HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:11:55 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tim Tumlin <UFTRT@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's the Beef? ( Common Sense etc.)
              11 Dec 1992 23:28:09 -0500 from <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>

Thanks for that story, Eric.  I would be surprised at anyone who was such
a snob as to begin to argue with me that psychology is not a true science.
I can understand the concern that psych says things that people think
they already know, but someone in the sciences who seriously gets snooty
about this really needs to get a life.  Maybe you should tell them their
religion sucks.
Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:45:40 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushisms & Quale Quotes

Tammy, don't forget to check out the phobias too!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 34 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 (beta-1)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:20:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      RE: let's hear some opinions

>     I'm not clear on what exactly it is that people would find objectionable
>about doing stats for someone else.  Ultimately, it is the doctoral
>candidate's responsibility to conduct his/her research as he/she sees fit.
>     Would this be any more reprehensible than paying a translator? Or a
>typist?  Or a consultant about a specific aspect of the reserach project that
>one is not as adept at?  Is the premise that as researchers-in-training we
>are to do everything?

>Well, based on that, I imagine that we should be able to option out of
>multivariate analysis, or any other mandatory stats course, if we can
>demonstrate competence at hiring statisticians and statistical consultants.
>I always thought that the dissertation meant that you were to provide
>a significant contribution to science (not you and a team of other people).

Whoa Matthew!
    Nobody said anything about optioning out of/cheating in any
mandatory/elective stats courses!  The discussion was about getting someone
to do the stats for someone else's research project.  I still don't
understand how this may be worse than getting a translartor (no, I'm not
advocating to option out of mandatory foreign languages) when your research
demands it (cross-cultural research, e.g.).
     What about those graduate students that do not have access to more
advanced stats courses in their programs?  Are they supposed to do only
what they know how to do, and run t-tests ad nauseam?  Statistical skill
alone does not make someone a good researcher, and it seems somewhat
fraternity-like (you know, "if we went through it, by golly, they should go
through it too") to demand that every person do absolutely everything for
their dissertation.  Nangel
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:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:30:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Another Hippocampus Question

Eric,

        I would appreciate any refs. for the discussions of
which you speak.
        --Kathy Morgan

>there are more recent discussions
>of the hippocapmus as a route for fast negative feedback to
>the PVN of the
>hypothalamus from the adrenals).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:56:11 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         jlbugg@UCCS.EDU
Subject: Re:

To Tor and Sunni,  though I wonder if either of you are listening in
ovr break:  thanks for your caretaking but I don't feel imugned (sp),
but rather, challenged.  It so nice to have friends. Jen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:31:45 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: authorship

You have a very nice supervisor, Tammy.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RICHINSP
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:04:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Philip Richins, Continuing Education, CWU,
              (509) 963-1504" <RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Stats & Therapists

Tim
SAYBROOK is accredited.  I also would not go to a non-accredited program.
SAYBROOK, like many other programs, is not APA accredited.  APA accreditation is
not something that I feel particularly important.  As I said previously, I feel
that APA accreditation is self serving.  It is very similar to the moves made
by the other APA (American PSYCHIATRIC Assoc.) earlier in the century, when they
were trying to define for psychologist the limits of the psychological
profession.  The other APA wanted psychologist to be test administrator and
write interpretations for real psychotherapists, IE psychiatrists.  Imagine what
richness the field of psychotherapy would have lost if the other APA had been
successful.  Our APA, in my opinion, should not be involved in accreditation.
That should be left to the regional and national accreditation associactions.

Philip
RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET

Working at Central Washington University
Studying at SAYBROOK INSTITUTE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet
X-VMS-To: in%"apsscnet@mcgill1.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: in%"psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:31:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      FWD: Jobs and Postdocs in Neuroscience

From:   IN%"primate-talk@primate.wisc.edu"    14-DEC-1992 16:35
To:     IN%"primate-talk@primate.wisc.edu"
CC:
Subj:   NeuroNews

Return-path: <primate-talk-request@primate.wisc.edu>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by WHEATNMA.BITNET (PMDF #12667) id
 <01GSB9J0UOFC00096A@WHEATNMA.BITNET>; Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:35
EDT
Received: From WISCMACC(MAILSINK) by WHEATNMA with Jnet id 4351
for
 KMORGAN@WHEATNMA; Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:35 EST
Received: from uakari.primate.wisc.edu by wigate.nic.wisc.edu;
Mon,
 14 Dec 92 15:33 CDT
Received: by uakari.primate.wisc.edu; id AA02768; 5.61/41.7;
Mon,
 14 Dec 92 15:23:48 -0600
Received: by uakari.primate.wisc.edu; id AA02763; 5.61/41.7;
Mon,
 14 Dec 92 15:23:47 -0600
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:23:47 -0600
From: Larry Jacobsen <jacobsen@primate.wisc.edu>
Subject: NeuroNews
To: primate-talk@primate.wisc.edu
Errors-to: black-hole@primate.wisc.edu
Reply-to: primate-talk@primate.wisc.edu
Message-id: <9212142123.AA02763@uakari.primate.wisc.edu>
Precedence: bulk

Source:  NEURONEWS AND VIEWS 3(9): 2, 1992

FUNDINGS WATCH:  McDonnell-Pew Program in Cognitive Neuroscience
Individual Grants-in-Aid for Research and Training:
Preference for research grants is given to projects that are
interdisciplinary in character. Support is limited to $30,000
per year for two years. Training grants consist of postdoctoral
stipends limited to $30,000 per year for three years. Highest
priority is given to candidates seeking postdoctoral training
outside the field of their previous training. Both grants are
nonrenewable and applications are due by February 1, 1993.
For more information contact McDonnell-Pew Program in
Cognitive Neuroscience, Green Hall 1-N-6, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1010, (609) 258-5014

POSITIONS AVAILABLE:  Assistant Professor: The Department of
Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania School of
Medicine
seeks candidates for a tenure-track position in systems
neurobiology. Areas of research interest from small ensembles of
neurons up to the behaving primate will be considered.
Candidates
should send a c.v., statement of research interests, and three
references to: Dr. Brian M. Salzberg, Systems Neuroscience
Search, Department of Neuroscience, 215 Stemmler Hall,
University
of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-
6074.
Deadline: January 15. 1993.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:26:37 -0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tor Neilands <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: let's hear some opinions

Julie writes:

>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!

No kidding. Couldn't agree more, not only because I believe that .05 is a
pretty arbitrary cutoff (viva descriptive stats forever!), but because in
some model fitting circumstances one actually wants to obtain a chi-square
value with p>.05 (if one buys into the p-value "thang" in the first place).
In this case, the null hyp. is that the model the researcher hypothesizes
to fit the data in fact fit the obtained data. If p<.05, that's "bad"
because the model was a bad enough fit to the obtained data to result in a
rejection of the null. I mention this because my factor analysis instructor
brought this up with stories he'd heard from journal editors who get
manuscripts from authors who are "excited that their chi-square p-values
are less than .05, thereby lending support to their predicted model(s)
fitting the data"...poor fools...talk about carrying the worship of p<.05
too far...


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:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:21:39 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Jason Evan Mihalko <WC5BB@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Someone else's stats expertise
              12 Dec 1992 11:17:13 -0500 from <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>

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
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, 18 Dec 1992 12:14:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Not scientific enough

>I think the statement reflected the bias of the individual
>and we can't leap to what it means for NIH as a whole...of
>course they fund such research...


        Actually, NIH spends less than 10% of their funding
budget on behavioral science research--so NIH reps said at the
Behavioral Summits.
--Kathy Morgan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:58:26 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: let's hear some opinions
              11 Dec 1992 15:20:00 PST from <lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU>

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:20:00 PST <lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU> said:
>>Well, based on that, I imagine that we should be able to option out of
>>multivariate analysis, or any other mandatory stats course, if we can
>>demonstrate competence at hiring statisticians and statistical consultants.
>>I always thought that the dissertation meant that you were to provide
>>a significant contribution to science (not you and a team of other people).
>
>Whoa Matthew!
>    Nobody said anything about optioning out of/cheating in any
>mandatory/elective stats courses!  The discussion was about getting someone
>to do the stats for someone else's research project.  I still don't

Well, I said something about it.  Don't you think those courses are mandatory
for a reason?  They are supposed to provide you with enough stats to
be able to do the dissertation.  However, if "enough stats" = "enough $$'s
to hire a statistician," then why not change the nature of the mandatory
courses?  We could say the students would either have to take multivariate
stats or advanced consultant hiring.  Of course I'm being facetious.

>alone does not make someone a good researcher, and it seems somewhat
>fraternity-like (you know, "if we went through it, by golly, they should go
>through it too") to demand that every person do absolutely everything for
>their dissertation.  Nangel

By golly, you are absolutely right!  There are two types of Ph.D.'s: those
who did their own work, and those who hired others to do the work for them;
Those who got their hands dirty, and those who acted as the foreman; Those
who know the ropes, and those who couldn't do squat if statisticians were
not for hire.

Facetiously yours,
Matthew

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:50:02 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         ECO_GXC@SHSU.BITNET
Subject: Re: authorship

Someone asked, "What do you all think of grad students who are paid (eg,
work study) then expect (and have sometimes gotten) authorship on a poster
or paper?"

What difference does it make if they are paid or not?  Shouldn't any
contribution to the research be acknowledged? I think so.
Margaret

???????????????????  I must be missing something here.  As students,
we do research as a learning experience, to learn how to do research.
I thought we wanted to learn this so that we could do it for a living,
to get paid for it?  Authorship is a way to demonstrate that you
did quality research.  The point is not the authorship, the point is
to do the research and get paid for it.  So, when a graduate student
gets paid for research they are just a little ahead of the game -- pay
certainly doesn't preclude authorship.  ----- Gary
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:44:50 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's the Beef? ( Common Sense etc.)

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:54:00 EDT <KMORGAN@WHEATNMA> said:
>More beef from Kathy Morgan:
>Tim asks "have people out there really been told that
>psychology is not a real science?  I mean at parties or in
>arguments on street corners or something?
>
>No--much worse than that.  Try department meetings and campus-
>wide faculty meetings, and try casual conversations in the hall
>outside of the President's office  (the college president, that
>is!  ;)  )
>
>        Half of my own faculty does not think Psychology is a
>science!

I'm sorry Kathy, I'm having a hard time believing you.  Could you
provide a detailed example of the data from which you arive at this
conclusion?  So far, I cannot picture the occation where people in
departmental meetings or campus-wide faculty meetings would say,
"Psychology is not a real science."

Could you please give us an example?

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:46:35 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Common sense
              12 Dec 1992 14:28:25 GMT from <jmw1@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK>

Julie, if I wanted to change someone's common sense theory about
asthma (I don't care about asthma as much as the technique of change),
how would I go about doing this?  How do I define the common sense theory?
What do I focus on when I am proposing change with a client?

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:03:00 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's the Beef? ( Common Sense etc.)

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:20:00 EDT <KMORGAN@WHEATNMA> said:
>On 14 December Matthew Simpson writes:
>>I'm sorry Kathy, I'm having a hard time believing you.  Could
>>you provide a detailed example of the data from which you
>>arive at this conclusion?  So far, I cannot picture the
>>occation where people in departmental meetings or campus-wide
>>faculty meetings would say, "Psychology is not a real science."
>>Could you please give us an example?
>
>Sheesh, I can't believe this.....but okay.  How about this?  In
>my department, students can take any one of five different
>intro psych courses:  Psychology as a Natural Science,
>Psychology as a Natural Science, Zen and Western Psychology,
>Maddness and Melancholia, and Intro to Experimental Psychology.
>Either one of these "meets" the intro requirement for the
>major. Two of them are distinctly "unempirical."  When I first
>came here, I once mentioned to the chair that I felt
>uncomfortable teaching "Psychology as a Natural Science," and
>in fact, felt uncomfortable about "Psychology as a Social
>Science,"too, since to me all of psychology was a science, and
>the implication was otherwise in all of these course titles.
>He looked at me aghast and said, "Well, there are some in this
>department who would seriously disagree with you."

In this example, the director is explaining that there are many
people who would disagree with your assertion that all of psychology
is science, right?  I don't see him making the assertion that
psychology is not a real science.  Saying that not all psychology is
science is not the same as saying that none of psychology is science
(or psychology is not a real science).

>PS--Is it just me, or does everyone get their personal
>experiences challenged on this net?

Oh, common.  It's not as if I'm asking you for a definition
of an impossible term.

The only reason I'm asking for specific examples is because
the entire proposal that the public sees psychology as not being
a real science seems a bit vague.  And as we see in the example
above, the confusion gets weeded out when we look at specific
examples.  Sorry if I have offended anyone.

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:47:31 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Margaret Joppa <joppa@PSYCH.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Re: authorship

Someone asked, "What do you all think of grad students who are paid (eg,
work study) then expect (and have sometimes gotten) authorship on a poster
or paper?"

What difference does it make if they are paid or not?  Shouldn't any
contribution to the research be acknowledged? I think so.
Margaret
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:35:23 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Sunni <bjreilman@UCCS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushisms & Quale Quotes

Rob, I am going to show my ignorance now, so what is the Turing Test and
I will tell you if they have passed it. Sunni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU