RE: [tips] looking for fiction

[Larry Daily]

Christine,
 
This isn't online or out of copyright, but my favorite novel that touches on 
memory is Barbara Kingsolver's Animal Dreams. I've based an essay question in 
my cognitive class on this quote from the novel:
 
Memory is a complicated thing; a relative of truth, but not its twin.
 
Larry
 
 
Larry Z. Daily 
Associate Professor of Psychology 
Psychology Department Chair 
  
Department of Psychology 
Free School 
Shepherd University 
Shepherdstown, West Virginia 25443 
Psychology phone: (304) 876-5297 
  
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
WWW: http://webpages.shepherd.edu/LDAILY/index.html 
 
Adam's prize was open eyes 
His sentence was to see 
  - The Dreamer 
  - Tom Rush 



From: Christine L. Grela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/27/2008 10:30 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] looking for fiction




Hello, 

 

I am planning to teach a learning community of intro to psychology with an 
English class. The English professor needs some readings (primarily short 
stories or poems) to use for her portion of the class that match my material. 
So, I am looking for suggestions. Mental Illness probably won't be an issue, 
but what about the rest? My co-instructor would prefer works that are available 
online and out of copyright (if possible).

 

Research/Ethics/Theoretical Perspectives

Evolutionary Psychology/Genetics

The brain/neurotransmitters

Drugs (this one also probably not too hard)

Sensation and perception

Sleep and levels of consciousness

Learning and conditioning

Memory

Developmental psych

Personality

Disorders/Treatment

 

Thanks for any suggestions!

 

Christine Grela

Instructor of Psychology

McHenry County College

Office: C-124; Phone: 815-479-7725

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])<>

Re:[tips] Whence Cyborg?

[sblack]

I mused:
> >
> > I find this an interesting question [Mike's cyborg question] because it 
> > raises the issue of how
> > one could use Google (or any search engine) to limit a search to a
> > particular, usually early, time period.  I have often wanted to do this
> > (e.g. for the notorious search for the iceberg analogy).

Mike P. replied:
> 
> Although it might not be immediately obvious, this does not make
> much sense because search engines for webpages would not extend
> past 1991  which was the first year that the "World Wide Web"
> (WWW)was released by Tim Berniers-Lee at CERN (see the internet
> timeline:
> http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ ).

Yes, of course any webpage located with a search engine cannot exist 
earlier than the start of the world wide web. But among those gadzillions 
of web pages are many which provide documents which go back much earlier, 
many into the 1800s. A google search turns them up.  The problem is to 
separate out in a particular search these early sources from being lost 
in the thousands of hits to later ones. The only way is to laboriously 
scan through them one by one, which is usually an overwhelming task.

I've tried to find a better way, and failed. I thought that perhaps by 
mentioning it on TIPS, someone would have an idea. As for the wayback 
machine, that of course won't work either. 

And wayback on August 24, the question Mike asked us was

"What is the first published use of the term cyborg and
who used it?"

Because I'm just a little grumpy about such matters, I  point out that 
Peter Kepros first aced that question by providing a Wikipedia entry that 
Kline (with Clynes) used it in 1960. I followed up (again depending on 
good old Wikipedia) to point out that the OED has an even earlier source 
in the NY Times (still 1960, though). While it falls a tad short of 
Michael Phelps' achievement, I'd have to say we likely deserve at least 
silver and bronze on Mike's question. 

Stephen

-
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.  
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus   
Bishop's University  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC  J1M 1Z7
Canada

Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of
psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/
---

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[tips] I tried to send this yesterday re: why psychology is hard

[taylor]

I was over my 3 contributions yesterday :( Can't we set it to 4 or 5?

I thought my point about the article in the APS Observer was worth noting:
I'm a member so I don't now if others can access this: 
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2347
===

Well, the students think it is and there was a very nice article in the APS 
observer recently about realistic course previews (you can search taht in the 
observer online website and probably find the article). 

So it may be a good thing to talk about. 

PLUS there is no doubt in the conceptual change literature that having 
misconceptions on which to build new knowledge is very challenging. 

Annette 


Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RE: [tips] why psychology is hard

[Marc Carter]

Someone should tell Gilovich.  Or his publisher.

;)

m 


--
"[F]aculty have an obligation to the students collectively to prescribe
a required course of study designed specifically for liberal education
that is comprehensive, coherent, and rigorous."
--
Jerry L. Martin

-Original Message-
From: William Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:30 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard

Not so. It was Josh Billings, pen name of Henry Wheeler Shaw.

Bill Scott


>>> "Marc Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/27/08 4:15 PM >>>

According to Gilovich, it's Artemus Ward .

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble.
It's the things we know that just ain't so."


--
"[F]aculty have an obligation to the students collectively to prescribe
a required course of study designed specifically for liberal education
that is comprehensive, coherent, and rigorous."
--
Jerry L. Martin

-Original Message-
From: Michael Palij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Cc: Michael Palij
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:41:25 -0700, Jim Clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>Are we sure that psychology is hard?  Or, to be more precise, harder 
>than other intro level courses?

I don't know what data there is on this point but in addition to the
general academic "skills building" in the article, implicit is the
notion that people walk into intro psych classes with a "folk
psychology"
that leads them to think that they (a) know what psychology is about and
(b) rely upon their understanding to guide them in interpreting
psychological research, theories, and explanations.
"Folk biology", "folk physics", and other "commonsense explanations"
about the world will tend to get challenged in high school science
courses which should make the college intro courses in those areas less
susceptible to this form of "proactive interference effect".

This led me to think of the following quote:

"It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know that isn't
so."

It then dawned on me that I didn't really know who the source was for
this.  I had taught that it was Mark Twain but a check of a couple of
Twain quote websites doesn't include it (though there are some websites
that quote Twain as saying it).  I have also see it attributed to Will
Rogers and Milton Erikson as well as to no one in particular (i.e., "the
old adage").  

So, who is the source?

-Mike Palij
New York University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

P.S.  Apparently there are a couple of versions of this saying, so the
one above may not be accurate.


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re:[tips] Whence Cyborg?

[Mike Palij]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:05:36 -0700, Stephen Black mused:

[snip]
Yes, of course any webpage located with a search engine cannot exist
earlier than the start of the world wide web. But among those gadzillions
of web pages are many which provide documents which go back much earlier,
many into the 1800s. A google search turns them up.  The problem is to
separate out in a particular search these early sources from being lost
in the thousands of hits to later ones. The only way is to laboriously
scan through them one by one, which is usually an overwhelming task.


Then again one could ask a librarian about whether there are such
websites or other specialists or a colleague in a particular area
(since you're referring to the 1800s, a historian of some stripe)
could be helpful.  But you're not really searching for websites rather
for databases; the website is just a portal to the database, such as
Jstor which contains documents back to the 1600s.  As I said
previously (which you've deleted) most really important databases
are proprietary and operate on some sort of subscription model.
One could use Google scholar for free to locate references in psych
journals but it won't provide anything like the coverage provided by
PsycInfo.

The one major exception to the subscription model is Medline/PubMed
provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine but this has not
always been the case.


I've tried to find a better way, and failed. I thought that perhaps by
mentioning it on TIPS, someone would have an idea. As for the wayback
machine, that of course won't work either.


Perhaps it would be best to talk to a librarian or information specialist
with knowledge about document databases that can be accessed via
the web.


And wayback on August 24, the question Mike asked us was

"What is the first published use of the term cyborg and
who used it?"

Because I'm just a little grumpy about such matters, I  point out that
Peter Kepros first aced that question by providing a Wikipedia entry that
Kline (with Clynes) used it in 1960. I followed up (again depending on
good old Wikipedia) to point out that the OED has an even earlier source
in the NY Times (still 1960, though). While it falls a tad short of
Michael Phelps' achievement, I'd have to say we likely deserve at least
silver and bronze on Mike's question.


If you really want a medal, let me say "it's in the mail".  However
we should probably remember that Wikipedia is far from a definitive
source.  Remember that the same could be said for the NY Times
(iceberg anyone?).   Given that neither can be completely trusted,
other sources (e.g., Jstor, OED, etc.) need to be checked as well as
asking a community that that has some familiarity with artificial 
intelligence

and science fiction (i.e., TiPS), both of which I did.  So far, no go.

As I've mentioned in another post in this thread, if the papers of either
Clynes or Kline are available, it would be best to examine them to see
how they develop the term cyborg, given that the concept of cybernetic
organism should have been around for some time before the term cyborg
emerged.  Remember that a somewhat similar conclusion was reached
regarding G. Stanley Hall and his use of the term iceberg.

-Mike Palij
New York University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[tips] Mesmer

[Msylvester]

Apparently there is some connection between mesmerism and hypnosis? Did Mesmer 
make claims about behavioral changes  similar to the claims of hypnotism? And 
why am I thinking of frogs on their backs somewhere in the mix?
 Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [tips] Mesmer

[Maxwell Gwynn]

   
  


 
F. A. Mesmer (circa 1770) was one of the forefathers of hypnosis (animal magnetism/mesmerism). He produced "crises" in female patients (most of whom were "hysterical"), and made many claims which were subsequently dispelled by a royal commission which included Ben Franklin. The commission concluded that the effects of mesmerism were likely produced by imagination and suggestions, and rebuked the notions of animal magnetism and a "universal fluid" which affected behaviours.
 
James Braid, a Scottish neurosurgeon, later coined the term "hypnotism" circa 1840.
 
Examples of the seeming "hypnotizing" of animals include chicken paralysis. See YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBtHC-yUwSc . Frog hypnosis is less common; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByhaBjm8WJ0. These examples, of course, have absolutely nothing to do with hypnosis as we know it.
 
-Max Gwynn
 
Maxwell Gwynn, PhDPsychology DepartmentWilfrid Laurier University519-884-0710 ext 3854[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/28/2008 11:43 AM >>>



 
Apparently there is some connection between mesmerism and hypnosis? Did Mesmer make claims about behavioral changes  similar to the claims of hypnotism? And why am I thinking of frogs on their backs somewhere in the mix?
 Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
 
 ---To make changes to your subscription contact:Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

---To make changes to your subscription contact:Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [tips] Mesmer

[Christopher Green]

Read Alison Winter's book _Mesmerized_ (1998).
Chris Green
York U.
Toronto

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>  
> Apparently there is some connection between mesmerism and hypnosis? 
> Did Mesmer make claims about behavioral changes  similar to the claims 
> of hypnotism? And why am I thinking of frogs on their backs somewhere 
> in the mix?
>  Michael Sylvester,PhD
> Daytona Beach,Florida
>  
>  


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RE: [tips] Mesmer

[DeVolder Carol L]

Is this a book about hypnosis or frogs on their backs?

 

Carol

Carol DeVolder, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Chair, Department of Psychology 
St. Ambrose University 
Davenport, Iowa  52803 

phone: 563-333-6482 
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

From: Christopher Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:27 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Mesmer

 


Read Alison Winter's book _Mesmerized_ (1998).
Chris Green
York U. 
Toronto

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

 

 

Apparently there is some connection between mesmerism and hypnosis? Did
Mesmer make claims about behavioral changes  similar to the claims of
hypnotism? And why am I thinking of frogs on their backs somewhere in
the mix?

 Michael Sylvester,PhD

Daytona Beach,Florida

 

 

 

---

To make changes to your subscription contact:



Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [tips] Mesmer

[Christopher D. Green]

It's about the history of mesmerism in Victorian England. Mesmerism had 
a long and interesting life well after the Franklin commission (which, 
despite the claims of most history of psych textbooks, convinced few 
that nothing was going on).

Regards,
Chris Green
York U.
Toronto
===


DeVolder Carol L wrote:
>
>
> Is this a book about hypnosis or frogs on their backs?
>
>  
>
> Carol
>
> Carol DeVolder, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology
> Chair, Department of Psychology
> St. Ambrose University
> Davenport, Iowa  52803
>
> phone: 563-333-6482
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  
>
> *From:* Christopher Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:27 AM
> *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> *Subject:* Re: [tips] Mesmer
>
>  
>
>
> Read Alison Winter's book _Mesmerized_ (1998).
> Chris Green
> York U.
> Toronto
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Apparently there is some connection between mesmerism and hypnosis? 
> Did Mesmer make claims about behavioral changes  similar to the claims 
> of hypnotism? And why am I thinking of frogs on their backs somewhere 
> in the mix?
>
>  Michael Sylvester,PhD
>
> Daytona Beach,Florida
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[tips] Thanks

[Msylvester]

A big thank you for all the tipsters providing information about my enquires.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida



---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

[Michael Smith]

Thanks Tim.

The security issues don't sound encouraging, I will have to check with IT if 
they recommend against it. But with Vista's search broken (no wonder more and 
more people are starting to hate windows--sorry, anecdotal) one is up the 
proverbial creek if you need to find where you placed that...that...file!

--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 1:06 PM

Miahael-
Vista- You mean Mahogany? :) Remember that folks like it if they rename it!!
Thanks for confirming my own experience with its search "function".
But, re: Google desk search, all's not good news. Google desktop search on a
public computer can be used to search email if it is accessed through the web
and you can by-pass the passwords and log-ons (you do have to look beyond the
search results but it's accessible if you dig a bit)! Do be careful to only
use it on your own private computer is the advice I've been seeing- Also,
that should include post-log off and be especially powerful to anyone with a
higher "level of security" in their account. To me that's not a
good thing. (That's not it's only non-redeeming security issue/feature:
C.f., http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/vpn/2004/1115vpn1.html - you may
have to bypass an ad!)
Tim
___
Timothy O. Shearon, PhD
Professor and Chair Department of Psychology
The College of Idaho
Caldwell, ID 83605
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and
systems

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker



-Original Message-
From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/27/2008 11:07 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
 
Does the Google desktop search work for Vista?
 
I know that the Vista search is totally useless, and actually doesn't work.
 
--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"

Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:51 AM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, beth benoit went:

> Annette and others,
> Do all of you know about "Google Desktop Search"?  It's an
amazing
> little search program you leave on your desktop that opens a little
> box where you type in any word you recall from a document or even
> email you're searching for, and it finds it on any item on your
> computer that uses that word or phrase.

Seconded.  For Windows, Google Desktop is invaluable.

If you're on a Mac, you've already got the extremely fast and powerful
Spotlight search, but there's a disadvantage: Spotlight does NOT show
your search results with contextual snippets of surrounding text, the
way Google does.  The cure for that is SpotInside--it's an app that
harnesses Spotlight's searching ability, but presents the results in a
more Google-like fashion:


There's also Google Desktop for Mac, but I've found that it slows down
the system, presumably because you've got Google and Spotlight each
simultaneously maintaining an index of your stuff.

And finally, also for Mac, there's SpeedSearch
, which finds
phrases more reliably than Spotlight does, and doesn't rely on an index.

--David Epstein
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])



  
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


  
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RE: [tips] why psychology is hard

[Michael Smith]

I don't think Psychology is hard (meaning difficult to grasp). For some reason 
the students that I have had seem to conflate what is hard (conceptually 
difficult to understand) with what requires work.

I don't think there is anything conceptually difficult in psych, but it does 
require work.

One student in my methods class bemoaned the fact that he took psychology 
because there was no math in it, only to find he had to learn statistics! The 
only hard part in psych may be statistics depending on how far you want to go 
with it. But then again, a theoretical mathematician friend told me there was 
nothing conceptually difficult about statistics, it just required a lot of work!

--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 2:47 PM

Mike,

I sent the same correction. My source was Thomas Szasz, personal communication,
which I later verified as most likely true. I forget how I verified it, but it
was pre-Google. 

Bill Scott


>>> "Mike Palij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/27/08 5:44 PM
>>>
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:15:21 -0700, Marc Carter
>According to Gilovich, it's Artemus Ward .
>
>"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into 
>trouble.It's the things we know that just ain't so."

Annette Taylor emailed me that it was Ward and with
the corrected quote but a quick google search raises some
doubts.  One of the hits was on Amazon for a book by
Ralph Keyes entitled "The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, 
Where, and When".  The quote in question is on page 3
(Amazon allows page views) and it is attributed to Josh Billings
aka Henry Wheeler Shaw. Artemus and others are identified
but Keyes says that it is likely that Twain paraphrased 
Billings' quote in one of his works.

I wonder if there is anything more definitive.

-Mike Palij
New York University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Michael Palij [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Cc: Michael Palij
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:41:25 -0700, Jim Clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>Are we sure that psychology is hard?  Or, to be more precise, harder 
>than other intro level courses?

I don't know what data there is on this point but in addition to the
general academic "skills building" in the article, implicit is the
notion that people walk into intro psych classes with a "folk
psychology"
that leads them to think that they (a) know what psychology is about and
(b) rely upon their understanding to guide them in interpreting
psychological research, theories, and explanations.
"Folk biology", "folk physics", and other "commonsense
explanations"
about the world will tend to get challenged in high school science
courses which should make the college intro courses in those areas less
susceptible to this form of "proactive interference effect".

This led me to think of the following quote:

"It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know
that isn't
so."

It then dawned on me that I didn't really know who the source was for
this.  I had taught that it was Mark Twain but a check of a couple of
Twain quote websites doesn't include it (though there are some websites
that quote Twain as saying it).  I have also see it attributed to Will
Rogers and Milton Erikson as well as to no one in particular (i.e., "the
old adage").  

So, who is the source?

-Mike Palij
New York University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

P.S.  Apparently there are a couple of versions of this saying, so the
one above may not be accurate.

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])



  
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Is psychology hard? (Was [tips] why psychology is hard

[Stuart McKelvie]

Dear Tipsters,
 
If the issue here is student perception of "hard", we have difficulties. Where 
does the average new psychology student come from? Natural Sciences? 
Humanities? The Arts? What exactly do they expect?
 
As has been said:
 
Natural Science students may find psychology easier conceptually but difficult 
because of the amount of reading and perhaps the amount of judgment required.
Humanities students may find psychology easier because of the amount of reading 
but difficult because of the quantitative aspects.
 
I think one problem is that many students arrive at university without really 
knowing what psychology is about. That is not true for Languages, Literature, 
Art, Drama, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.
 
If you would like a personal anecdote, after taking natural sciences and 
mathematics to the highest level in high school then mathematics, economics and 
a foreign language in the first two years of university, I found the 
introductory course to be easier than these. Or, to be brutally frank, I was 
reinforced by better marks!
 
Sincerely,
 
Stuart
 
___
 
Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D.,   Phone: (819)822-9600, Extension 2402
Department of Psychology,  Fax: (819)822-9661
Bishop's University,
2600 College Street,
Sherbrooke (Borough of Lennoxville),
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.
 
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
___



From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 28-Aug-08 7:36 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard



I don't think Psychology is hard (meaning difficult to grasp). For some reason 
the students that I have had seem to conflate what is hard (conceptually 
difficult to understand) with what requires work.

I don't think there is anything conceptually difficult in psych, but it does 
require work.

One student in my methods class bemoaned the fact that he took psychology 
because there was no math in it, only to find he had to learn statistics! The 
only hard part in psych may be statistics depending on how far you want to go 
with it. But then again, a theoretical mathematician friend told me there was 
nothing conceptually difficult about statistics, it just required a lot of work!

--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 

Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 2:47 PM


Mike,

I sent the same correction. My source was Thomas Szasz, personal 
communication,
which I later verified as most likely true. I forget how I verified it, 
but it
was pre-Google. 

Bill Scott


>>> "Mike Palij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/27/08 5:44 PM
>>>
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:15:21 -0700, Marc Carter
>According to Gilovich, it's Artemus Ward .
>
>"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into 
>trouble.It's the things we know that just ain't so."

Annette Taylor emailed me that it was Ward and with
the corrected quote but a quick google search raises some
doubts.  One of the hits
 was on Amazon for a book by
Ralph Keyes entitled "The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, 
Where, and When".  The quote in question is on page 3
(Amazon allows page views) and it is attributed to Josh Billings
aka Henry Wheeler Shaw. Artemus and others are identified
but Keyes says that it is likely that Twain paraphrased 
Billings' quote in one of his works.

I wonder if there is anything more definitive.

-Mike Palij
New York University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Michael Palij [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Cc: Michael Palij
Subject: RE: [tips] why psychology is hard

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:41:25 -0700, Jim Clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>Are we sure that psychology is hard?  Or, to be more precise, harder 
>than other intro level courses?

I don't know what data there is on
 this point but in addition to the
general academic "skills building" in the article, implicit is the
notion that people walk into intro psych classes with a "folk
psychology"
that leads them to think that they (a) know what psychology is about and
(b) rely upon their unders

Re: [tips] why psychology is hard

[Ken Steele]

Michael Smith wrote:



I don't think Psychology is hard (meaning difficult to grasp). For some 
reason the students that I have had seem to conflate what is hard 
(conceptually difficult to understand) with what requires work.


I don't think there is anything conceptually difficult in psych, but it 
does require work.


One student in my methods class bemoaned the fact that he took 
psychology because there was no math in it, only to find he had to learn 
statistics! The only hard part in psych may be statistics depending on 
how far you want to go with it. But then again, a theoretical 
mathematician friend told me there was nothing conceptually difficult 
about statistics, it just required a lot of work!


--Mike



I have the opposite view.  There are conceptual issues that are 
very hard for the student to grasp. It is hard to learn there is 
an issue with their everyday Cartesian dualism.


Students take psych to "avoid math" but most of the math is only 
algebra.  If you present it in the right manner then most 
students can handle it easily.  One of my favorite quips involves 
 a Rescorla-Wagner model simulation.  The sequence starts off 
easily but quickly descends into fractions.  When the calculation 
hits the third decimal place I turn to the class and say "Hey, we 
are psychologists and fractions don't scare us--right?"  My 
students breeze through the integer R-W calculations in my tests.


Psych majors need to be able to think through simple quantitative 
 problems and concepts.


Ken

---
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology  http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [tips] why psychology is hard

[taylor]

I don't know. 2 x 2 factorial designs seem like kindergarten to me but many 
students have a hard time with them.

Annette


Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Original message 
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:08:50 -0400
>From: Ken Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
>Subject: Re: [tips] why psychology is hard  
>To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 

>
>Michael Smith wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think Psychology is hard (meaning difficult to grasp). For some 
>> reason the students that I have had seem to conflate what is hard 
>> (conceptually difficult to understand) with what requires work.
>> 
>> I don't think there is anything conceptually difficult in psych, but it 
>> does require work.
>> 
>> One student in my methods class bemoaned the fact that he took 
>> psychology because there was no math in it, only to find he had to learn 
>> statistics! The only hard part in psych may be statistics depending on 
>> how far you want to go with it. But then again, a theoretical 
>> mathematician friend told me there was nothing conceptually difficult 
>> about statistics, it just required a lot of work!
>> 
>> --Mike
>> 
>
>I have the opposite view.  There are conceptual issues that are 
>very hard for the student to grasp. It is hard to learn there is 
>an issue with their everyday Cartesian dualism.
>
>Students take psych to "avoid math" but most of the math is only 
>algebra.  If you present it in the right manner then most 
>students can handle it easily.  One of my favorite quips involves 
>  a Rescorla-Wagner model simulation.  The sequence starts off 
>easily but quickly descends into fractions.  When the calculation 
>hits the third decimal place I turn to the class and say "Hey, we 
>are psychologists and fractions don't scare us--right?"  My 
>students breeze through the integer R-W calculations in my tests.
>
>Psych majors need to be able to think through simple quantitative 
>  problems and concepts.
>
>Ken
>
>
---
>Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Department of Psychology  http://www.psych.appstate.edu
>Appalachian State University
>Boone, NC 28608
>USA
>
---
>
>
>---
>To make changes to your subscription contact:
>
>Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

[Rikikoenig]

I was told it ties up a lot of memory.  What was your  experience?
 
 
In a message dated 8/28/2008 11:16:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



I  don’t think it would be too common to use Google desktop on a public 
computer.  Most public computers wouldn’t have Desktop search installed and 
since 
it is  designed to search what is on the computer on which it is installed, it 
is  unlikely that the personal files you are looking for will be found on a 
public  computer. What might be a problem, if I am understanding this 
correctly, 
is  that someone else could use Google Desktop on a public computer to find 
my  e-mail messages even after I have logged off. That seems like a warning  
against accessing your e-mail from a public computer if you are concerned with  
someone finding and reading your messages with Google Desktop after you have  
logged off. It might be worth your while to determine if Google Desktop is  
installed on the public computer you are using as your e-mails could be stored  
in the Google Desktop index and not be deleted when you log off. However, if  
Google Desktop is not installed on the public computer, it shouldn’t be a  
problem.  I am grateful to know this (I do sometimes read my e-mail on  public 
computers) but that isn’t going to stop me from enjoying Google  Desktop’s 
convenience on my own private computer. 
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  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(479)524-7295 
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman 
"Pete, it's a  fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human  
heart." 
- Ulysses  Everett McGill 
 
From: Michael Smith  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:26  PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences  (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology  is hard)
Thanks Tim.

The security issues don't sound  encouraging, I will have to check with IT if 
they recommend against it.  But with Vista's search broken (no wonder more 
and more people are  starting to hate windows--sorry, anecdotal) one is up the 
proverbial  creek if you need to find where you placed  that...that...file!

--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08,  Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote: 
From: Shearon, Tim  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [tips] Google  desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
To: "Teaching in the  Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 

Date:  Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 1:06 PM
Miahael-


Vista- You mean Mahogany? :) Remember that folks
 like it if they rename it!!


Thanks for confirming my own experience with its search "function".


But, re: Google desk search, all's not good news. Google desktop search on a


public computer can be used to search email if it is accessed through the web


and you can by-pass the passwords and log-ons (you do have to look beyond the


search results but it's accessible if you dig a bit)! Do be careful to only


use it on your own private computer is the advice I've been seeing- Also,


that should include post-log off and be especially powerful to anyone with a


higher "level of security" in their account. To me that's not a


good thing. (That's not it's only non-redeeming security issue/feature:


C.f., http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/vpn/2004/1115vpn1.html - you may


have to bypass an ad!)


Tim


___


Timothy O. Shearon, PhD


Professor and Chair Department of Psychology


The College of
 Idaho


Caldwell, ID 83605


email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


  


teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and


systems


  


"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker


  


  


  


-Original Message-


From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Sent: Wed 8/27/2008 11:07 AM


To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)


Subject: Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)


 


Does the Google desktop search work for Vista?


 


I know that the Vista search is totally useless, and actually doesn't work.


 


--Mike


  


--- On Wed, 8/27/08, David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


  


From: David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Subject: Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)


To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"





Date: Wednesday, August
 27, 2008, 9:51 AM


  


On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, beth benoit went:


  


> Annette and others,


> Do all of you know about "Google Desktop Search"?  It's an


amazing


> little search program you leave on your desktop that opens a little


> box where you type in any word you recall from a document or even


> email you're searching for, and it finds it on any item on your


> computer that uses that word or phrase.


  


Seconded.  For Windows, Google Desktop is invaluable.


  


If you're on a Mac, you've already got the extremel

RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

[Rick Froman]

I don't think it would be too common to use Google desktop on a public 
computer. Most public computers wouldn't have Desktop search installed and 
since it is designed to search what is on the computer on which it is 
installed, it is unlikely that the personal files you are looking for will be 
found on a public computer. What might be a problem, if I am understanding this 
correctly, is that someone else could use Google Desktop on a public computer 
to find my e-mail messages even after I have logged off. That seems like a 
warning against accessing your e-mail from a public computer if you are 
concerned with someone finding and reading your messages with Google Desktop 
after you have logged off. It might be worth your while to determine if Google 
Desktop is installed on the public computer you are using as your e-mails could 
be stored in the Google Desktop index and not be deleted when you log off. 
However, if Google Desktop is not installed on the public computer, it 
shouldn't be a problem.  I am grateful to know this (I do sometimes read my 
e-mail on public computers) but that isn't going to stop me from enjoying 
Google Desktop's convenience on my own private computer.

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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman

"Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."
- Ulysses Everett McGill

From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:26 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

Thanks Tim.

The security issues don't sound encouraging, I will have to check with IT if 
they recommend against it. But with Vista's search broken (no wonder more and 
more people are starting to hate windows--sorry, anecdotal) one is up the 
proverbial creek if you need to find where you placed that...that...file!

--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 1:06 PM

Miahael-

Vista- You mean Mahogany? :) Remember that folks

 like it if they rename it!!

Thanks for confirming my own experience with its search "function".

But, re: Google desk search, all's not good news. Google desktop search on a

public computer can be used to search email if it is accessed through the web

and you can by-pass the passwords and log-ons (you do have to look beyond the

search results but it's accessible if you dig a bit)! Do be careful to only

use it on your own private computer is the advice I've been seeing- Also,

that should include post-log off and be especially powerful to anyone with a

higher "level of security" in their account. To me that's not a

good thing. (That's not it's only non-redeeming security issue/feature:

C.f., http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/vpn/2004/1115vpn1.html - you may

have to bypass an ad!)

Tim

___

Timothy O. Shearon, PhD

Professor and Chair Department of Psychology

The College of

 Idaho

Caldwell, ID 83605

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and

systems



"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker







-Original Message-

From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Wed 8/27/2008 11:07 AM

To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)

Subject: Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)



Does the Google desktop search work for Vista?



I know that the Vista search is totally useless, and actually doesn't work.



--Mike



--- On Wed, 8/27/08, David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



From: David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"



Date: Wednesday, August

 27, 2008, 9:51 AM



On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, beth benoit went:



> Annette and others,

> Do all of you know about "Google Desktop Search"?  It's an

amazing

> little search program you leave on your desktop that opens a little

> box where you type in any word you recall from a document or even

> email you're searching for, and it finds it on any item on your

> computer that uses that word or phrase.



Seconded.  For Windows, Google Desktop is invaluable.



If you're on a Mac, you've already got the extremely fast and powerful

Spotlight search, but there's a disadvantage: Spotlight does NOT show

your search results with contextual snippets of surrounding text, the

way Google does.  The cure for that is SpotInside--it's an app that

harnesses Spotlight's searching ability, but presents the results in a

more 

RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

[Shearon, Tim]

Rick- The problem arose, in the situation I'm aware of, when someone installed 
Google desktop on a public computer. Often, students can't do that (install 
software) unless specific adjustments are made to permissions but someone with 
higher permissions installed it. Then someone familiar with the "capabilities" 
showed someone how to compromise passwords (which was a violation of the 
university in question's IT rules). So Rick is correct that it isn't an issue 
which is likely but it is possible (and as was pointed out, I think by Michael, 
it is made slightly more likely by the less than effective search on Vista (our 
campus is up to about 1/2 Vista machines- the entire psychology department is 
using Vista. We haven't had many problems except that people don't like it.
Tim
___
Timothy O. Shearon, PhD
Professor and Chair Department of Psychology
The College of Idaho
Caldwell, ID 83605
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and 
systems

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker



-Original Message-
From: Rick Froman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 9:13 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
 
I don't think it would be too common to use Google desktop on a public 
computer. Most public computers wouldn't have Desktop search installed and 
since it is designed to search what is on the computer on which it is 
installed, it is unlikely that the personal files you are looking for will be 
found on a public computer. What might be a problem, if I am understanding this 
correctly, is that someone else could use Google Desktop on a public computer 
to find my e-mail messages even after I have logged off. That seems like a 
warning against accessing your e-mail from a public computer if you are 
concerned with someone finding and reading your messages with Google Desktop 
after you have logged off. It might be worth your while to determine if Google 
Desktop is installed on the public computer you are using as your e-mails could 
be stored in the Google Desktop index and not be deleted when you log off. 
However, if Google Desktop is not installed on the public computer, it 
shouldn't be a problem.  I am grateful to know this (I do sometimes read my 
e-mail on public computers) but that isn't going to stop me from enjoying 
Google Desktop's convenience on my own private computer.

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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman

"Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."
- Ulysses Everett McGill

From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:26 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)

Thanks Tim.

The security issues don't sound encouraging, I will have to check with IT if 
they recommend against it. But with Vista's search broken (no wonder more and 
more people are starting to hate windows--sorry, anecdotal) one is up the 
proverbial creek if you need to find where you placed that...that...file!

--Mike

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [tips] Google desktop search (was why psychology is hard)
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 1:06 PM

Miahael-

Vista- You mean Mahogany? :) Remember that folks

 like it if they rename it!!

Thanks for confirming my own experience with its search "function".

But, re: Google desk search, all's not good news. Google desktop search on a

public computer can be used to search email if it is accessed through the web

and you can by-pass the passwords and log-ons (you do have to look beyond the

search results but it's accessible if you dig a bit)! Do be careful to only

use it on your own private computer is the advice I've been seeing- Also,

that should include post-log off and be especially powerful to anyone with a

higher "level of security" in their account. To me that's not a

good thing. (That's not it's only non-redeeming security issue/feature:

C.f., http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/vpn/2004/1115vpn1.html - you may

have to bypass an ad!)

Tim

___

Timothy O. Shearon, PhD

Professor and Chair Department of Psychology

The College of

 Idaho

Caldwell, ID 83605

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and

systems



"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker







-Original Message-

From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Wed 8/27/2008 11:07 AM

To: Teaching in the