HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Original-To:  circplus@mento.oit.unc.edu, WEST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:52:00 EST
              <CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         WEST%XAVIER.BitNet@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU
Subject:      Circulation policies for faculty and staff

Hello from Alice West, Circulation Supervisor at Xavier University in Cincinnati
Ohio.  I am doing a survey on behalf of out Library Director.

We are having difficulty in retrieving books back from some of our faculty
members.  At present, we allow semester-long checkouts to faculty and staff of
the university, with no overdue charges and unlimited renewals.  Subsequently,
there are many books that we haven't seen in years!

Since faculty support for the library is vital at Xavier (as I suppose it must
be at most universities) we are wondering how other schools have handled this
touchy problem.

        1.      Do you limit loan periods? renewals? - to what length?

        2.      Do you bill faculty for lost or way overdue books?
                If so - do you bill the faculty member? their department? or - ?

        3.      Have you ever revoked a faculty members library privileges?

I am particularly interested in hearing about any repercussions that you may
have experienced.

           ____________________________________________
          |    Alice West (WEST@XAVIER.BITNET)         |
          |    Daytime Circulation Supervisor          |
          |    Xavier University Libraries             |
          |    3800 Victory Parkway                    |
          |    Cincinnati, OH   45207-5211             |
          |    PHONE: 513-745-3882/FAX: 513-745-1932   |
          |____________________________________________|

          XX  XX   A  VV     VV  IIII  EEEEEEE  RRRRR
           XXXX   A A  VV   VV    II   EE       RR  RR
            XX   AAAAA  VV VV     II   EEEEEE   RRRRR
           XXXX AA   AA  VVV      II   EE       RR RR
          XX  XX      AA  V      IIII  EEEEEEE  RR  RR
               XX                                    RR
                     U  N  I  V  E  R  S  I  T  Y
                     _____________________________

                       L  I  B  R  A  R  I  E  S
Thanx!
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
From: trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Barbara Trumpinski)
Subject: Re: circulation status
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:31:58 GMT

In <01GPRCWD3RRQ9I5HFD@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA> "Tom Flemming,               McMaster University HSL" <TOMFLEM@HSCVAX.CSU.MCMASTER.CA> writes:

>Funny how as soon as you are asked a question like this -- What term
>does your OPAC use to indicate availability of material in the
>collection ? -- you can't quite remember, although you read it several
>hundred times a day!

well, at the university of illinois, urbana:if the book is checked out
there is a university code (UC for urbana, other two letter codes if
the item is checked out by a patron from another university) and the
date checked out/renewed and the date due.

if the item is NOT checked out the space after the line number is blank...

ex:  

call number
author/title etc.

01   001  AGX      or    01   001  AGX  920915/921013


barb t.
agriculture library
uiuc

--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann 
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu 
"perhaps _any_ universe becomes real in proportion 
to the number of people who believe in it and spend time there." s. robinson

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:41:47 CDT
              <CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET>
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         yunah sung <YUSUNG3@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      circulation status

University of Alabame uses " not charged out". It has the word
"not". Sorry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 08:22:12 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:22:12 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Living levers, rejection

[From Rick Marken (921008.0830)]

Bill Powers (921007.0800) --

The "analogy of the lever" was extraordinary. In three paragraphs
or so you were able to make the point I tried to make in my ill-
fated "Behavior of perception" paper; and, as usual, you did it
far more clearly as well. The best part (for me) -- worthy of
considerable reflection -- was:

>From any individual's point of view, ALL interactions with others
>are control of their behavior or influences on their behavior.
>But that is true of all the others too; that's how they see you.
>The people you are trying to influence of control are trying to
>influence or control you, by the very actions and changes of
>properties you see as having been caused by you. To take any one
>side in an interaction is to miss the essence of what is going
>on: interaction.

That one should remain waving, unburned, on every flagpole.

Best regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
From: gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV ((John Gabriel))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: Apparent S-R behaviour: what goes on?
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:07:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Perhaps there is. The response in a situation where one needs to say
"Sorry" should be immediate, otherwise there is suspicion that the
response was not representative of real feelings. Shannon, and for
that matter Wiener remarked essentially that the longer you can
accumulate channel traffic before trying to understand it, the better
your rejection of noise is going to be. The need for rapid response
always ups the error rate. Hence the Iranian Airbus. A central question
is whether toi push your hypothesis tester towards type A or type B
errors, i.e. in a street gunfight to risk being shot or to risk
shooting an innocent bystander.

		John Gabriel (gabriel@eid.anl.gov)
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:56:46 PDT
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: they already know that
              7 Oct 1992 12:20:38 -0700 <92Oct7.130658pdt.11984@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 921097.1400)

   [From Rick Marken (921007.1230)]

   >Can you point out something they do that is incompatible with "already
   >knowing that"?

   Well, the "experimental method" as commonly used in psychology; they don't
   test for controlled variables.

take an example from the psych lit..  show yr claim is true.  show why
they should.  show what they miss if they don't.  if you can't come up
w/ a telling example of why experimentaly methodology is wrong, and
why your way fixes (some of) the problems, that's your problem, not
the reviewers'.

   The paper was somewhat philosophical. I tried to make one big point
   explicitly -- that performance limitations (in terms of speed of
   behavior) may be limitations on the ability to perceive (rather than
   to produce the actions that produce) the results that are being controlled.

that's a reasonable point, and i'm not surprised they didn't disagree.
but unless you have *some* (new) way of demonstrating it or arguing it
(in their paradigm, not yours), then you haven't in fact added to the
literature.

   I also tried to show how one can explore the perceptual (and, thus,
   behavioral) hierarchy. There was a lot in this paper that I thought was
   fairly new and interesting; alas, not the reviewers.

but it's not interesting if one doesn't agree w/ the underlying
assumptions and doesn't see how the discussion has any impact on one's
own assumptions.  if you showed how well-known phenomena can be
analyzed differently and novelly in yr hierarchy--*that* way you can
make an *argument* for your hierarchy.  but that won't work if the
reader must assume the hierarchy first and have no way to relate the
discussion to their own ways of looking at things.

   they also mentioned people who had presumably worked on the relation between
   perception and behavior

why ``presumably''?  plenty of people have had things to say about
this.

  (apparently ignoring the fact that the paper was
   about the fact that, from the perspective of the HPCT model, behavior IS
   perception).

but see, i'm not convinced, from the kinds of things you write about,
that it's coherent for you to say ``perception is behavior.''  i think
i can map from your model straightforwardly into one w/ pieces labeled
``perception'' and ``behavior.''  you haven't convinced me i should
consider the terms synonymous or what that would mean.

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:04:48 -0500
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      digital dribble

to dennis delprato: thankyou for sending the paper and accepting the interview.

to the Player marken: please send me a copy of the regretably rejected paper.

to w.t. bourbon: please send me a copy of the "to control or to be controlled"
 paper, since it is fundamental to my sparta-analysis.

to martin: question- does not pct predict events in the future as well as
 in the present (i.e. that unless some overwhelming disturbance stops me
 through raw power or violation of system integrity - an ogre or injected
 lye - then i will sucessfully drive to the store. this is often far into
 means of course. but it also makes "immediate" predictions if the goal is
 known and functional characterisics of the system AND (that's a big and)
 the disturbances that be incountered then pct also makes accurate predictions,
 this is of course if you don't care whether i drive with my hands or with
 my feet (as difficult/silly as that may be). i'm probably rambling and
 could of well missed your point so i'll shut up now.

      i.n.kurtzer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:31:11 -0400
From:         psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Subject:      Inquiry: Skinner Paper

Subject: RE: skinner person

[From: Dennis Delprato]

(isaac kurtzer)

What you requested is in U.S. mail.  And I indicated "OK" re.
responding to questions or some such thing.

Dept. of Psychology
Eastern  Mich.  Univ.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Psy_Delprato@emunix.emich.edu
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:17:44 CDT
Reply-To:     mcnamara@mgi.com
From:         mcnamara@VIXVAX.MGI.COM
Subject:      RE: I saw the "impossible" and lived to tell about it

> From Greg Williams (921012 - 2)
>
> This is the crux of our dispute. I claim that this is truly CONTROLLING FOR,
> not just "wishes to see." B arranges A's environment so as to encourage a
> class of actions by A which B wants to see. If A doesn't perform actions in
> the class defined by B, then B RE-arranges A's environment. And so on, until A
> does actions in the class defined by B, or B gives up.

	All social transactions (work, love, marriage, et al.) occur
in the realm of actions.  Control system A needs control system B to
perform some useful (to it) action.  There are obviously a wide range of
purposes (aka motivations or causes) driving control system B to perform
these actions.
	However, it is our actions that are judged and endure in the world,
not our control structure nor purposes.  In addition, actions are the visible
(tip of the iceberg) portion of our control structure.  So the crux of my
argument is that it is (perhaps unintentional) actions (byproducts of control)
which drive the world.

							Curt

****************************************************************************
Curt McNamara	(mcnamara@mgi.com)	|"the mome rath isn't born that
Mgmt. Graphics, Inc.			|could outgrabe me."
1401 E. 79th St.			|		Nicol Williamson
Mpls., MN    55425			|
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:12:58 EDT
From:         "(Martin Taylor)" <mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA>
Subject: Re: Reorganization, dependence

[Martin Taylor 921012 15:05]
(Greg Williams 921012)

Good comments to Bill on partial prediction.  A technical quibble, though.
You equate "chaotic" with what I would call "random."  It is because the
world IS chaotic, not because it is not, that the engineer can predict that
the bridge will not fall "soon" but will fall at some indeterminate time
in the future.

Chaotic means, loosely, that short term prediction is normally pretty good,
but long-term prediction is impossible.  My weather forecast for the next
millisecond is essentially perfect, for the next hour not bad, for the next
day better than chance (I can often decide reasonably that we will have
a picnic tomorrow), and for next week pretty useless.  Professional
forecasters do better, but can't go beyond about a week.  The weather is
a chaotic system.

In a random system, knowing the state at moment t1 gives you no information
about the state at any later moment t2, no matter how close t2 is to t1.

It is the chaotic nature of the world that permits PCT to work, and at the
same time allows short-term planning and habitual action patterns to be
useful.  If the world were not chaotic, PCT would be unnecessary, since
pure planning could work.  If it were random, PCT could not work.  PCT
depends on the chaos of the world for its ability to stabilize perceptions.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:04:44 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Sorry phenomenon; social dogs

[From Bill Powers (921015.1800)]

Martin Taylor (921015.1600) --

It would be interesting to compare an S-R explanation of the "Sorry"
phenomenon with a CT explanation. Both would necessarily rely on some
assumptions about other processes in the person, so we couldn't really
decide which is "right." But it would be interesting to see what kinds
of assumptions would be needed to make a coherent story. I think you
have posed an excellent exercise for the student. How about some
attempts from people who ordinarily don't say much on the net?

I'll set one ground rule: whatever explanation you offer on either
side, it should include an experimental method for checking out each
assumption (just a description, not an actual experiment).

In reply to direct post: I WOULD like to see the data from your
experiment when you have time; I'll return it, so you don't need to go
to the trouble of copying it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Williams (921015) --

Eavesdropping on your comments to Isaac Kurtzer:

>I claim that often in social interactions, party A, who is
>controlling for some perceptions which depend on actions of party >B,
can successfully control IF B's actions, upon which A's >controlled
perceptions depend, are in a certain class of actions >(the class
"desired" by A). Furthermore, I claim that often in >social
interactions, party A can successfully arrange (disturb or >carefully
not disturb) B's environment so that party B indeed >performs actions
in that certain class of actions. So, to control >his/her perceptions
depending on B's actions, A needn't predict B's >actions EXACTLY, and
(on the basis of observations) I claim that >such control is often
achieved.

A thought: I just realized that dogs can do the same thing with each
other. But I presume that they don't know control theory and can't
assess other dogs' goals. Can't a person accomplish control that
brings another into the loop without having to know that the other
person is also controlling something?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Apparent S-R behaviour: what goes on?
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:59:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[Martin Taylor 921015 16:00]

The following question probably indicates that my understanding of PCT is
less secure than I have been believing it to be, but here goes, anyway.

On two occasions recently. I observed what seems on the face of it to be S-R
behaviour--the situational context causing a non-functional behaviour to be
executed.  On one of those occasions, I was the actor, and it felt as if this
behaviour was "extracted" automatically from me rather than being the control
of any perception of which I was then (or now) aware.  Here's the situation.

Event 1: I was carrying a door upstairs in my house.  The stairs have rather
nice panelling on the side.  As I turned the corner at the top, the swing of
the door caused it to bump the panelling lightly.  I immediately said "Sorry"
and then wondered why I did so. As a conditioned response in the S-R tradition,
it's easy to understand.  But where does it fit in PCT?

Event 2 is very similar.  I was approaching a double door that has glass windows
as its upper panels.  When I was about 5 yards away, a woman came through in
the other direction.  When she opened the door, through which she could easily
see anyone on my side, the door bumped a cardboard box she had not sees, left
by a cleaner or somebody.  She also said "Sorry" immediately, even though she
was well aware she had not hit anyone.

The trigger for writing this note was Bill's comment on dialing the old phone
number for someone whose number recently changed.  It's not quite the same
situation, but there seems to be something in common.

Bill, or anyone: is there a straightforward PCT interpretation of this
immediate execution of "Sorry" following a bump when one is well aware that
there is no-one there to accept the apology.  I imagine that this situation
has many analogues in other contexts, and it is a bit puzzling at present.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 12:20:38 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:20:38 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      they already know that

[From Rick Marken (921007.1230)]

Brice Nevin (921007) --

>Can you point out something they do that is incompatible with "already
>knowing that"?

Well, the "experimental method" as commonly used in psychology; they don't
test for controlled variables.

The paper was somewhat philosophical. I tried to make one big point
explicitly -- that performance limitations (in terms of speed of
behavior) may be limitations on the ability to perceive (rather than
to produce the actions that produce) the results that are being controlled.
I also tried to show how one can explore the perceptual (and, thus,
behavioral) hierarchy. There was a lot in this paper that I thought was
fairly new and interesting; alas, not the reviewers.

One would have to read the paper to get a good sense of what the reviewers
missed (or got right). The interesting thing is that both reviewers said
that they were "hard pressed" to find anything new in the paper; both
mentioned TOTE units (missing the fact that Miller et al never understood
that working versions of these "units" would control their perceptions),
they also mentioned people who had presumably worked on the relation between
perception and behavior (apparently ignoring the fact that the paper was
about the fact that, from the perspective of the HPCT model, behavior IS
perception). My efforts to make the paper more respectable by referring
to work in the accepted literature (and always in a friendly way) backfired
with the first reviewer who saw these references as old hat.

The second reviewer gets high marks for  saying that he has followed my
research for several years with great interest (I know who the reviewer
is; I referred to several of his reearch findings in the paper). I just
wish he had followed it with a tad more understanding (though, fair's
fair, he seems to wish the same about me with respect to his research,
though all I did was use his results, not his interpretations thereof).

Anyway, the reviews were friendly. They didn't beg me to rewrite and
resubmit, but they were moderately encouraging. I might try to
rewrite it, but it seems like a topic that might be more interesting
to those who have already passed PCT 101. In other words, I'd rather
leave it as is and publish it in the Journal of Living Control Systems.
But we'll see; always nice to have a paper out there, waiting to be
rejected.

Hasta Luego

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:12:59 MET
From:         "(Maler)" <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Re: Apparent S-R behaviour: what goes on?
              15, 16:59)

[Oded Maler 921016]

* [Martin Taylor 921015 16:00]

If you have an explanation of how saying "sorry" while bumping
into a person works (btw, not in all cultures..) then the phenomenon
you described can be explained by a misclassification of the complex
perceptual variable "I just hit a person". Perceiving hitting is more
elmentary the identifying personhood. When you are busy doing other tasks (your
higher levels are occupied) you don't have time to to have a refined
perecption of a non-person/person within the time-scale of the "sorry" loop,
which is located rather low in your hierarchy.

Being infinitely fast means never having to say that you are sorry.

Sorry if it is not in exact but rather in qualitative PCT terms.

--Oded


--
===============================================================
Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG (Campus), B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone:  76635846  Fax: 76446675   e-mail: maler@vercors.imag.fr
===============================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:53:18 -0500
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      skinner person

possibly the person i have tried to reach - the one who posted about an
upcoming article clarifying skinnerian behaviorism - has not been on the
net in the past few days, so now ii will repeat the mesaage :
 1) i AM interested in a copy of the paper ( a pre-print draft is fine )
 2) please send to isaac kurtzer  p.o. box 4509 SFASU Nacogdoches,TX
                                                      75962
 3) please give me an indication either way

    thankyou

    isaac n. kurtzer

  p.s.  to brother bourbon - please give me a short list on "the greatest
        hits" of skinner et. al.
  p.p.s. to rick "the player" marken - personally i feel you shouldn't
         try to take your paper through the back door; there is simply no
         way to reconcile PCT with contemporary psychology since  a
          it hits at the assumptions of psychology which are inarguable
         and other reasons basically Kuhnian in nature- i'm sure you get
         the drift. i say wait till their nil-point palace crumbles!!!!
         i would like a copy of your paper,please.