HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Baxevanis@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (Andy)
Subject: Wonderlic Personnel Test
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Organization: NIH
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:32:07 GMT

A friend of mine is considering using the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a
diagnostic tool, but is having difficulty finding any information regarding
the test other than the standard textbook coverage of it.  What do people
think of this "test of problem solving ability"?  All comments are welcome,
and thanks in advance for your time.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 12:59:11 GMT

Physics, did I hear?

Sorry guys.

TRUTH is the one thing you will not find in physics. 

Physics is used only because it seems to work. Most people in the 
physics community accept nothing on faith. If a theory is untestable,
then it is labeled as *useless* and promptly forgotten. Furthermore, 
physics holds no fundamental truths. It cannot be used as support or 
proof for an objective reality. EVERY part of physics is merely a
description of what we can observe. We can ascribe no *truth* to the
Big Bang model, various Inflationary models, or Steady-state model.
While these theories have had some success in predicting certain observed
phenomena, (and certainly not all observed phenomena), any extrapolation
back to the supposed Big Bang is not appropriate. We can not test *any*
theory in this regime, so it is meaningless to speak of such a phenomena.

Thus, for those of you who who do accept the Big Bang theory, then it
must be *faith* because we will NEVER have enough energy to test these
theories that far back. I can happily say never because these very same
theories tell us just that. It would require all the energy in the universe
to test these theories that far back. A bit of a tall order, Huh?
There are many scientists that consider cosmology to be pointless due to
this ultimate limit to testability. (my supervisor included, but I shudder
to mention his name in vain) 

If GUTs and Quantum Gravity ever really get sorted out, they may be
great for predicting many observed phenomena, but to ascribe to them
any fundamental truth would be completely erroneous. They can only be
*models* and to accept their description of an untestable era in the 
history of the universe must require faith. Remember the principal of
occams razor, there can be many models which make accurate predictions,
but we only need one.

I wonder how many TOEs (Theory Of Everything) there will be?

So yes, Cosmology is perhaps the only corner in the edifice of science, 
where one may find *faith* lurking.

A physcist has spoken......

I hope this helps,

Mark.
From: dern@acs.bu.edu (Kevin Dern)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Hypnosis
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:07:22 GMT
Distribution: ma
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: dern@acs.bu.edu


I have been experimenting with hypnosis for about 3 years now, and
am looking for someone in the Boston area that would be interested
in being hypnotized. 

I am currently interested in dream exploration, but would also be willing
to help someone stop smoking or something of the like in exchanhge for
their time.

Kevin Dern


dern@acs.bu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Psychology (not unlike Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???)
Summary: Gary takes a stab at restoring sci to sci.psychology
Keywords: science sense nonsense sixth-sense psychology astronomy
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:20:50 GMT

> if psychology is worth anything, psychologists should be saying to
> B&G "Very nice observation! Ingenious apparatus!  Can you try this
> here? My bet is it won't work in this case, and for a beer,
> I will tell you why I think it never will!"

And should they be saying this to the phrenologists, too?

If not, why not?

The theoretician/experimentalist analogy misses important differences.
I suggest that proponent/skeptic models the facts better.  The burden
of proof does not rest on the skeptic.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: pbray@bagpipe.reed.edu (Peter Bray)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: cattel
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:43:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep26.234354.23860
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR


Does anyone have any interesting anecdotal facts about James Cattel?
If so could you please send them directly to me...
Thankyou
pbray@reed.edu
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:46:50 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

>> "What is true or real to YOU may not be what is true or real to ME."
>
> How is NLP supposed to help communication if it denies the existance
> of shared experience?  It seems that it would preclude the possiblity
> of communication rather than enhance it.

Ugh.  The semantics here are confusing.  "Truth" and "reality" are
being discussed and evaluated in the context of the *model* of the
universe that is held by the particular person in question, not in
the context of the universe itself.  Since we share one universe,
and learn from other people, we tend to share many important common
models.  But each person's model of the universe, and beliefs about
the universe, are different, based on that person's experience.

IMHO, NLP is chiefly concerned with mechanisms for modifying one's
model of the universe.  So it's not surprising that the terms tend
to be evaluated in the context of those models.  Different people's
models embody different beliefs that evaluate different statements
as true, so different people are said to have different truths.

Dave
-- 
    Truth is an evaluation of a statement within a context or model.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: mccla_d@aesc.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: Schizophrenia and Psychopathy
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology,talk.bizarre,alt.drugs,sci.med
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:22:27 GMT

curtis@cs.berkeley.edu says:

> Sounds like an excellent description of schizophrenia to me.

It sounds like a good description of suffering from some of the same symptoms
as someone with schizophrenia, but that's all. Those behaviors fit other 
syndromes also.

> |It [PCP] and several other drugs ... are quite capable of destroying a 
> |person's ability to reason in a single dose.

> Perhaps for the benefit of the crowd ... you can name these other drugs.

Ice. Tryptamines, di-ethyl, di-phenyl, and particularly di-methyl. STP.
In fact most hallucinogens. The condition of the subject's own psyche of course
is implicated, though it's not always someone on the edge of what we'd term
a psychotic break. If 'ability to reason' includes onset of drug seeking 
behavior and continued use in spite of obvious self-harm, you can toss in
crack and trashia. Jimson/loco/Jamestown Weed. Some tasty psychotropic
chemical warfare agents, though you're not likely to run into these often. The
fact is that some exist which were found to produce exactly that result.

> Everyone overestimates the importance of their profession...

Actually, everyone overestimates the importance of their opinion. When it's
based on the experience of a profession, it can usually be found to have some
grounding in fact, even if the underlying science isn't entirely proven and
visible. It's when the opinion has no basis in fact that it's *really*
laughable.

> In one as chock-full of bullshit as the abuse-therapy racket...

... we have plenty of time to hunt around for the rabidly ignorant so as to
get our giggles.


-=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=-
>%> Dennis McClain-Furmanski        internet: mccla_d@cs.odu.edu     <%<
>%> Clinical Psychology             AOL: Dynasoar01@AOL.COM          <%<
>%> Old Dominion University         New Beginnings @ Serenity Lodge  <%<
>%> Norfolk, VA, USA, Earth, etc    Chesapeake, VA    800-444-9166   <%<
-=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=--=<+|+>=-

Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: 00mddwyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: HYPNOTISM:  Working Techniques?
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:47:09 GMT

Hypnotism has always been scrutinised by critics, and it doesn't work on
most people very well.  From what I understand it involves mainly putting
someone into a very relaxed, highly suggestabe state...
Is there anyone here that could post different methods of hypnosis, the
techniques to do them, and how well they work?
Thanks a lot.

Mike Dwyer, Ball State University  (Muncie Indiana)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:03:07 GMT

Ben Colbron writes:
> 'empirical results' are only as good as the theory 
> which underlies them

Counterexample: intermittent reinforcement increases
response strength.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:27:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.042946.3437@ucc.su.OZ.AU> ben@archsci.arch.su.oz.au (Ben Colbron) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.173929.14613@spectra.com>, ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:
>
>|> Rule #1 in NLP is that nothing is true or real.  
>|> 
>|> Kawika
>
>
>In saying that nothing is true you must either claim that *that*
>proposition ('nothing is true') is itself true, and if so, it 
>contradicts the original claim, or you must admit that the
>proposition 'nothing is true' is not itself true. Clearly, this
>claim is self-reflexive: i.e., it is no proposition at all because
>it raises no issue of truth or falsity.
>
>There is folk-psychology and there is science. Then there is simple
>logic. To which do you subscribe?

	I don't claim to subscribe to any of the above, I let you
	decide which one.  What I do subscribe to is results.  
	What I mean is that my idea or understanding of true or
	false is not necessarily yours or anybody elses, they're 
	just my beliefs.  I might change them later on under different
	circumstances.  I might believe that slacking off a little bit
	on my daily exercising is ok.  But if my health begins to
	suffer or I create a negative model for my girlfriend, who then
	creates a belief she would also like to be overweight, I might
	reconsider the slacking off I had been doing and get back to
	exercising.  So if I were slacking and I come up to you and
	try to convince you to exercise, you might say, "Yea?  Well look
	at you!"  This may not be the result I had wanted so I need to
	change my approach, maybe get back to exercising, do you see what
	I mean?

	A good reword of the above phrase may be:

	"What is true or real to YOU may not be what is true or real
	 to ME."

	I hope this clarifies that statement, I welcome comments.
	Have a great day!

	Kawika
From: gs@ukc.ac.uk (G.B.Samson)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: PC Voice Response Keys
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:22:22 GMT
Organization: ISAP, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK

One of our returning final year students has designed a priming
project which will make use of MEL (Micro-Experimental Laboratory) on
a PC platform and would like to record responses to visually presented
stimuli using a voice key.  At the moment, we do not possess equipment
capable of recording a vocal response in this environment and I would
be extremely grateful for any information (suppliers, prices,
recommendations, etc.) from departments currently using PC-based voice
relays.  Many thanks.

	Gary Samson
	ISAP, The University of Kent at Canterbury, UK
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:44:35 GMT

In article <BvMyE5.3y7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita) writes:
>probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>oh? is really a claim made about NLP? i thought claims about theory-free
>>observation went out about the time that Skinner bit the big one on that
>>very point...
>
>Oh?  I still see people using Aristotelean (sp) physics.  
>Frank Fujita

okay, okay, you've got me now... can you explain that in less than a screenful
of words? thanks.

scott
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: Info Learned Helplessness
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:09:42 GMT

In article <168736C07.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.160500.11500@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>cmt2m@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Christopher Mark Thompson) writes:
>>	I am interested in finding any published studies or
>>articles concerning learned helplessness.  Any information I

>The original work was done by Seligman, Maier, and Overmier (1967) with
>dogs.  In a fairly disgusting exp4eriment they showed that dogs
>who could not escape shock (in a classical conditioning paradigm)
>eventually quit trying.  I've shortened the description here of

   I don't have any citations but there was also a study done with fish
(walleyed pike I believe) where they were put into an aquarium with their
favorite kind of food (some sort of shrimpt) with a glass partition
between them.  After slamming their noses against the glass a number of
times the fish would eventually quit trying.  Then the glass could be
removed and the fish would starve swimming amongst its favorite food
source.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky sci.psychology:3925 alt.postmodern:2408
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Ecstasy
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:34:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link


>[request for research pointers]
I happened to look up some related info yesterday at Mechanics' Library in SF
(it's a membership library, and well worth it; on Post near Market). they have
the CD-ROM version of the Magazine Index.  but you can accomplish the same
search at most any library with the paper version.  I have only one citation
for you: Science 6 Jan. 1989 at 29, "Neurotoxicity Creates Regulatory Dilemma"
about three related amphetamines: fenfluramine (an old diet drug), MDMA, and
ritalin.  short answer: studies still going on; rats show more immediate damage
than humans from fenfluramine and MDMA (ritalin doesn't show damage at even
huge
doses).  Major concern: as people get older, there is loss of brain cells as a
normal event; thus any damage may not show up until later in life.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Originator: ehf@oscar
Reply-To: ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:22:41 GMT


In article <1992Sep28.042946.3437@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, ben@archsci.arch.su.oz.au (Ben Colbron) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep14.173929.14613@spectra.com>, ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:
|> 
|> |> Rule #1 in NLP is that nothing is true or real.  
|> |> 
|> |> Kawika
|> 
|> 
|> In saying that nothing is true you must either claim that *that*
|> proposition ('nothing is true') is itself true, and if so, it 
|> contradicts the original claim, or you must admit that the
|> proposition 'nothing is true' is not itself true. Clearly, this
|> claim is self-reflexive: i.e., it is no proposition at all because
|> it raises no issue of truth or falsity.
|> 
|> There is folk-psychology and there is science. Then there is simple
|> logic. To which do you subscribe?
|> 
|> Ben

One thing you'll frequently hear NLPers say is "Im not saying this is true or 
not but I find that believing it is useful". My understanding of what they are
saying with these kinds of statements is:

1) Dont confuse a model with that which is being modeled. 
2) Judge a model by how well it gets you the results your after.

For example, in the NLP technique of 5 step reframing, NLP practitioners think of
the unconscious mind as being composed of parts with specific positive goals
(maybe conflicting goals) and attempt to fascilitate negotiations between these 
"parts". What is considered important is whether this technique is useful in 
helping people to achieve the kind of personal changes they want and not whether
this is "really" how the human brain works. 

I personally have no problem with 1) or 2). My hope is that eventually scientific
studies will be carried out to determine what the success rates of NLP 
techniques are. I personally have not had any success with NLP so far but am
willing to suspend judgement until scientific studies are done. 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Deconstructing Bullies and Wimps
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:54:57 GMT

>> What experiment would you devise to test any of this?
> Which?

Any.  Pick anything.  Tell us about an experiment that
would test it.  Specify the outcome that would fail
to support it.

-- JOn
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:37:15 GMT

probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>oh? is really a claim made about NLP? i thought claims about theory-free
>observation went out about the time that Skinner bit the big one on that
>very point...

Oh?  I still see people using Aristotelean (sp) physics.  
Frank Fujita
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Info Learned Helplessness
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:40:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: cmsa.168736C07.JHARTLEY
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep30.160500.11500@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
cmt2m@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Christopher Mark Thompson) writes:
>	I am interested in finding any published studies or
>articles concerning learned helplessness.  Any information I
>can get would be greatly appreciated.  My understanding of
>learned helplessness is very basic.  I am aware that it is a
>condition resulting from a child being exposed to an
>environment in which it receives all "pain" or all "reward" no
>matter what he/she does.  Thank you for any help I receive.

The original work was done by Seligman, Maier, and Overmier (1967) with
dogs.  In a fairly disgusting exp4eriment they showed that dogs
who could not escape shock (in a classical conditioning paradigm)
eventually quit trying.  I've shortened the description here of
course.  Side effects accompanied this: loss of appetite, ulcers,
resistance to unlearning this non-responsive reaction.  Speculations
have extended to humans after this initial set of studies with dogs.
The notion is that the child's repertoire of behavior, at first,
contains behaviors that would be successful, but through repeated
attempts-and-failures, a child will quit trying any behaviors.

I'd look for work by Seligman (Martin) who sometime after the dog studies
did work on "immunization" vs. helplessness.  E-mail me if you reach
a roadblock (no humor intended).
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:00:38 GMT

Kawika Ohumukini writes:

> What I do subscribe to is results.  

And how do you measure them?

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch)
Subject: NLP Patterns for Dealing With Procrastination and Improving Self Esteem.
Originator: ehf@oscar
Keywords: NLP, Self Esteem, Procrastination.
Reply-To: ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:10:42 GMT


Perhaps someone can give me som info or point me to the appropriate literature.

1) Are there any visualization based NLP techniques for improving 
self-esteem. I've read many of the NLP books and haven't seen any specific 
pattern to deal with this.

2) Other than 6 step reframing, installing a new strategy for motivation, 
and the meta model, are there any NLP patterns specifically developed to deal
with procrastination?

Thanks ahead of time for any information.

-Eb

Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Drug and Alcohol Addiction: English study
Keywords: Cue Exposure Drug Alcohol Addiction PhD Reactivity Behaviour
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  7 Oct 92 01:05:45 GMT

A friend of mine would like to do her PhD in England. She has already
co-authored a paper and is interested in the application of cue exposure to
alcoholics. If there are any established academics over there who are
interested in cue reactivity or cue exposure or treatment for alcohol
addiction could you please email me and I will pass on the information to
her. If any of the above is tripe blame me not her as I have no idea what
any of the above actually means and am only guessing that that is what I
should say.

If alternatively someone knows of a better newsgroup to post too I would
greatly appreciate the info. A quick browse through the posts showed me few
if any British contributors and also sci.psychology seems to me to be a bit
broad. Is there a sci.psychology.behavior.modification or sci.psychiatry* or
just anything about the treatment of drug addicts? Thanks in advance.