HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:07:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Don Gallogly <EUP_DG@CWU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Anima

>==>
>==> I'm wondering if the guy who asked this list for help has found any in this
>==> rather long-winded discussion of the appropriateness and validity of Jungia
   n
>==> vs. Freudian vs. Cognitive-Behaviorist approaches.  Your conversation has
> been
>==> stimulating but, I think, not particularly useful for "the person on the
>==> street."  Huh?
>==>
>
>       True.
>
>       On the other hand, this list isn't FOR the person on the street.
>It's a discussion list for psychology graduate students.
>
>       NONE of us is qualify to offer e-mail therapy - nor would it be
>within the range of this list to do so if we were.

He only asked for a reading list, not counselling.  Many people might be
interested.


Don Gallogly
EUP_DG@CWU.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-Path: FAIGELES@fs1.psy.emory.edu
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:17:09 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         FAIGELES@FS1.PSY.EMORY.EDU
Subject:      power

Does anyone have more info on Jacob Cohen's power computer
program?

Robin
faigeles@fs1.psy.emory.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:11:30 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         GR3894@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Subject:      conference

Psycgradders,
  I was wondering if any of you will be attending the American Evaluation
Association conference this fall.  It will be November 5-8 in Seattle.  A
gang of us from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale will be going, so
if any is going, write back and maybe we all could get together.

Michael Schwerin
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
bitnet: gr3894@siucvmb
internet: gr3894@siucvmb.siu.edu
Robin Yount 3000 hits !!!!!  Go Brewers !!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Mac v1.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:04:19 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Jeff Kline <egkline@BEFAC.INDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Anima

>Mike Babyak <HOPE@UKANVM.BITNET>
>===  Subject:      Re: Anima
>
>From my view, the argument over whether Jungian pscyhology (or
>freudian for that matter) is scientific is not the point when it
>comes to effective therapy.  Both are paradigms that can provide an
>effective and useful way of making sense of one's experience,
>regardless
>of their testability in the standard scientific sense.  For me,
>therapy
>works because the client is provided a language or framework, or
>even
>belief system if you will, within which they can gain some sense of
>meaning and understanding of their lives.  In other words, the idea
>is to provide the client with reasons, not causes, for their
>experience.

Good point!

An excellent book which provides a good solid discussion of the
basis for the philosophy of science, and psychology in particular
can be found in chapters 1, 4, 8, and 12 of Rychlak's (1982)
theories of personality text.  He discusses the philosphical
underpinnings of the classic theories and personality and offers a
side glance into some of the philospophical issues involved in
research. Does an excellent explanation of syllogisms and how they
relate to scientific inquiry. The book certainly popped a number of
my very solid bubbles (also contriuted to some severe cynicism).


David Fresco states:
<I still
<maintain that telling a client that he has need for affiliation and
<social bonds (highly sociotropic) is an easier path than asking him
<to
<get in touch with his elusive feminine side (anima).

It might be easier for you to say but that does not make it easier
for the client to accept, and that to me is one of the most
important aspects of therapy. I try not to guide my therapeutic
encounters by what i find comfortable. Doing that would take away
all of the fun!

Jeff Kline

Jeff Kline: Indiana State University
InterNet: egkline@Befac.indstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA
XGW-Version: IMail SMTP Gateway v1.54 1/16/92
XGW-To:   PSYCGRAD@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:53:00 MDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Lora L. Harpster" <PSYLLH@FREUD.SBS.UTAH.EDU>
Subject:      Anima

Hi, Everybody:

     I have followed the discussion that arose from the question about anima
with a great deal of interest; the arguments have been well constructed, and
well presented.  But I do have to admit that I didn't feel quite satisfied
with what was going on, and couldn't put my finger on why I had that feeling
until I read the message that said, "he was asking for a reading list" with
the suggestion that this would be interesting to other people on the list.

     Yes, indeed, I would be VERY interested in such a list.  I teach Intro
Psych at both the University of Utah and Salt Lake Community college.  Many,
many of my students "resonate" to Jungian constructs much more than they do
to Freud, the cognitive, behavioral, or social learning approaches.  I have
to admit that I find what little I know of of Jung to be fascinating to
contemplate on a theoretical and philosophical level.  Tell me more, or tell
me where I can find more.

     Whether we can "demonstrate" the existence of the anima/animus doesn't
matter that much to me.  Most of the people I talk to and teach firmly
believe that we do, indeed, have a "masculine" and "feminine" component to
our personality, and indicate that they find it a struggle to determine what
the "proper" balance should be.  Sandra Bem's construct of the "androgynous"
person is the closest thing I've found to a person in balance with both the
feminine and masculine aspects.

     I've been told many, many times that I am a "masculine" personality.  It
always surprised me when I hear that, since I have no doubt that I also
exhibit a great many "feminine" traits as well.  But here in Utah (where I
was born and raised, and never left), and probably other places as well, for
a female to be anything other than "feminine" at all times throws us right
past "androgynous" and into perceived "masculinity".  However, I wouldn't
change me (at least in this regard) for the world.



Loree Harpster  University of Utah  PSYLLH@FREUD.SBS.UTAH.EDU
                                    PCYLHP@UTAHUSI.BITNET
                 ________
                 |      |         *************************************
                 |   *  |____     This is the place.
                 |           |                      Brigham Young
                 |           |
                 |           |    THIS is the place???
                 |           |                      Brigham's Followers
                 |___________|    *************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:07:02 -0400
Reply-To:     "Chris W. Schatschneider" <cws3@po.CWRU.Edu>
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Chris W. Schatschneider" <cws3@PO.CWRU.EDU>
Subject:      power analysis

Tim,

If you have your alpha set at .05, power at .80, and your estimates of
effect size (since you have 3 groups, you should have three estimates
of effect size -- comparing grps 1 vs 2, 1 vs 3, and 2 vs 3) you
are ready to compute for the number of subjects needed.  If you
whish to find a difference among all three groups, select the smallest
effect size estimate you have and use it.

P.S.

Jacob Cohen also has a computer  program that will calculate all of
this for you!!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:23:24 -0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "(Tor Neilands)" <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The PSYCGRAD Digest: September 13, 1992

>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>*****************************************************************
>>     4.3 Power
>>
>>From: B1H6017@TAMVENUS.BITNET (Betty Harris)
>>Subject: Power
>>Date: 11 Sep 92 14:54:00 GMT
>>
>>Here's the information that I have on the power program. :)
>>
>>Boronstein, M. & Cohen, J. (1988).  Statistical Power
>>  Analysis:  A Computer Program, Lawrence Erlbaum
>>  Assoc, Inc.
>>
>>Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Inc.
>>365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642
>>phone 201-666-4110
>>Betty
>>b1h6017@TAMVENUS
>>b1h6017@VENUS.TAMU.EDU
>>*****************************************************************
>>
>Another thing those of you who are interested in power analysis may wish to
>consider is doing said analyses with SAS or SPSS. I know for a fact that
>SAS can do power
>analyses, though it can be a bit tricky--it requires understanding the
>properties of something called the noncentrality parameter. However, if you
>have access to a local statistical consultant, you might ask him/her how to
>do your analysis in SAS or SPSS before you plonk down serious bucks for a
>seperate power analysis program that you might use once.
>
>On the other hand, the advantages of such a program is that it is
>specifically designed to do power analyses and thus is most likely easier
>to use than SAS or SPSS.
>Tor Neilands, Systems Analyst
>Statistical and Support Services
>
>Internet: TBN@Utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
>Address: Com 1
>         Mail Code 12700
>         UT Ausin
>         Austin, TX  78712
>
>" Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and
>  I...I took the road less traveled, and
>  that has made all the difference ".
>                          --- Robert Frost
>Disclaimer: All views expressed above and herein are only those of
>the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University
>of Texas, the UT Comp Center, and anyone else I've forgotten to include
>in this disclaimer.
Tor Neilands, Systems Analyst
Statistical and Support Services
                                          													              	
Internet: TBN@Utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
Address: Com 1
         Mail Code 12700
         UT Ausin
         Austin, TX  78712

" Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and
  I...I took the road less traveled, and
  that has made all the difference ".
                          --- Robert Frost
Disclaimer: All views expressed above and herein are only those of
the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University
of Texas, the UT Comp Center, and anyone else I've forgotten to include
in this disclaimer.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <HOPE@UKANVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:57:02 CDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Mike Babyak <HOPE@UKANVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Anima

From my view, the argument over whether Jungian pscyhology (or
freudian for that matter) is scientific is not the point when it
comes to effective therapy.  Both are paradigms that can provide an
effective and useful way of making sense of one's experience, regardless
of their testability in the standard scientific sense.  For me, therapy
works because the client is provided a language or framework, or even
belief system if you will, within which they can gain some sense of
meaning and understanding of their lives.  In other words, the idea
is to provide the client with reasons, not causes, for their experience.
And as Daniel Robinson (e.g. Philosophy of Psychology) points out,
an individual's reasons and the actual causes of some phenomenon may be
widely (or even wildly) divergent.  Despite this, reasons seem to do
very well in keeping humans in a state of psychological well-being,
regardless of the *true* nature of the causes.

The psychology part, for me, comes in trying to understand how or why
reasons can be as good as causes.  Or in other words, the domain
of psychology for me is to understand the nature of understanding.


This is my own private view of why outcome studies often show that
no one mode of therapy is particularly more effective than another.
(See for example, Stiles, Shapiro & Elliot. 1986 Am. Psychologist,
41, 165-180 or Lambert, Garfield, & bergin (1986) in Garfield and Bergin. .

An additional thought.  this discussion seem to have used the criterion
of being scientific as a touchstone for evaluating the worth of an idea.
People seem to get defensive when you accuse them of being non-scientific.
Four points concerning this:
 One, standard science is only one way of understanding the world, and it
certainly haas not been established that it is the best way with respect to
human experience. Second, definitions of science vary greatly such that
any argument about something  being scientific or not is problematic.
Third, standard science is not necessarily a rational pursuit (check
out the literature on the sociology or anthropology of science).
(or better yet, ask yourself if your belief about the Rorshach
is consistent with the scientific psychometric evidence)
Finally, even if it were the most rational method, does this guarantee
that it is the most valuable?
Post-modern ramblings from the home of dustbowl empiricism, with apologies,
MIKE BABYAK UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS         *THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME*
HOPE@UKANVM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:22:05 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Remo Ostini <rxo868@CSCGPO.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      RE: Morality

It is interesting that both Hobbes and Freud take the view that society
imposes morality on "brutish" human nature.  My understanding is that
the similarities are pretty superficial though.  Hobbes was about natural
law theory  while Freud was about psychodynamic theory.  Their idea that
morality is imposed by society is pretty popular in certain circles these
days as well.

I'm more interested in looking at how decision making and concept formation
affect the moral structures that people develop and how they use their
moral concepts.

Remo.


Remo Ostini 		       *  rxo868@huxley.anu.edu.au
NCEPH, ANU		       *  "Morality is a vast and inescapable
GPO Box 4, 		       *  conspiracy in which we all participate."
Canberra  ACT 2601, Australia  *  				- Norma Haan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:04:21 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Remo Ostini <rxo868@CSCGPO.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      RE: Anima

Rich writes:

>Rick, you seemed to have dismissed the constructs called id, ego, and superego.
>You did this on the basis of never having felt them or recognized them in your
>own behavior (guiding it that is).  Are you not aware of your own morals and
>standards, as well as your sexual and aggressive urges?  I hope so, or else
>you should check your pulse or see your therapist.  Although these terms
>aren't used in academic psychology, you'll find research on morality and on
>self-regulation/gratification (Mischel) which is just changing the names.

I think you'll find that it was actually David who wrote this, but that's not
the reason I wanted to reply to this paragraph.  I really just wanted to get
in some cheap advertising for my particular research interest by pointing out
that there are actually several researchers (even in "Academic Psychology")
who do in fact research Morality as such; as well as those who prefer to
use terms like prosocial behaviour and self-regulation.

It's a fascinating area!

Remo (trying not to sound too biased in favour of what is really a tremendous
      area for research...  Woops!)




Remo Ostini 		       *  rxo868@huxley.anu.edu.au
NCEPH, ANU		       *  "Morality is a vast and inescapable
GPO Box 4, 		       *  conspiracy in which we all participate."
Canberra  ACT 2601, Australia  *  				- Norma Haan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:35:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Kathryn Irene Snyder" <IRENES@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Anima

What was it Spock said? "Logic is only a part of wisdom?" Something
like that.
Following with great interest,
Irene
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: TCHRISTEN01
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:25:12 +0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         TCHRISTEN01@CC.CURTIN.EDU.AU
Subject:      MacPsych-L address query?

Greetings,

A recent post Originally-From: "RICHARD S. LEHMAN" <R_LEHMAN@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
and Resent-From: <RJHARRIS@KSUVM> Dated Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:00:00 CDT,
talked about the MACPSYCH-L.

>MacPsych. This is just what the name suggests. Software, hints, help, etc. for
<academic psychologists using the Mac. They also have a growing archive of
>useful things.To subscribe, send a note to MACPSYCH-REQUEST@STOLAF.EDU asking
>to join up.

In trying to subscribe to MacPsych, I have received many undelivered mail
messages.  I suspect that the address given in the post may not be correct.
Can a Psycgrad subscriber who has joined this list please forward an
alternative address.  Thank you for your help.

Steven Christensen
School of Psychology,
Curtin University of Technology,
Perth, Western Australia,
Internet:	CHRISTENSEN_SA@cc.curtin.edu.au
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:06:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Don Gallogly <EUP_DG@CWU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Anima

I'm wondering if the guy who asked this list for help has found any in this
rather long-winded discussion of the appropriateness and validity of Jungian
vs. Freudian vs. Cognitive-Behaviorist approaches.  Your conversation has been
stimulating but, I think, not particularly useful for "the person on the
street."  Huh?

Don Gallogly
EUP_DG@CWU.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:38:33 HST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Denise Lajoie <DLAJOIE@UHUNIX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Anima

Loree,
    I recommend a book by Jean Shinoda Bolen entitled "Goddesses in
Everywoman" and I apologize that I don't have the reference here.  I usedit
as a supplental text for the course Psychology of Women.  Also of interest is
a nice book by Sherry Ruth Anderson and Patricia Hopkins entitled the
"Feminine Face of God."  I think it's a must read for both men and women.  It
certainly raised a lot of questions within my own experience.

   Aloha, Denise

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Denise H. Lajoie
Department of Psychology  To study psychology is to study the self.
University of Hawaii      To study the self is to forget the self.
2430 Campus Road          To forget the self is to be enlightened
Honolulu, HI 96822         by all things."   --reformulation of
                                               Zen aphorism.
(808) 956-8414 Voice
(808) 956-4700 Fax                              \_l_/
                                                  l
Bitnet: dlajoie@uhunix.bitnet                     l
Internet: dlajoie@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:05:07 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Remo Ostini <rxo868@CSCGPO.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Morality

David,

Before I get myself in too much trouble, I'd like to clear up what connection
you would like my opinion on.  Do you mean the connection between Freud and
Hobbes?  What do you mean by "this comparative notion".  Sorry for being so
obtuse but I just want to make sure I answer the right question.

As for the relevance of any of what you talked about to the research I
recently plugged, I'd have to say it is not closely related.  Freud isn't
any more popular in mainstream academic research into morality than he is in
other areas of academia.  Nor do classical philosophers get much of a look
in.  The prevailing paradigm in morality research over the past twenty years
or so has been a cognitive developmental model based on some of Piaget's
work and extended by such people as Kohlberg and Rest.  I personally have
lots of problems with this model and that is partly what will drive my PhD
research.  I should point out that the cognitive developmental model is not
the only model used in morality research, but it certainly has been dominant
until recent times.

As for Hobbes, I have to admit that I am not as well versed in his Ideas as
I ought to be (despite owning a copy of Leviathan).  But for what it's worth,
I find his idea of the state of human nature to be speculative and
unsubstantiated (and probably unable to be substantiated or refuted).  Nor do
I find his ideas of how and why society come together to be convincing.  What
Hobbes has convinced me of is that his writings represent the natural
frustration of a man who has seen his country wracked by civil war and who
wants a decent monarch to come and put the situation under some sort of control
again.  I find Hume's ideas on the basis of morality to be far more
intriguing.

I have a feeling that this has had nothing to do with your question.  Could
you clarify it for me?

Remo (four days to D-day)


Remo Ostini 		       *  rxo868@huxley.anu.edu.au
NCEPH, ANU		       *  "Morality is a vast and inescapable
GPO Box 4, 		       *  conspiracy in which we all participate."
Canberra  ACT 2601, Australia  *  				- Norma Haan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"psycgrad@uottawa"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:29:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         ADLIN@UTKVX.BITNET
Subject:      re:anima

I think the answer to this debate on whether it is necessary to use constructs
like the anima, rests on the fact that theory is metaphor.  The theories that
we apply to phenomena (including constructs), are only model of reality, not
reality.  They are useful ways of understanding reality, though.  The use
of constructs like anima, on a theoretical level, however, entails a number of
assumptions that other explanations may do away with.  In considering the
clinical utility of constructs such as the anima, I'm not sure it is
particularly helpful that a patient integrate particular constructs such as
the anima.  I'm sure it is just as helpful to assist a client in becoming
more acquiescent (whatever qualities may be associated with the feminine
archetype, acquiescence was just for example's sake), WITHOUT providing them
with the assumptions that go along with the anima.  It has just occurred to me,
however, that the assumptions that go along with such constructs are kind of
like beliefs; it's as if the client is provided with a religion, which is
what some client's might need - a narrative, if you like that helps them make
sense of the self within the world and universe.  Although this seems to be
potentially therapeutic, I would feel uncomfortable providing my client with
a "religion."  By the way, I'm not making any purposeful association between
religion and Jungian theory in particular.  I could be making the same
statement about other psychodynamic theories.
        I hope what is most impressive is that we consider the theories we use
as models, or metaphors of reality, not the truth.  That is something that is
difficult for me to deal with.

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