fun!
                                   Anna
                                   Romero@UNC.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:29:38 -0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Excessively Prolix Scribe <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      Best Winter Seasons wishes

Best winter season's wishes to all of the psycgradders out there in
psycgrad land. It's been one heck of a ride these last few weeks, hasn't it?

Take care, and don't work too hard (this means *you*!).

Party on!

Tor


Tor Neilands
Systems Analyst
Statistical Services Group
Computation Center
University of Texas at Austin

Internet:  TBN@Utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
___________________________________________________

"With this crown of thorns I wear, why should I
worry about a little prick like you?"
                                                   --- Dorothy Parker

"No matter what you call it, it's all just a game".
                                                   --- Master Wong
                                 "Once upon a time in china"

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I, I took
 the road less traveled by, and that has made all the
 difference".                                 --- Robert Frost
___________________________________________________

Disclaimer:  All of the views expressed above are solely
those of the author. Any relationship between my own
views and those of the University of Texas and/or The
Computation Center at the University of Texas are
due merely to regression to the mean.
____________________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.ST-AND; 12 DEC 92 14:49:59 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:50:16 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Julie Marie Williams <jmw1@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: let's hear some opinions

Well, Jennifer, you asked for opinions, so here goes...
It sounds like you've come up with most of the reasons yourself that any of the
rest of us gave for *not* doing the analysis!  Would you do it again, or have
you "learned the hard way"?

Quite a dilemma indeed, but I think it should make us all think about whether
it's fair to help out someone who obviously has no clue to gain a PhD she
doesn't deserve, while the rest of us have to sweat blood to get through?

There's "co-work" and there's down-right laziness!!

I'm glad I think this *befoer* the situation ever arises, for me; now I'll
never have to discover it "the hard way", as you did!

Anyway, I stick to my original claim - I wouldn't do it.  (I have enough of
my own work to do, anyway!!)

Julie
St Andrews

PS  BTW, you imply that the fact that none of the 14 chi-squares was significant
demonstrates that the research was not good quality.  Obviously, you know more
about the method and the hypotheses than I do, but I'd like to point out that
this is *not* necessarily a bad thing.  Getting p<=0.05 is not the be-all and
the end-all!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:08:46 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      RE: authorship

ackenowledgement yes, authorship no on work study peeps who are being paid.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:23:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "David M. Fresco" <FRESCO@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      History and Systems

Monika,
I noticed that your ending quote is now a very salient message by
John Dewey.  I've recently had to think about ol' John, for I am
taking History and Systems this semester.  The culmination of this
course     is to write a lengthy paper on our intellectual lineage.
This means that I write about my advisor, and her advisor, and her
advisor's advisor, etc as far back as I can go.  In my case, I got it
back all the way to Wundt.  While churning out 15-20 pages on my
intellectual lineage has been time consuming, it's been fun too!  I
encourage any of you to do this exercise, although in a more time-
limited manner.  I have learned a lot!  Actually, by writing this note,
I'm avoiding putting the final touches on that paper, and it's due
tonight.  Gotta go.
David Fresco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  PGLIST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:07:00 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Betty Harris <B1H6017@TAMVENUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Common sense

Aren't common sense theories of how things work and theories
based on empirical research very similar?  They both specify
covariation between events.  They are both prone to
biases in terms of selective processing of information that
supports their pet theory vs information that discredits
the pet theory.  Isn't the only difference between the two
the magnitude of the selective processing bias?

When people give me a hard time about social psych being common sense,
I point out that often there are two conflicting common sense
theories that both make intuitive sense.  eg "Birds of a feather
flock together (similaraty attract)  vs "Opposites attract".
Both are common beliefs, but we can't know which is accurate
in the domain of interest without doin research.  One of my professors
likes to debunk the 'I knew it all along attitude' at the beginning
of the semester.  He selects a study in which the findings are
not quite what you would expect based on common sense.
First, he presents the hypotheses from the study.
Then he asks the students to predict what the results will be.
Then he presents to findings from the study.
This allows him to make the point that we all have the tendency to
see research findings and say I knew it all along, that's just
common sense.

Another good example from this same prof is that when he was in grad
school, he went to a prof of his and showed the prof some correlations
the prof looked at the correlations and came up with a plausible
explaination.  A couple of weeks later, he found that he'd reverse
coded on of the variables and instead of a negative correlation, it
was in fact a positive correlation!  Well he went back to this
this same professor and showed him the correlations again...
The prof again came up with a plausible explaination for the
now positive correlation.  It's not just students who can explain
anything... we do it too.

Betty
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, 15 Dec 1992 10:30:44 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         20SSMITH@GALLUA.BITNET
Subject:      What's the beef

Am just now catching up on all the hoopla flying around about
psychology as a science and had to delete many of the messages
because I had not read them in so long...still I thought I'd
get in my say before heading off for the holidays...I don't know
if anyone has mentioned it already but I think part of the
problem with the effort to establish psychology as a science is
manner in which it is often done...I'm afraid I'm in agreement with
the minority on this issues...what else is new...but I don't see
what the big deal is either...it often seems to me that when someone
goes on a tear about psychology as a science they become so defensive
about it that the point begins to smell to the high heavens of
the defender's insecurity...allow me to digress a bit here...once while
taking a CPR class I was struck by the instructor's insistence that
he was as good as any physician at saving lives (the instructor was
a paramedic)...noone was doubting that point...but he was missing THE
POINT...noone cared what the label was...be it physician or paramedic
so long as the skill to save a life was apparent...the story is much
longer than that...the guy was obnoxious and more intent on convincing
us of his worth as a quasidoctor than as a CPR instructor of which
he happened to be a damned good one...still I think y'all will
get the point...on that note, its on to my final papers and exams
and home to Texas oh Texas...y'all come back now, ya hear :*)

Sybil
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:56:35 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: What's the Beef? ( Common Sense etc.)

Hey Kathy, last year at a student-facuChristmas party one of the psych
undergrads actually called it a psuedo-science. Yargh! We have to educate
our own folks, too! Suni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU