[tips] Is a minor in Psychology

[michael sylvester]

any good?

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4875
or send a blank email to 
leave-4875-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] TIPSTER OF THE WEEK

[michael sylvester]

CLAUDIA   STANNY

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4874
or send a blank email to 
leave-4874-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Mike Palij]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:48:03 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote:
>Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model 
>of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. 

However, it should be pointed out that this was seen as a "heretical"
position.  Wikipedia's entry on Aristarchus (yada-yada) notes:

|Rejection of the heliocentric view was common, as the following 
|passage from Plutarch suggests (On the Apparent Face in the 
|Orb of the Moon):
|
|Cleanthes (a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of the Stoics) 
|thought it was the duty of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus on the 
|charge of impiety for putting in motion the hearth of the universe … 
|supposing the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve in 
|an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis.
|—Tassoul, Concise History of Solar and Stellar Physics[3]
|
|The only other astronomer of antiquity who is known by name and 
|who is known to have supported Aristarchus' heliocentric model was 
|Seleucus of Seleucia, a Mesopotamian astronomer who lived a century 
|after Aristarchus.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

I guess the lesson to be taken away from this is that data will 
ultimately win the day (unless you're a fringe Catholic).

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4868
or send a blank email to 
leave-4868-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Beth Benoit]

I'm pleased to have a term for the occasional (well, we hope it's
occasional) practice of handing in the same paper for another course.

My favorite example of this is when a student handed in a paper with
plagiarism from some website sources.  He was irate at the F I gave him, and
told me, "The last time I handed this paper in, I got an A!"  I tried not to
laugh when I told him, "Well, now we have *another *problem!"  He failed the
course, of course.

I could have told him he was *also* guilty of "self-plagiarism."  Believe
me, I'm tucking that one away for the future.  I think I'll even mention
that in class tomorrow.

Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Plymouth State University
New Hampshire



> Stephen Black wrote:
>


> "Self-plagiarism" is also used as a term to describe the student
> transgression of handing in a paper for credit which fully or
> partially repeats material used for credit in another course.
> Students are not always aware that this is frowned on, so it's a
> good idea to make the prohibition explicit.  I once wrote a set of
> plagiarism regulations for our university calendar which included
> a rule against such self-plagiarism. I was ridiculed (I tend to
> remember such things) for the use of the term which was
> considered,  as Scott notes, oxymoronic. Be that as it may, it's a
> a handy mnemonic for what they shouldn't be doing.
>
> Stephen
> 
> Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
> Bishop's University
> e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
> 2600 College St.
> Sherbrooke QC  J1M 1Z7
> Canada
> ---
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: beth.ben...@gmail.com.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aaf72&n=T&l=tips&o=4864
> or send a blank email to
> leave-4864-13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aa...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4867
or send a blank email to 
leave-4867-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Christopher D. Green]

Marc Carter wrote:
> Those old guys were *smart*...
>
>   

If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and 
artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a 
city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the 
water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding 
ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when 
you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a 
century later during the Hellenistic "decline"... )

Chris
-- 

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

 

416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM
>> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
>> Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
>>
>> Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a
>> heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus.
>>
>> Chris
>> --
>>
>> Christopher D. Green
>> Department of Psychology
>> York University
>> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
>> Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
>> chri...@yorku.ca
>> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>> =
>>
>> Marc Carter wrote:
>> 
>>> Good points, John.
>>>
>>> It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you
>>>   
>> could better explain the motions of the planets; it was
>> Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them --
>> circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do),
>> and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits.
>> 
>>> Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more
>>>   
>> than "seven heavenly bodies" in his observations of the
>> satellites of Jupiter.
>> 
>>> He gets the "blame" because he was the one who provided
>>>   
>> evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic
>> system would have it.
>> 
>>> m
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marc Carter, PhD
>>> Associate Professor and Chair
>>> Department of Psychology
>>> College of Arts & Sciences
>>> Baker University
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 -Original Message-
 From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM
 To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
 Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?


 Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding
 
>> (haven't read the
>> 
 original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name
 Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way
 
>> of thinking
>> 
 which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing
 medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or
 helio-centered universe could be made consistent with
 
>> existing data.
>> 
 Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science
 forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
 (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data
 though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to
 elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a
 different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the
 relationship between distance from the sun and time to
 
>> orbit (3rd law
>> 
 I believe) ...

 ==
 John W. Kulig
 Professor of Psychology
 Plymouth State University
 Plymouth NH 03264

 
>> 
>> 
 GALILEO GALILEI:
 I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who
 
>> has endowed
>> 
 us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to
 
>> forgo their
>> 
 use.

 
>> 
>> 
 
>>> The information contained in this e-mail and any
>>>   
>> attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University
>> ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of
>> only the individual or entity named above. The information
>> may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures
>> acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is
>> not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention,
>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>> error please immediately notify Baker University by email
>> reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail
>> message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
>> 
>>> ---
>>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
>>> To unsubscribe click here:
>>>
>>>   
>> http://fsulist.frostbur

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[sblack]

On 15 Sep 2010 at 13:30, Jim Clark wrote:

> Most of the comments are quite negative about the idea of self-plagiarism.  I 
> just see having to rewrite
> something, just for the sake of being different (not to make it clearer), as 
> another distraction from doing
> science. 

Another reason to avoid repeating the same methods section in 
different papers is to save journal space, a desirable objective. 
Instead of the repetition, it's usual to refer the reader to the first 
publication in the series ("see Black (2009) for more than one 
way to skin a cat"), adding only new aspects of the procedure 
("However,  skinning was accomplished without a knife"). 

While it's more convenient to have the methods immediately 
available for inspection,  with on-line access to journals these 
days, it's no longer a big deal.  

"Self-plagiarism" is also used as a term to describe the student 
transgression of handing in a paper for credit which fully or 
partially repeats material used for credit in another course. 
Students are not always aware that this is frowned on, so it's a 
good idea to make the prohibition explicit.  I once wrote a set of 
plagiarism regulations for our university calendar which included 
a rule against such self-plagiarism. I was ridiculed (I tend to 
remember such things) for the use of the term which was 
considered,  as Scott notes, oxymoronic. Be that as it may, it's a 
a handy mnemonic for what they shouldn't be doing.

Stephen

Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.  
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus   
Bishop's University   
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC  J1M 1Z7
Canada
---

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4864
or send a blank email to 
leave-4864-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[roig-reardon]

The question of the appropriateness of publishing an article in part or in 
whole that is identical to a previously published one boils down to whether the 
reader and, therefore, the editor is clearly informed about the nature of the 
duplication, particularly duplication involving data. Yes, some articles 
deserve to be published in more than one journal, but the stipulation should 
always be that the editors of both journals and the readers are informed about 
the duplication. I do hope that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that 
‘covert’ duplication of data, that is presenting previously published data as 
if they were new data, constitutes research misconduct (though of course, each 
case tends to be unique and the devil is always in the details), but that was 
not the subject of the piece published in The Scientist. 



  

What The Scientist’s blog addressed was the issue of recycling of text from an 
earlier publication to a newer one. As some of you have pointed out, it is 
probably unavoidable to sometimes reuse key phrases that describe complex 
methodologies. Also as some of you have pointed out, in some cases it may even 
be desirable to reuse entire segments of a previously published methods 
section, thought the fact that that few replications of earlier published 
experiments are ever 100% identical replications makes the reuse of entire 
methods section a questionable practice. Unfortunately, a significant number of 
authors seem to abuse the practice of copy-pasting portions of previously 
published papers in new publications and, as a result, some journals (at least 
in the biomedical sciences) state limits in the degree of overlap between 
publications (10%-15%), particularly if these publication involve different 
companies. For example, my recollection is that APA has a limit of 500 words 
that can be reused in other publications and that borrowing anything greater 
needs their permission. I am also aware of at least one biomedical journal 
which has published an editorial cautioning authors not to use earlier 
published methods sections as templates for the new method section. 



  

But, copyright issues aside, from the point of view of ‘best practices in 
scientific scholarship’ the question is whether there should be some limits 
placed in the amount of self-borrowing. Is it ok to reuse an entire literature 
review? How about portions of a method section and part of a discussion? How 
much is too much. These are some of the questions that editors wrestle with. I 
believe there should be some limits, but what those should be probably depend 
on so many factors (e.g., individual discipline, the author’s facility with the 
language) that any operationalization may be ultimately be impractical. I am of 
the view that just about any type of writing, whether of a method section or of 
a literature review, can always be improved. The material can always be 
elucidated further, made a little clearer and the latter is especially 
important in a method section. Perhaps there are, indeed, only a certain number 
of ways to accurately convey the same thought, procedure, or methodology in the 
concise manner demanded by the discipline. But to not attempt improving our 
work when we have the opportunity to do so represents a disservice to readers. 
My belief, and the advice that I give to others, is that if we are to hold 
scientific writing as the highest form of scholarship, then we should take 
advantage of those opportunities that allow us to improve the message that we 
have previously conveyed. 



  

I could go on, but …. 



  

Miguel 



  

PS: And, yes, self-plagiarism is a problematic term. ;-) 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4863
or send a blank email to 
leave-4863-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Marc Carter]

He also did a pretty damned good job of calculating the size of the earth!

Those old guys were *smart*...

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
>
> Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a
> heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus.
>
> Chris
> --
>
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
>
>
>
> 416-736-2100 ex. 66164
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
>
> ==
>
>
> =
>
> Marc Carter wrote:
> > Good points, John.
> >
> > It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you
> could better explain the motions of the planets; it was
> Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them --
> circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do),
> and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits.
> >
> > Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more
> than "seven heavenly bodies" in his observations of the
> satellites of Jupiter.
> >
> > He gets the "blame" because he was the one who provided
> evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic
> system would have it.
> >
> > m
> >
> > --
> > Marc Carter, PhD
> > Associate Professor and Chair
> > Department of Psychology
> > College of Arts & Sciences
> > Baker University
> > --
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM
> >> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> >> Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding
> (haven't read the
> >> original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name
> >> Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way
> of thinking
> >> which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing
> >> medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or
> >> helio-centered universe could be made consistent with
> existing data.
> >> Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science
> >> forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
> >> (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data
> >> though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to
> >> elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a
> >> different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the
> >> relationship between distance from the sun and time to
> orbit (3rd law
> >> I believe) ...
> >>
> >> ==
> >> John W. Kulig
> >> Professor of Psychology
> >> Plymouth State University
> >> Plymouth NH 03264
> >>
> 
> >> GALILEO GALILEI:
> >> I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who
> has endowed
> >> us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to
> forgo their
> >> use.
> >>
> 
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail and any
> attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University
> ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of
> only the individual or entity named above. The information
> may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures
> acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention,
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error please immediately notify Baker University by email
> reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail
> message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
> > To unsubscribe click here:
> >
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0
> > da&n=T&l=tips&o=4826 or send a blank email to
> >
> leave-4826-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.ed
> > u
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: marc.car...@bakeru.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72
> a2d17c90e1&n=T&l=tips&o=4860
> or send a blank email to
> leave-4860-13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c9...@fsulist.fros
> tburg.edu
>

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") 
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for 
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be 
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal 
rules. If the read

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Christopher D. Green]

I agree with Annette here. Plagiarism has slightly different meanings in 
different disciplinary contexts (because we chiefly concerned with the 
originality of different aspects of the writing in different 
disciplines). In the context of a primary report of a new scientific 
study, plagiarism has primarily to do with whether the data reported is 
new or not (because, what we don't want is for the same data to be 
presented twice without clear notification, in order to prevent the 
false appearance of replication).  The author who is concerned about 
running into problems with repeating parts of the setup should simply 
footnote the section and note that it was first developed for 
such-and-such an article, and it remains relevant to the new article 
because it is a continuation of the same research program. Any journal 
editor who actually rejected such a paper because the "setup" 
(background, procedure) was similarly worded to those of a previous 
paper by the same author on the same topic (though of a different 
experiment) would get exactly what s/he deserves -- the paper published 
by another journal.

It is easy to be too punctilious about these kinds of things by applying 
the letter of descriptions (of plagiarism, in this case) that were only 
ever meant to be general descriptions of prototypical instances (e.g., 
copy words from a previous paper nearly exactly without citation).

If one were in a different disciplinary context (e.g., literature) then 
lifting large chunks of any part of a document (e.g., a story) and 
plunking them down in a new document would constitute plagiarism.

IMHO.

Chris
-- 

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

 

416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==



Annette Taylor wrote:
>
>  
>
>
> I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have 
> spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so 
> until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the 
> basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I 
> mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say 
> some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas 
> carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract 
> concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. 
> So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid 
> self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I 
> worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the 
> introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem 
> to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have 
> tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and 
> found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying.
>  
> I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, 
> once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory 
> explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow 
> "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."
>  
> Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?
>  
> Annette
>  
> Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
> Professor, Psychological Sciences
> University of San Diego
> 5998 Alcala Park
> San Diego, CA 92110
> tay...@sandiego.edu 
>  
> 
> *From:* Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
> *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> *Subject:* [tips] Self-plagiarism
>
>  
>
>
> _http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/_
>  
> Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and 
> plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, 
> just that he knows a lot about it.)
>  
> Rick
>  
> Rick Froman
> _rfro...@jbu.edu_ 
>  
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edu 
> .
>
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=4833
>  
> 
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
> 
>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca 
> .
>
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=4837
>  
> 
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Christopher D. Green]

Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model 
of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus.


Chris
--

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada



416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==


=

Marc Carter wrote:

Good points, John.

It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain 
the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but 
hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and 
Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits.

Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than "seven heavenly 
bodies" in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter.

He gets the "blame" because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion 
that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it.

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

  

-Original Message-
From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?


Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't
read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the
Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the
medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the
available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I
believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered
universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo
deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science
forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
(1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's
data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval
thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived
laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically,
such as the relationship between distance from the sun and
time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ...

==
John W. Kulig
Professor of Psychology
Plymouth State University
Plymouth NH 03264

GALILEO GALILEI:
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us
to forgo their use.





The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent 
by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the 
individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and 
disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by 
email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. 
Thank you.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=4826
or send a blank email to 
leave-4826-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

  




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4860
or send a blank email to 
leave-4860-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Claudia Stanny]

Scott O. Lilienfeld notes:

*At the very least, I think, we need a different term, as "self-plagiarism"
strikes me as an oxymoron.  Plagiarism by definition (at least all
definitions I've ever seen and can locate) means appropriating others' work
without attribution.*

The APA code of ethics refers to the ethical problems of duplicate
publication, piecemeal publication, and self-plagiarism (pages 13-16 in the
6th edition of the publication manual; pages 351-354 in the 5th edition, for
those who are still mad about the 6th edition).

Claudia Stanny

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4858
or send a blank email to 
leave-4858-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] In the good old days

[michael sylvester]

Profs had one or two paperbacks to complement the texts,I was introduced to 
Rachel Carlson's Silent Spring in Bio 101.
Gilbert Rye The nature of Mind (by a British prof) in History of Psych.

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4856
or send a blank email to 
leave-4856-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Lilienfeld, Scott O]

At the very least, I think, we need a different term, as "self-plagiarism" 
strikes me as an oxymoron.  Plagiarism by definition (at least all definitions 
I've ever seen and can locate) means appropriating others' work without 
attribution.

The discussion does raise some interesting and important issues, especially 
those pertaining to how best to inform journal editors and readers. To me, the 
biggest problem with "self-plagiarism" (again, I really think we need a 
different word) is that some editors may be accepting what they believe to be 
an original piece of work than in fact has been largely published elsewhere.  
In the 1980s, Irv Biederman published an article in Psychological Review that, 
it later turned out, had already been published largely in a chapter (and 
Psychological Review issued an apology to readers).  So to me, much of the 
debate boils down to how best to inform editors and readers (and, I suppose, 
promotion and tenure reviewers who are counting beans) about what parts of 
one's work are, and are not, original.

 I'm in agreement with Annette, Jim, and others that forcing authors to 
reword standard descriptions of their Method section just for the sake of it is 
not especially worthwhile.  In contrast, I think we'd all agree that sending an 
original article to Psychological Bulletin that contained a huge section (say, 
consuming 50% or more of the article) that in fact had been published in a 
different journal - and without informing the editor - is ethically 
questionable at best. In between these two extremes, I suspect, there are 
legitimate differences of opinion. Personally, I don't see a major problem with 
mild forms of the practice just so long as editors and readers are fully 
informed about how much of what they're reading is genuinely new. I've never 
seen a good discussion of how best to inform readers of this practice (e.g., 
"see Smith & Jones, 1998, for the same verbatim description of this 
technique"), although I would think that such a discussion would be worthwhile.

Scott


Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences 
(PAIS)
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
slil...@emory.edu
(404) 727-1125

Psychology Today Blog: 
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist

50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html

Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/

The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and 
his play,
his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his 
recreation,
his love and his intellectual passions.  He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.
To him - he is always doing both.

- Zen Buddhist text
  (slightly modified)




-Original Message-
From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism

Hi

If you read the comments on the original posting, you will see that one 
respondent actually mentioned the example of Nobel prize winners who published 
much the same research in several different journals, without people objecting. 
 The rational was that different people read different journals and that 
multiple publications was appropriate to reach the entire relevant audience.

Most of the comments are quite negative about the idea of self-plagiarism.  I 
just see having to rewrite something, just for the sake of being different (not 
to make it clearer), as another distraction from doing science.

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca

>>> Rick Froman  15-Sep-10 11:30 AM >>>
I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a 
subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn't seem to have a 
problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with 
how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I 
think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the 
exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the 
specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording 
that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings 
shouldn't be produced in different publications just to pad a CV.

I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play 
the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the 
experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really 
then OK for a r

Re: [tips] In the good old days

[Louis E. Schmier]

Heck, way back in 1959, I had an invertebrate zoology book that cost $101!  In 
1959!!  I've still got it.  I'm convinced that for that price it must be hiding 
the mother lode.

Make it a good day

-Louis-


Louis Schmier  http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org
Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\   /\  /\ /\ 
/\
(O)  229-333-5947/^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   /   \  /  
 \
(C)  229-630-0821   / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ /\/  /  \   
 /\  \
 //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ 
   \_/__\  \
   /\"If you want to climb 
mountains,\ /\
   _ /  \don't practice on mole 
hills" - /   \_

On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Vincent Wolodkin wrote:



Graduated college in 1987 and was appalled my senior year that my graduate 
level course in electromagnetic theory required a book that was *gasp* $80.  My 
son started college this semester and his Intro to Art History and Appreciation 
text was $150.


Andy Wolodkin
Database Administrator
Frostburg State University
(301)687-3159
(301)707-7496 CELL
(301)687-4731 FAX



From: michael sylvester [mailto:msylves...@copper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] In the good old days





In the good old days:

Students came to  see profs during office hours
Profs had only one test taking tip "know everything"
Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the 
imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills
A "D" was an honorable grade
Profs were not dishing out "A" grade like hot cakes

What else?

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida



---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
awolod...@frostburg.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13098.4de9b7822e0de81fc734bc5689ab6f03&n=T&l=tips&o=4845

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-4845-13098.4de9b7822e0de81fc734bc5689ab6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
lschm...@valdosta.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=4849

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-4849-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4852
or send a blank email to 
leave-4852-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Steven Specht]

I knew the musician analogy was weak... but it's interesting in some ways. I am 
in a continuous conversation with a musician friend of mine about the 
similarities and differences between the visual and "auditory" arts in terms of 
"replication". The analogies seem to "work better" and are more interesting in 
that regard.



Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and 
convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Martin Luther King Jr.

On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Rick Froman wrote:

>  
> 
> I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a 
> subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn’t seem to have a 
> problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is 
> with how much of that can be done while still being considered a new 
> publication. I think most would agree, the more significant violation would 
> be presenting the exact same findings under an entirely different title, 
> changing only the specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is 
> not really the wording that is at issue but the originality of the findings. 
> The same findings shouldn’t be produced in different publications just to pad 
> a CV.
>  
> I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might 
> play the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the 
> experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it 
> really then OK for a researcher to publish the same work with a few ad libs 
> here and there hundreds or thousands of times to the same scholarly 
> readership? I think scholarly publication and live musical performances 
> differ in many respects. I do think a musician would lose fans pretty quickly 
> (and many have) by just re-packaging old stuff reworked into a new album. As 
> far as publication (recording) goes, listeners will feel cheated when buying 
> an album that is nothing but previously released songs masquerading as a new 
> album.
>  
> Rick
>  
> Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
> Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
> Professor of Psychology
> Box 3055
> John Brown University
> 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761
> rfro...@jbu.edu
> (479)524-7295
> http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman
>  
>  
> From: Steven Specht [mailto:sspe...@utica.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism
>  
>  I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct 
> explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I 
> had invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was "the" best 
> sentence, why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would 
> argue that that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians 
> plagiarizing themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they 
> make an acoustic version from an "electric" or orchestrated version?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology
> Department of Psychology
> Utica College
> Utica, NY 13502
> (315) 792-3171
> monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com
>  
> "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort 
> and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
> Martin Luther King Jr.
>  
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:
> 
> 
>  
>  
> I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the 
> last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire 
> probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most 
> clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to 
> think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the 
> text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some 
> relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the 
> listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way 
> to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I 
> worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and 
> methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I 
> write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the 
> methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself 
> verbatim without even trying.
>  
> I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we 
> have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the 
> stage for a new study, as being s

RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Jim Clark]

Hi

If you read the comments on the original posting, you will see that one 
respondent actually mentioned the example of Nobel prize winners who published 
much the same research in several different journals, without people objecting. 
 The rational was that different people read different journals and that 
multiple publications was appropriate to reach the entire relevant audience.

Most of the comments are quite negative about the idea of self-plagiarism.  I 
just see having to rewrite something, just for the sake of being different (not 
to make it clearer), as another distraction from doing science.

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca

>>> Rick Froman  15-Sep-10 11:30 AM >>>
I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a 
subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn't seem to have a 
problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with 
how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I 
think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the 
exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the 
specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording 
that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings 
shouldn't be produced in different publications just to pad a CV.

I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play 
the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the 
experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really 
then OK for a researcher to publish the same work with a few ad libs here and 
there hundreds or thousands of times to the same scholarly readership? I think 
scholarly publication and live musical performances differ in many respects. I 
do think a musician would lose fans pretty quickly (and many have) by just 
re-packaging old stuff reworked into a new album. As far as publication 
(recording) goes, listeners will feel cheated when buying an album that is 
nothing but previously released songs masquerading as a new album.

Rick

Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
Professor of Psychology
Box 3055
John Brown University
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761
rfro...@jbu.edu 
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman 


From: Steven Specht [mailto:sspe...@utica.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:20 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism


 I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct 
explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had 
invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was "the" best sentence, 
why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that 
that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing 
themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic 
version from an "electric" or orchestrated version?





Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology

Department of Psychology

Utica College

Utica, NY 13502

(315) 792-3171

monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com



"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and 
convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Martin Luther King Jr.

On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:





I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the 
last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire 
probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear 
way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of 
more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the 
basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract 
concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have 
to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems 
down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the 
foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't 
believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In 
fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers 
and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying.

I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we 
have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the 
stage for a new study, as being somehow "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."

Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.

RE: [tips] In the good old days

[Vincent Wolodkin]

Graduated college in 1987 and was appalled my senior year that my
graduate level course in electromagnetic theory required a book that was
*gasp* $80.  My son started college this semester and his Intro to Art
History and Appreciation text was $150.

 

 

Andy Wolodkin

Database Administrator

Frostburg State University

(301)687-3159

(301)707-7496 CELL

(301)687-4731 FAX

 

 

 

From: michael sylvester [mailto:msylves...@copper.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] In the good old days

 

 

 

In the good old days:

 

Students came to  see profs during office hours

Profs had only one test taking tip "know everything"

Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the
imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills

A "D" was an honorable grade

Profs were not dishing out "A" grade like hot cakes

 

What else?

 

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD

Daytona Beach,Florida

 

 

---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: awolod...@frostburg.edu.

To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13098.4de9b7822e0de81fc734bc5689ab6f03
&n=T&l=tips&o=4845

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is
broken)

or send a blank email to
leave-4845-13098.4de9b7822e0de81fc734bc5689ab6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4849
or send a blank email to 
leave-4849-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] In the good old days

[Louis E. Schmier]

Women students were not taken seriously
Women students were taken advantage of
There were no black students
Special needs students were ignored and went unaccommodated
there were no or very few counseling services
Profs could and were often abusive in class
only 13% of those who graduated high school went on to college

The good old days were good because you don't want to remember the bad ones:  
history lesson.

Make it a good day

-Louis-


Louis Schmier  http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org
Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\   /\  /\ /\ 
/\
(O)  229-333-5947/^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   /   \  /  
 \
(C)  229-630-0821   / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ /\/  /  \   
 /\  \
 //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ 
   \_/__\  \
   /\"If you want to climb 
mountains,\ /\
   _ /  \don't practice on mole 
hills" - /   \_

On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:22 AM, michael sylvester wrote:



In the good old days:

Students came to  see profs during office hours
Profs had only one test taking tip "know everything"
Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the 
imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills
A "D" was an honorable grade
Profs were not dishing out "A" grade like hot cakes

What else?

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida



---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
lschm...@valdosta.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=4845

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-4845-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4848
or send a blank email to 
leave-4848-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] info: one for two

[michael sylvester]

Should a prof who has the same study published in two different journals count 
this as one poblication or two publications? I was the only one who became 
aware of this when a candidate who had applied for a position oresented 
reprints to the hiring committee.I kept my mouth shut and he got the 
position.The article in Perceptual Motor Skills was identical to the one in 
Psychogical records.

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4847
or send a blank email to 
leave-4847-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Ken Steele]

I am somewhere between the two, also.

I have seen cases of self-plagiarism which I find objectionable. 
  Typically, they have involved a cut-and-paste from one type of 
publication (e.g., a Psych Review article) to a completely 
different type of publication (e.g., a sophomore textbook).  The 
author didn't take the time to restate the points in a manner 
suited to the audience.



Ken

---
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.  steel...@appstate.edu
Professor and Assistant Chairperson
Department of Psychology  http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---


Paul C Bernhardt wrote:


I'm somewhere between the two. I do think that occasionally we need to 
restate something and the way we've wordsmithed it over multiple edits 
really is the best way to say it. 

But, when you might see yourself duplicating a major subsection of an 
intro or method, it is probably better to summarize what you said in the 
other paper and cite so the interested reader who wants those details 
can go get it there. 


Paul C Bernhardt
Frostburg State University
Frostburg, MD, USA
pcbernhardt[at]frostburg[d0t]edu



On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:

 



I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have 
spent the last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so 
until I retire probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the 
basics in the most clear way so that others can understand what I 
mean. I don't want to have to think of more alternative ways to say 
some things. I had to really craft the text of the basic ideas 
carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract 
concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. 
So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid 
self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I 
worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the 
introduction and methods section then I can't believe it's a problem 
to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In fact, I have 
tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers and 
found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying.
 
I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, 
once we have to worry about repeating parts of introductory 
explanations to set the stage for a new study, as being somehow 
"dishonest" or lacking "integrity."
 
Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?
 
Annette
 
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.

Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu 
 


*From:* Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
*To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
*Subject:* [tips] Self-plagiarism

 



_http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/_
 
Interesting post on The Scientist.com  with 
quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean 
that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.)
 
Rick
 
Rick Froman

_rfro...@jbu.edu_ 
 



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4846
or send a blank email to 
leave-4846-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] In the good old days

[michael sylvester]

In the good old days:

Students came to  see profs during office hours
Profs had only one test taking tip "know everything"
Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the 
imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills
A "D" was an honorable grade
Profs were not dishing out "A" grade like hot cakes

What else?

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4845
or send a blank email to 
leave-4845-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Marc Carter]

In one of my classes yesterday we were discussing a paper that did exactly what 
you suggest; summarized the method and referred the reader to the original 
article for details.

I found it a little frustrating, though...

m


--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--




From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:37 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism




I'm somewhere between the two. I do think that occasionally we need to restate 
something and the way we've wordsmithed it over multiple edits really is the 
best way to say it.

But, when you might see yourself duplicating a major subsection of an intro or 
method, it is probably better to summarize what you said in the other paper and 
cite so the interested reader who wants those details can go get it there.

Paul C Bernhardt
Frostburg State University
Frostburg, MD, USA
pcbernhardt[at]frostburg[d0t]...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") 
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for 
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be 
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal 
rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please 
immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and 
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4843
or send a blank email to 
leave-4843-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Paul C Bernhardt]

I'm somewhere between the two. I do think that occasionally we need to restate 
something and the way we've wordsmithed it over multiple edits really is the 
best way to say it. 

But, when you might see yourself duplicating a major subsection of an intro or 
method, it is probably better to summarize what you said in the other paper and 
cite so the interested reader who wants those details can go get it there. 

Paul C Bernhardt
Frostburg State University
Frostburg, MD, USA
pcbernhardt[at]frostburg[d0t]edu



On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:

>  
> 
> I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the 
> last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire 
> probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most 
> clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to 
> think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the 
> text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some 
> relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the 
> listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way 
> to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I 
> worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and 
> methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I 
> write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the 
> methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself 
> verbatim without even trying.
>  
> I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we 
> have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the 
> stage for a new study, as being somehow "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."
>  
> Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?
>  
> Annette
>  
> Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
> Professor, Psychological Sciences
> University of San Diego
> 5998 Alcala Park
> San Diego, CA 92110
> tay...@sandiego.edu
>  
> From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/
>  
> Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and 
> plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just 
> that he knows a lot about it.)
>  
> Rick
>  
> Rick Froman
> rfro...@jbu.edu
>  
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=4833
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=4837
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-4837-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4842
or send a blank email to 
leave-4842-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Rick Froman]

I agree that it is fine to reproduce certain sections of a paper intact in a 
subsequent paper and most people cited in the article didn't seem to have a 
problem with that (especially in the Method section). The main concern is with 
how much of that can be done while still being considered a new publication. I 
think most would agree, the more significant violation would be presenting the 
exact same findings under an entirely different title, changing only the 
specific wording to avoid plagiarism detection. So it is not really the wording 
that is at issue but the originality of the findings. The same findings 
shouldn't be produced in different publications just to pad a CV.

I think the musician analogy breaks down pretty quickly. A musician might play 
the same piece to different audiences (some who might want to relive the 
experience a number of times) hundreds or even thousands of times. Is it really 
then OK for a researcher to publish the same work with a few ad libs here and 
there hundreds or thousands of times to the same scholarly readership? I think 
scholarly publication and live musical performances differ in many respects. I 
do think a musician would lose fans pretty quickly (and many have) by just 
re-packaging old stuff reworked into a new album. As far as publication 
(recording) goes, listeners will feel cheated when buying an album that is 
nothing but previously released songs masquerading as a new album.

Rick

Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
Professor of Psychology
Box 3055
John Brown University
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761
rfro...@jbu.edu
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman


From: Steven Specht [mailto:sspe...@utica.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:20 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism


 I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct 
explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had 
invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was "the" best sentence, 
why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that 
that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing 
themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic 
version from an "electric" or orchestrated version?





Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology

Department of Psychology

Utica College

Utica, NY 13502

(315) 792-3171

monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com



"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and 
convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Martin Luther King Jr.

On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:





I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the 
last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire 
probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear 
way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of 
more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the 
basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract 
concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have 
to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems 
down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the 
foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't 
believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In 
fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers 
and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying.

I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we 
have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the 
stage for a new study, as being somehow "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."

Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu


From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism



http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/

Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from 
TIPSter (and plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don't mean that he is good at 
it, just that he knows a lot about it.)

Rick

Rick Froman
rfro...@jbu.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
tay...@sandiego.edu.
To unsubscribe cli

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Steven Specht]

I agree with Annette. There are good and better ways to write a succinct 
explanation of the concept of contrast effects in sensory research. Once I had 
invested a great deal of time crafting what I thought was "the" best sentence, 
why would I change it just to avoid plagiarizing myself? I would argue that 
that would've created a lesser quality sentence. Are musicians plagiarizing 
themselves with each new performance of a song? Or when they make an acoustic 
version from an "electric" or orchestrated version?



Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and 
convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Martin Luther King Jr.

On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Annette Taylor wrote:

>  
> 
> I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the 
> last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire 
> probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most 
> clear way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to 
> think of more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the 
> text of the basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some 
> relatively abstract concepts in the most effective way possible for the 
> listener/reader. So to have to redo this in a potentially less effective way 
> to avoid self-plagiarism seems down right silly. They are my words that I 
> worked on, and if they form the foundation of parts of the introduction and 
> methods section then I can't believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I 
> write about the same topic. In fact, I have tried to just free write the 
> methods section in subsequent papers and found myself repeating myself 
> verbatim without even trying.
>  
> I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we 
> have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the 
> stage for a new study, as being somehow "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."
>  
> Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?
>  
> Annette
>  
> Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
> Professor, Psychological Sciences
> University of San Diego
> 5998 Alcala Park
> San Diego, CA 92110
> tay...@sandiego.edu
>  
> From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/
>  
> Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and 
> plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just 
> that he knows a lot about it.)
>  
> Rick
>  
> Rick Froman
> rfro...@jbu.edu
>  
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=4833
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: sspe...@utica.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976336&n=T&l=tips&o=4837
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-4837-13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4840
or send a blank email to 
leave-4840-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE:[tips] Self-plagiarism

[Annette Taylor]

I have to disagree with Miguel here... agree with Barbato. I have spent the 
last decade researching a single paradigm and plan to do so until I retire 
probably. It has taken me years to phrase some of the basics in the most clear 
way so that others can understand what I mean. I don't want to have to think of 
more alternative ways to say some things. I had to really craft the text of the 
basic ideas carefully because I'm trying to explain some relatively abstract 
concepts in the most effective way possible for the listener/reader. So to have 
to redo this in a potentially less effective way to avoid self-plagiarism seems 
down right silly. They are my words that I worked on, and if they form the 
foundation of parts of the introduction and methods section then I can't 
believe it's a problem to reuse them whenever I write about the same topic. In 
fact, I have tried to just free write the methods section in subsequent papers 
and found myself repeating myself verbatim without even trying.

I an left asking myself if we haven't had the pendulum swing too far, once we 
have to worry about repeating parts of introductory explanations to set the 
stage for a new study, as being somehow "dishonest" or lacking "integrity."

Just my 2 cents here. What do the others on the list think?

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
tay...@sandiego.edu


From: Rick Froman [rfro...@jbu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:58 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Self-plagiarism




http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/

Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism 
expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a 
lot about it.)

Rick

Rick Froman
rfro...@jbu.edu



---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
tay...@sandiego.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=4833

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-4833-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4837
or send a blank email to 
leave-4837-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Self-plagiarism

[Michael Smith]

> (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a lot about it.)

lol. That's funny. Especially since it kinda imply that he couldn't
actually apply the knowledge.

--Mike

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Rick Froman  wrote:
>
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/
>
> Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and
> plagiarism expert) Miguel Roig. (I don’t mean that he is good at it, just
> that he knows a lot about it.)
>
> Rick
>
> Rick Froman
> rfro...@jbu.edu
>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: tipsl...@gmail.com.
>
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fb&n=T&l=tips&o=4833
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-4833-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4834
or send a blank email to 
leave-4834-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Self-plagiarism

[Rick Froman]

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/

Interesting post on The Scientist.com with quotes from TIPSter (and plagiarism 
expert) Miguel Roig. (I don't mean that he is good at it, just that he knows a 
lot about it.)

Rick

Rick Froman
rfro...@jbu.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4833
or send a blank email to 
leave-4833-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Marc Carter]

Good points, John.

It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain 
the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but 
hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and 
Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits.

Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than "seven heavenly 
bodies" in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter.

He gets the "blame" because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion 
that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it.

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

> -Original Message-
> From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
>
>
> Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't
> read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the
> Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the
> medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the
> available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I
> believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered
> universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo
> deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science
> forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
> (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's
> data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval
> thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived
> laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically,
> such as the relationship between distance from the sun and
> time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ...
>
> ==
> John W. Kulig
> Professor of Psychology
> Plymouth State University
> Plymouth NH 03264
> 
> GALILEO GALILEI:
> I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has
> endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us
> to forgo their use.
> 
>

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") 
is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for 
the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be 
protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal 
rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please 
immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and 
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4826
or send a blank email to 
leave-4826-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] They Too Died That Day

[Jim Clark]

Hi

Personally I do not think that apologies like Claudia's should be necessary 
when talking about group differences on a list like this (i.e., teachers of 
psychology), whether those differences concern religion, ethnicity, or 
whatever.  Surely we appreciate when saying, for example, that men tend to be 
more aggressive than women (sometimes stated in short hand that men are more 
aggressive than women), that we do not mean that ALL men are more aggressive 
than ALL women.  Similarly to say that a religious group has certain tendencies 
less present in other groups does not mean that we attribute those tendencies 
to all members of the group.  Psychologists above all others are probably more 
sensitive to individual and group differences, and the complexities of both.

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca

>>> Claudia Stanny  14-Sep-10 10:16 PM >>>
On reflection, I believe I ought to post an apology for my recent post,
which can reasonably be regarded as a rant.

I in no way intended to imply that Christians in general (Fundamentalist or
otherwise) were terrorists or collectively approved of the dreadful
behaviors I described.  I apologize to any readers who detected that message
in my post.  I admit I was hasty and wrote something that could lead a
reasonable person to reach that interpretation.  I regret any hurt feelings
my words caused.

By the same token, I hope that posters who wrote similarly hasty things
about other religious groups would consider how their words might be
interpreted or misinterpreted by others.

It is always a mistake to vilify an entire group based on the actions of a
few extreme members.  I am concerned about the polarized and irrational
discourse that surrounds much political discussion these days.  I apologize
for my contribution to the deterioration of civility.

Claudia Stanny


On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Michael Smith  wrote:

> My take would be that "curious directions" are directions he perhaps
> thinks are not worthwhile talking about.
> And I agree most are related either directly or indirectly to the
> "madness" aspect and what-can-we-learn/teach from it.
> Including the stereotypes of muslims and christians.
>
> But anyway, I don't think in a public forum like a listserv that a
> poster can expect to exercise control over the discussion, no matter
> what he/she thinks is the important point.
>
> --Mike
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Jim Clark  wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > It is not clear what Mike thinks are "curious directions."  Most of the
> responses I have seen appear to be reactions to the Mike's characterizing
> what was happening as "madness" and asking "what critical thinking lessons
> psychologists will teach about this madness."  Perhaps it was not his
> intention for us to focus on that aspect of his posting?
> >
> > Take care
> > Jim
> >
> > James M. Clark
> > Professor of Psychology
> > 204-786-9757
> > 204-774-4134 Fax
> > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca 
> >
>  "Mike Palij"  13-Sep-10 9:21:41 PM >>>
> > I started this thread several days ago with the post below which
> > focused on a Muslin family who had lost a family member on
> > 9/11.  I felt it was necessary to remind people that many different
> > groups of people died that day and the current attempt by some
> > to "Christianize" 9/11 should make wonder why such a thing was
> > occurring.  The contributors to this thread has taken the discussion
> > in curious directions and I decided not to respond until now.  On
> > ...
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:08:43 -0700, Mike Palij wrote:
> >>An article in the NY Times focuses on one family that deals with
> >>their grief over the loss of a father and husband in the 9/11 attack
> >>on the World Trade Center.  How they have dealth with the attack
> >>and the aftermath should give us and, if we share with our students,
> >>pause.  See:
> >>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/nyregion/10muslim.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
>  
> >>
> >>The fact that the family is Muslim would be incidental except for
> >>the recent madness manifesting itself in U.S. religious and political
> >>circles.  I wonder what critical thinking lessons psychologists will
> >>teach about this madness?
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to tips as: tipsl...@gmail.com.
> > To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fb&n=T&l=tips&o=4793
>  
> > or send a blank email to
> leave-4793-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
> >
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: csta...@uwf.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d550&n=T&l=tips&o=4799
>  
> or send a blank email to
> leave-4799-13144.1572ed60024e708cf21c4c6f19e7d...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
>

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://