HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 12:34:17 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Good Vitae for Grad School?
              24 Aug 1992 22:18:32 -0600 from <langston@MEMSTVX1.MEMST.EDU>

On Mon, 24 Aug 1992 22:18:32 -0600 Mark C. Langston said:
>
>  What is everyone's opinion on what an average vitae should look like for
>a student just entering an experimental psych grad program?
>
>(you know...basically, what are average accomplishments, what would make a
> really outstanding vitae in terms of accomplishments)
>

Straight A's
A B.A. or B.S. with special merits
A double major (psychology and another)
At least 2 publications (1 journal article and 1 book)
An honors thesis
Computer programming in Pascal and C++
Fluency in more than one language
Near perfect GRE scores
Ability to type more than 100 words per minute
And advanced special technical skills in specialty area

(Anything less than this, consult the APA Publication
_APA Guide to Graduate School: Not for Seniors Only_.)

Have fun!
Matthew Simpson

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:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:53:11 MDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         std_martin@HG.ULETH.CA
Subject:      RE: trapping

I think that some of you have missed my point entirely.  To
divorce yourself from the ideas you hold as an intellectual
has nothing to do with divorcing yourself from your work.

It is in the ration discussion of ideas that you must seperate
yourself from the views you hold.  To be proved wrong reflects
nothing on me as a person, or for that matter anyone else.
The problem comes with people who can't seperate themselves
from what they hold as ideas (*believe* if you will).

To hold to an idea in the face of good solid evidence says
to me that we arn't discussing something in an intellectual
atmosphere, but are hammering at each others beliefs, and
beliefs aren't usually shaken in any single discussion, or
even for many discussions.

If you find yourself bristling at what someone else is saying
(unless it involves politics, religion or Freudian...  :-))
maybe you are *wrapping* yourself up too much in what you
are learning.

If nothing else, all of us should have learned by now that
rarely, if ever, do *facts* ever stand for all that long
and to approach discussion in a compromising manner serves
noone and advances knowledge little, if at all.

Sorry for the rather rambling note, but that's what I have
to say.

Jesse    std_martin@hg.uleth.ca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:50:47 HST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Denise Lajoie <DLAJOIE@UHUNIX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: APA Report
X-To:         "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNE>

Sharon,
   I was RIGHT beside the "statue" model!  And Loree and I stood right near
there for awhile! How did we miss each other?
  Anyway, I can say that Loree and I DID connect and had a wonderful time.
It felt as if we have know each other forever.  I thank Matthew and PSYCGRAD
for that . .  Aloha, Denise

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
                                         \ /
Denise H. Lajoie                        - 0 -
Department of Psychology            ~ ~  ~  ~  ~ ~
University of Hawaii at Manoa      ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~
2430 Campus Road                  "The nature of Reality must be
Honolulu, HI  96822                known through one's own clear
                                   spiritual perception; it cannot
                                   be known through a
                                   pandit."   --Shankara

          Bitnet: dlajoie@uhunix.bitnet
          Internet: dlajoie@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:04:10 -0400
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Kenneth V. White" <kwhite@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Fuzzies and Medications

Two thoughts.

About the medication, I think it sounds great in theory, but as someone
who's dabbled in psychoneuropharmacology, I would imagine that such training,
be it pre- or post-doctorally, would entail at the bare minimum of one
additional year of coursework.  Since the average clinical program is 5
years "in theory," and more like 6 in practicality (APA Guide to Graduate
Programs in Psychology, 1992, for all you reference nuts), I doubt this is
going to gain wide-spread acceptance.  Something would have to give, but
what?  Therapy courses?  Assessment?  Stats?  Methods?  A post-doc special-
ization in pharmacology might be a possibility, but again, we're talking
about mucho time in supervised training.  As for stepping on the toes of
psychiatry, this is seen by many to already be in a state of serious
tension.  Ironically, from discussions I've had with psychiatrists at
NIH, many got out of medical school with only one or two courses specifically
in psychopharmacology;  if this does go, who knows?  We might just have an
edge on training, in addition to the one on compassion (JUST KIDDING!!!)

Second, this talk of psychology being "fuzzy" is quite curious to me.  I
sense that many have the impression that not much "hard" research is being
done on emotions ("moods," "feelings," "affect," choose your nomenclature).
This is not the case at all.  In fact, one of the hottest areas in health
psychology and clinical research, is in psychoneuroimmunology -- the study
of psychological states of mind on the immune system.  Check out Seligman,
Langer, Rodin, Sheldon Cohen, Michael Antoni, and Andrew Baum, to name
a few.  These folks are looking at emotions, laughter, "cognitive framing,"
"mindfulness," friendship, joy, etc. and each's impact on the body.  Much
is also underway with AIDS, Cancer, and Heart Disease (Type A research,
for instance) as they relate to ... well, our subjective fuzziness, for
lack of a better expression.  In fact, a symposium at APA by Cohen, Antoni,
and Baum, on the effects of stress, emotions, and social support (i.e.,
friends) in HIV-positive people even made it to CNN.  Heck, that has to
be worth something, right?

- Kenn in College Park
(kwhite@wam.umd.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:16:13 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Stephanie Fishkin <fishkin@ALUDRA.USC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: please give address
X-To:         PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@VM.usc.edu
              Aug 25, 92 12:23 pm

Sorry Matthew, but that's not the case.  I see "From Matthew Simpson" on
my header.  The only way I know how to contact you directly is to look at
your "sig" at the bottom.  BTW, your header is not the only one that
does this.

*******************************************************************************
Stephanie Fishkin, Dept. of Psychology, USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061
fishkin@aludra.usc.edu

             x x     x
                x    x     x x
                  x  x    x
                   x x x x
                     x
                     x
                     x

"Truth happens to an idea.  It becomes true, is made true by events." W. James
*******************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:56:27 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Tim Tumlin <UFTRT@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Stats: Power Analysis
              2 Sep 1992 15:17:53 -0400 from <dhughes@NOVAVAX.NOVA.EDU>

  Dawn,
  Thanks for volunteering to help. Since a couple of people showed some
interest in this, I'll keep the question in the public eye (maybe I should
mask this problem by saying "this friend of mine has this problem, you
see...").
  My project is a treatment-outcome study involving three conditions:
A. Experimental group getting the therapy for depression, B. A social-
support group run by a social service agency (The AMerican Cancer
Society) and C. A wait-list control group.
  Most of my knowledge on this comes from Jacob Cohen's A Power Primer,
Psych Bull., 1992, Vol. 112, 155-159. This is his version of Power
Analysis for Compleat Idiots.
  The question is how many subject do I need to have for a three-group
comparison. I realize that this is determined by:
1. The significance criterion I wish to use (and let's give me a break
   and make it .05 -- I wanna get out of grad school some day).
2. The statistical power of a significance test -- which I think Cohen
   typically likes at .80.
3. The effect size, Cohen says,is the hardest to figure, which is right
in my case.As he says, I need to have some idea of the effect size
preferably from previous research, which I do. I have a study that
is almost exactly what I'm doing, but with different populations. I
have from that study means on the difference between the three groups
following the treatment. But I don't know how to turn that into an
effect size. Once I know the effect size, I THINK I can plug it into
the equations/examples he provides.
   Is that enough to go on so far?
Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet
X-VMS-To: @PSYCGRAD
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:55:57 -0500
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was
From:         "Was mich nicht umbringt,
              macht mich starker" <12SHARDY@GALLUA.BITNET>
Subject:      APA Convention accessibility

Hello fellow Grads,

        I (with a deaf colleague) am drafting a letter to the APA about
accessibility issues related to the recent convention.  We have also
offered to set up training workshops for the APA office on working with
deaf and hard of hearingindividuals.

        I am wondering if there are other people out there in
vaxland that have special needs that where not met during the convention.

If so please contact me so that we can work together to improve things for
Toronto in 1993.

        Thanks

Steve

Gallaudet University
Washington, DC
12SHARDY@GALLUA.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.ST-AND; 26 AUG 92  9:44:28 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:43:27 BST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Julie Marie Williams <jmw1@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: discussion versus "trapping"

I agree totally, Nancy.

Julie
St Andrews
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:39:39 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      We are married!

Many of you may remember several months ago when Monika Trzcinska
and I, Matthew Simpson, were announced to become married on August
29, 1992.  This data has come and gone and now we are married.
I am pleased to tell you all that the wedding was out of this
world!  During the ceremonies and the parties, we had more fun
than I knew to be possible.  I highly recommend small ceremonies
and receptions.  The atmosphere is very intimate.

We both are now moving into our new apartment together.  What a
move!  Then we are off for the honeymoon.  We'll be gone until
the 14th.  Until see you all here again, Have Fun!

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
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:54:57 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anima
X-To:         PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU
              92 7:28 pm

==> Regrets about your sense of hopelessness and I think ascertaining the
==> etiology of your relationship woes could make for an appropriate
==> discussion. But I for one would not stop at "your anima" as an adequate
==> explanation for your difficulties.  Jungian psychology, while it's
==> entertaining, is not very helpful in explaining much of anything.

	That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

	As it happens, I've done quite a bit of work with Jungian
psychology, both theoretical and applied (yep, there's one in every group)
and while I certainly wouldn't want to be limited to only a Jungian
approach, I _have_ found it to have a number of positive attributes.

	Given the wide diversity of psychological sub-fields and approaches,
it's a bit condescending to refer to any particular approach as
"entertaining," isn't it?

	The Anima refers to the "feminine" aspect of the overall
personality. Jung believed that every individual had both masculine and
feminine aspects (the Anima and the Animus, respectively), and that
suppression of those aspects resulted in (at the least) difficulties in
dealing with members of the opposite sex - as well as problems dealing with
ones own identity.

	Without going in to Jungian theory to any extent, it should be
fairly obvious that this concept (which I just presented in a manner Jung
would have shuddered to read) has a valid applicability to many areas of
psychology. Certainly, if an individual suppresses their "opposite gender"
aspects (and I won't eve TRY to define what those would be, except to say
that Jung was not that far from current thinking with respect to the
differences between male and female brain function and problem solving
approaches), as is true of any form of suppressed response, problems will
result. Whether, of course, the original poster DOES in fact have a problem
with his Anima is not something that could be determined by the information
in the message. It _is_ a viable posibility (from the Jungian perspective),
given the sketchy information in the message - as are no more than two or
three hundred other explanations!

	Lighten up a bit on the Jungians - they could be worse, after all -
they could be _behaviorists_!

	;-)


--
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Open and affordable public access to the
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:53:12 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Trapping is Male?
              26 Aug 1992 18:42:18 MDT from <std_martin@HG.ULETH.CA>

On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:42:18 MDT <std_martin@HG.ULETH.CA> said:
>If anyone out
>there can't divorce themselves from the ideas they hold, they
>maybe shouldn't be in an intellectual field. (hope none
>of you clinical types are offended :-))
>
What is in this that might be found to be offending to clinical
types?

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
X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RICHINSP
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:30:00 PST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Philip Richins, Continuing Education, CWU,
              (509) 963-1504" <RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET>
Subject:      Warm fuzzy science

I am sure that this will stimulate some memory of the discussion from
earlier this summer re: the philosophy of science, but I cannot let the
chance go by.

Tor Neilands sent, in pat
 I think in western
science there is an implicit value system that says, "Separate your
political and moral concerns and feelings from your intellect when you
do your work". In sometimes desperately trying to emulate its hard
science big brothers, psychology and psychologists can sometimes be
prone to this type of belief--in fact, I've noticed that research
psychologists are particularly reactive to the idea that they do
anything that can be classified as "warm and fuzzy".
I think that's a real shame because  (and here again my own bias
creeps into things) I think we can learn a lot about human behavior from
our own feelings, just as we can in a different way from intellectualizi
g human behavior.

rather "in PART"

It was in reaction to this attempt to emulate the natural sciences that
Humanistic Psychology was founded.  The Exisitential, phenomenolocial,
transpersonal (and others ) psychologies attempt to do research without
losing the point of view that there is something to be learned about
humans from human feelings, values and experience.

Bugental (in the forward to Existenial-Phenomenological Perspectives in
Psychology, 1985) wrote "To be sure, quantification is a powerful tool,
selectively employed, but too often it has been made into an executioner's
axe to deny actuallity to all that does not yeild to its procrustean
demands.
        The objectivist view of psychology is very like the precolumbiam view
of the world;  It regards all that is not familiar as dangerous, mythical or
non-existant.  The whole western hemisphere of human life, the subjective, is
thus feared, treated as illusory, or denied."

I realize that I am being species specific here, but humans are MY area of
interest/study.

To save time, I am not against objective research.  I just don't accept that
it the only way to find valid infromation.

Skinner in "Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior?"American
    Psychologist,(1987) vol 42. p.780-786 offers some attacks on viewpoints that
value inner experience.  That might serve as a beginning for discussion.

Phil   RICHINSP@CWU.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:05:01 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Michelle Bengtson <bengtson@PSY.PSYCH.NOVA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Any News From So. Florida?
              at Aug 27, 92 7:38 am

Hi Guys,
Those of us in Broward and North Dade counties are fine.....south Dade
was hit BAAAAAD!!  My in-laws live down there and suffered a great deal.
And they weren't even as far south as the worst of the devastation.  It
is incredible how people are pulling together though.  But I was amazed
when my husband and I attempted to get down to them yesterday (a week
later) and couldn't tell where we were at times because all the familiar
landmarks are just gone.  Very sad.

But thanks for your concern.  If you have relief efforts inoperation in
your area, please encourage others to help out no matter how small...they
need anything they can get their hands on!!  Thanks for them.


Michelle Bengtson
bengtson@psy.psych.nova.edu

 -------------------------------------------
|*Life is not a matter of holding good cards|
| but of playing a poor hand well.*         |
 -------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.ST-AND; 27 AUG 92  9:45:58 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:44:56 BST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Julie Marie Williams <jmw1@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: discussion versus "trapping"

It was me who wrote the section you quoted, Matthew.  I have three comments
in response to your reply:

1)  No, I did not feel "excited" at your response (for what it's worth) :-)

2)  The tone that sometimes appears in peoples' messages (pinpointing no
specific ones, of course) is definitely gloating, by my definition.

3)  You seem to have missed the point - I am not against people having
differing points of view and thus engaging in sensible debate.  Nor am I
against those who, even though they admit to agreeing with the other
person, point out a differing point of view that others may have (labelling
it as such).  What I _am_ against are those who deliberately _pretend_ to
have the opposite point of view when in fact they don't, just to antagonise
and provoke heated debate.
   For example, I used to have a flatmate who would deliberately always
disagree with everything one said (i _know_ he didn't always believe in what
he was saying- nobody could possibly hold so many controversial views and
besides, he has been heard to argue vehemently for opposing points of view
on different occasions)  This, as you may guess, eventually became immensely
annoying to all of us.  I'm sure many of you will be familiar with this sort
of person.
   Arguing that black is white is a very different thing from pointing out
that there are people in the world who _believe_ that black is white, if
you yourself happen to believe that black and white are two totally separate
things.

Julie
St Andrews
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:04:02 CDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         C150630@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: please give address

Oops!
*******************************************
*Pollyana Brown                           *
*Bitnet: C150630@MIZZOU1                   *
*Internet: C150630@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU    *
*Dept. Educational & Counseling Psychology*
*University of Missouri-Columbia          *
*Columbia, MO 65211                       *
*******************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU