I/O Texts

[M. Press]

Could some of you share your suggestions for introductory texts in
industrial/organizational psychology?  Thanks.

Mark

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Touro College, 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, x 275
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: From religion to the paranormal

[Rick Adams]

Jim wrote:

> It really is hard to take this seriously.  And I am not sure why
> something is "interesting" if it is "difficult to evaluate,"
> other than in the kind of "that's interesting"  comment one makes
> when trying to not offend.

> Schwartz is potentially a real embarrassment to psychology, as he
> does have a legitimate psychology position at the University of
> Arizona and appears to have done much legitimate research.  He
> has proposed a "Universal Living Memory Theory" that presumably
> ties in with homeopathy and other like pseudo-sciences. He has an
> upcoming book (perhaps out now?) modestly titled: "The Living
> Energy Universe: A Fundamental Discovery that Transforms Science
> and Medicine," Schwartz believes there is evidence not only for
> the mundane kinds of parapsychological phenomena (e.g., remote
> viewing), but also for the afterlife.  He commented "Data is much
> more consistent with survival than just plain death, but it does
> not verify survival."

> He and Russek also participated in an HBO special, and a website
> notes: "On Sept. 23, Schwartz showed the HBO special to his
> psychology of religion and spirituality class of about 100
> people. Even though the film ran for more than 15 minutes past
> the scheduled class time, nearly everybody stayed.  About 20 of
> the students remained after class for a discussion that lasted
> almost an hour."  This is just the kind of nonsense that will
> appeal to an excessively high proportion of students.

Not that I necessarily support Schwartz' "research" or opinions (I don't
have the primary source material in front of me to evaluate objectively),
but isn't it rather interesting to note that the responses to claims of
"after death" communications have been 100% skeptical here in TIPS (with
Jim's message the most erudite of the responses so far) while responses to
the concept that a supernatural being exists who "created" the earth are
treated with respect and some measure of acceptance? Maybe I'm
unreasonable, but I can FAR more easily accept the concept of telepathy
(which, ultimately, is what the depicted research was examining as the
subjects were present and had the correct information available to them)
than I can the concept that some kind of a "super Santa Claus" exists who
is watching all the time to see if I've been "good or bad" before giving
me my presents. If claims of psychic or "spiritualistic" phenomenon are of
value to us as teachers only for the purpose of demonstrating bad research
or faulty conclusions, it would seem that creationism or the concept of a
deity should enjoy the same role in our classrooms.

Rick <--waiting for the stroke of lightening . . .

--

Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "

RE: From religion to the paranormal

[Paul Smith]

jim clark wrote: 

> Northrop is the subject of two documentaries on HBO
> and Fox Family Channel that aired recently.  She is one of five
> mediums in the world who has received the scientific "seal of
> approval" by the University of Arizona for accuracy. Dr. Gary
> Schwartz, Professor at the University of Arizona who oversaw the
> study, will also be present on the cruise to talk about the
> scientific validation and to share never-seen footage of the
> studies."
> 
> Somewhat ironically, I thought, there is a link to request
> further information about his program.  I would have thought that
> such mundane methods would not have been necessary.

I wonder if the University of Arizona would hire me to continue
teaching statistics after I've died. They could save a bundle on health and
disability insurance if they expanded their pool of adjunct faculty to
include the deceased. And for a small upfront (before death) payment, I'd
agree to work for next to nothing in perpetuity. 

Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee

RE: From religion to the paranormal

[Paul Smith]

Miguel Roig wrote: 
> However, the quote below was particularly troublesome.
> 
> "Prof Schwartz ... said ... 'Based on our data to date, the 
> most parsimonious explanation is that the mediums are in direct
communication 
> with the deceased'."

ROFL. That's great! Wouldn't you love to see what the other "less
parsimonious" explanations they considered were? :)

Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee

RE: From religion to the paranormal

[Miguel Roig]

At 04:39 PM 3/5/01 -0600, you wrote:

>   The entire article sounds like just another example of people fooled
>by standard cold reading.  

I hate to pass judgement on what must be a well-intentioned research effort
without reading the actual original paper.  But, based on the description of
the study (surely not an experiment), I see a sufficient number of other
methodological problems which almost makes me not even want to bother with the
original report.  

I guess, ultitmately, I would give the authors the benefit of the doubt and
wait for the report before commenting further.  However, the quote below was
particularly troublesome.

"Prof Schwartz ... said ... 'Based on our data to date, the most parsimonious
explanation is that the mediums are in direct communication with the deceased'."

Miguel

Did I mention that I was an associate member of the Parapsychological Association?

Oy!



<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< 
Miguel Roig, Ph.D.  Voice: (718) 390-4513 
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology  Fax: (718) 442-3612 
Dept. of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
St. John's University   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
300 Howard Avenue   http://area51.stjohns.edu/~roig;
Staten Island, NY 10301   
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> 

RE: From religion to the paranormal

[Timmerman, Thomas]

Schwartz has also appeared twice on the Art Bell show.
Which, of course, automatically disqualifies him from
possessing any credibility.
TT

===
Thomas A. Timmerman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Psychology Department
Austin Peay State University
Clarksville, TN 37044
Phone: 931-221-1248 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===

Re: From religion to the paranormal

[jim clark]

Hi

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Mike Lee wrote:
> Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here.  Simply inviting serious
> and objective responses to the following article.
> Admittedly, it is difficult to evaluate without more information, but
> nonetheless, interesting. 

It really is hard to take this seriously.  And I am not sure why
something is "interesting" if it is "difficult to evaluate,"
other than in the kind of "that's interesting"  comment one makes
when trying to not offend.

> A unique scientific experiment has produced startling
> evidence that some "spirit mediums" may indeed have
> paranormal talents.
> Now the first serious laboratory study of a group of mediums
> has found that they share an uncanny ability to state facts
> about the deceased relatives of people who come to them.

Only if you automatically define failures to find positive
results as "not serious" would this be even close to the first
serious lab study.  Schwartz's postings and website are full of
self-aggrandizing statements of this sort.

> The experiments, details of which will be published this
> week, involved five mediums and two "sitters" unknown to the
> mediums, whose deceased relatives they were asked to contact.

The publication should be interesting.  How many were tested?  
In one posting on the www, it was noted that some sitters in fact
were known to the mediums.  Others have commented about the
apparently naive ideas about "cold reading" that seem to underlie
the Schwartz studies.

> Reporting their findings in the forthcoming issue of the
> Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the
> researchers conclude: "Highly skilled mediums are able to
> obtain accurate and replicable information." Professor Gary
> Schwartz, who led the team, told The Telegraph: "The bottom
> line is that there is a class of highly skilled mediums who
> are doing something extraordinary."

Also a class of parapsychological researcher (i.e., Schwartz and
his wife Russek) who are finding results quite extraordinary.

> many questions unanswered. Dr Chris French, a leading expert
> at Goldsmiths College, London, said:  "Parapsychologists have
> become disillusioned with studies of mediums because the
> results are usually nothing more than you would expect by
> cold reading. This study has results that are so out of line
> that one would want to have a very close look at how it was
> done."

The emphasis here has to be on the "out of line" with other
findings.  If effects were as robust as Schwartz is claiming,
then there would be no trouble at all in producing effects that
can be replicable anywhere, and it seems highly improbable that
they would not have been reported previous to this given the many
studies that have been done on mediums.  Again the websites I
glanced at contained the usual kinds of waffling (e.g., doesn't
work so well with skeptics around or as sitters).

Schwartz is potentially a real embarrassment to psychology, as he
does have a legitimate psychology position at the University of
Arizona and appears to have done much legitimate research.  He
has proposed a "Universal Living Memory Theory" that presumably
ties in with homeopathy and other like pseudo-sciences. He has an
upcoming book (perhaps out now?) modestly titled: "The Living
Energy Universe: A Fundamental Discovery that Transforms Science
and Medicine," Schwartz believes there is evidence not only for
the mundane kinds of parapsychological phenomena (e.g., remote
viewing), but also for the afterlife.  He commented "Data is much
more consistent with survival than just plain death, but it does
not verify survival."

Here is one of many links that mentions Schwartz: It is titled
"Researchers Investigate Consciousness Beyond the Grave ..."
http://www.ccsf.cc.ca.us/Guardsman/f990927/uwire06.shtmlArizona

He and Russek also participated in an HBO special, and a website
notes: "On Sept. 23, Schwartz showed the HBO special to his
psychology of religion and spirituality class of about 100
people. Even though the film ran for more than 15 minutes past
the scheduled class time, nearly everybody stayed.  About 20 of
the students remained after class for a discussion that lasted
almost an hour."  This is just the kind of nonsense that will
appeal to an excessively high proportion of students.

Here is an example of his reasoning: "For example, logic requires
the prediction that within every dynamical "material" system is a
dynamical energy ("non-material") system that mirrors the overt
properties and histories of the observed material systems
(Schwartz and Russek, 1997)." He is quite active in his support
of all ideas paranormal, including the professional certification
of psychics (I see a new growth profession here for psychology).  
Here is a blurb from a cruise in the past year or so:

"The roster of onboard guests will include several personalities
and authors. One includes Suzane Northrop, a nationally known
master psychic medium and author of 

RE: From religion to the paranormal

[Paul Smith]

Mike Lee wrote: 
> Admittedly, it is difficult to evaluate without more information, but
> nonetheless, interesting. 
> 
>   Scientists Becoming Believers In
>   Spiritualists' Paranormal Powers
> By Robert Matthews - Science Correspondent
>  http://www.telegraph.co.uk
>3-4-1
> 
> When analysed for factual accuracy, the 
> mediums achieved a success rate of 83 per cent, with one 
> achieving an accuracy of 93 per cent.

Without knowing what "success" means, the numbers aren't very
meaningful. The fact that the untrained panel (below) scored an average of
36% with one guesser reaching 54% suggests that "success" was not exactly
difficult. 
 
> Sceptics have long argued that the success of mediums is 
> due to so-called "cold reading", in which mediums make educated 
> guesses about deceased people 
(snip)
> The team claims to have dealt with this objection 
> after a panel of more than 60 people was asked to 
> supply the same information as the mediums about the sitter. The 
> average score was only 36 per cent, with the most 
> successful guesser achieving just 54 per cent.

Either something very important has been left out of this article,
or "the team" doesn't know much about "cold reading". Why would the fact
that the "mediums" outscored a panel of presumably untrained people
eliminate the "cold reading" alternative hypothesis? I'm pretty certain that
most skeptics who observe cold reading scams would predict that an untrained
panel would not be able to perform the same way. Does "the team" believe
that cold reading is nothing more than untrained guessing? That's incredibly
naive. 

The entire article sounds like just another example of people fooled
by standard cold reading.  

Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee

Double postings

[Mike Lee]

Hi all.

Sorry about the double postings.  Problem with the mail server
today.

Mike
Lee[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
Dept of
Psychology  http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mdlee
University of
Manitoba  (204)
474-8169
Winnipeg, MB  Canada

From religion to the paranormal

[Mike Lee]

Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here.  Simply inviting serious
and objective responses to the following article.
Admittedly, it is difficult to evaluate without more information, but
nonetheless, interesting.   

Scientists Becoming Believers In
Spiritualists' Paranormal Powers
By Robert Matthews - Science Correspondent
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk
   3-4-1


 A unique scientific experiment has produced startling 
evidence
 that some "spirit mediums" may indeed have paranormal
 talents.

 Scientists involved in the study at the University of 
Arizona
 say that the findings are so extraordinary they raise
 fundamental questions about the survival of consciousness
 after death.

 Until now, the whole issue of the "afterlife" has been 
dismissed
 by most mainstream scientists, with spiritual mediums 
being
 regarded as either self-deluded or charlatans. Now the 
first
 serious laboratory study of a group of mediums has 
found that
 they share an uncanny ability to state facts about the 
deceased
 relatives of people who come to them.

 The experiments, details of which will be published 
this week,
 involved five mediums and two "sitters" unknown to the
 mediums, whose deceased relatives they were asked to
 contact.

 In the first experiment, each medium spent an hour 
with one of
 the sitters in a laboratory, with a screen preventing 
visual
 contact. Under constant video surveillance, each began 
talking
 about aspects of the sitter's deceased relatives. The 
sitter was
 only allowed to respond to specific questions from the 
medium
 with the words "yes" or "no". At the end of each 
session, the
 information gleaned by the mediums was analysed for its
 accuracy.

 The transcripts of each session showed that the mediums
 typically produced more than 80 pieces of information 
about
 the deceased relatives, ranging from their names and 
personal
 idiosyncrasies to the precise circumstances of their 
death.
 When analysed for factual accuracy, the mediums achieved a
 success rate of 83 per cent, with one achieving an 
accuracy of
 93 per cent.

 Similar success was achieved in experiments involving the
 second sitter, and even when the mediums were not 
allowed to
 communicate with the sitter in any way. Sceptics have long
 argued that the success of mediums is due to so-called 
"cold
 reading", in which mediums make educated guesses about
 deceased people - such as asking if a husband died of 
heart
 disease, which is a common cause of death.

 The team claims to have dealt with this objection 
after a panel
 of more than 60 people was asked to supply the same
 information as the mediums about the sitter. The 
average score
 was only 36 per cent, with the most successful guesser
 achieving just 54 per cent.

 Reporting their findings in the forthcoming issue of 
the Journal
 of the Society for Psychical Research, the researchers
 conclude: "Highly skilled mediums are able to obtain 
accurate
 and replicable information." Professor Gary Schwartz, 
who led
 the team, told The Telegraph: "The bottom line is that 
there is
 a class of highly skilled mediums who are doing something
 extraordinary."

 The secret of their success is unclear: every 
precaution was
 taken to rule out unconscious cheating or outright 
fraud. In one
 experiment, a medium claimed to have been in communication
 with the sitter's deceased mother three days before 
the meeting
 - and supplied a prayer that the mother used to recite 
for the
 sitter as a child.

 Prof Schwartz said such evidence is consistent with 
claims of
 mediums to deal directly with the dead, rather than merely
 

Re: Movie on Repressed Memories

[Mike Lee]

At 01:09 PM 03/05/2001 -0600, Paul Brandon wrote:
>At 1:01 PM -0500 3/5/01, Deborah Briihl wrote:
> >My students will be presented a debate on repressed memories and they
> >wanted to start with a film clip. One of the students remembers a film
> >about repressed memories that was shown on Lifetime, but can't recall the
> >name of the film. Any help? I already looked on Cannon's website for films
> >for psychology.
> >Deb
>
>Have you checked under "fiction"? ;-)


Actually, this might be the film the student is thinking about.  Whether or 
not you believe
repressed memories are fictitious, it is nonetheless a great film!

Spellbound.

Alfred Hitchcock takes on Sigmund Freud in this thriller in which 
psychologist Ingrid Bergman tries to solve a murder by unlocking the clues 
hidden in the mind of amnesiac suspect Gregory Peck. Among the highlights 
is a bizarre dream sequence seemingly designed by Salvador Dali--complete 
with huge eyeballs and pointy scissors. Although the film is in black and 
white, the original release contained one subliminal blood-red frame, 
appearing when a gun pointed directly at the camera goes off. Spellbound is 
one of Hitchcock's strangest and most atmospheric films, providing the 
director with plenty of opportunities to explore what he called "pure 
cinema"--i.e., the power of pure visual
  associations.

An engrossing psychological drama by the master of mystery. An amnesic 
mental patient unknowingly poses as the director of a mental hospital and 
becomes entangled in a murder. When a staff psychiatrist comes to his 
rescue, she finds that the solution to the murder mystery
lies deep within his repressed memories.

Mike Lee, MA
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mdlee
  

Re: Another religious message

[jim clark]

Hi

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul Brandon wrote:
> At 12:17 PM -0600 3/5/01, jim clark wrote:
> >In reading the article and looking at related material on the
> >www, the idea sharpened for me that psychology's involvement in
> >discussions about religiousness should be quite central.  Would
> >not a fundamental question be whether in explaining human
> >religiousness (beliefs, feelings, actions) we need to incorporate
> >supernatural elements?  Or are natural processes adequate to
> >explain such beliefs?
> 
> Isn't this tantamount to proving the null hypothesis?

The null hypothesis has to do with statistical validity, so I'm
not sure how it applies here (but perhaps with deeper thought).  
A more physical example first might help.  Do we need the idea of
gods guiding the planets in order to explain the observable
behaviour of planets?  Or are our physical explanations
sufficient?  At what point does it stop being necessary or even
desirable to continue with appeals to supernatural forces?

> There will always be unanswered questions about human behavior (we lack
> complete data), and God can always slide into these gaps (to coin a phrase
> ;-).

But most religious people would not be very happy with a "god of
the gaps," especially if those gaps become increasingly rare,
small, and relatively unimportant.

> The real question is whether natural processes are the most effective way
> to account for human behavior.

This begs the question of what we mean by effective.  Defining
effective as capacity to predict, control, and explain (the
typical criteria for scientific models), there would appear to be
little doubt about the most effective approach to understanding
the physical world.  And, I would argue, increasingly the
psychological world that concerns us.

> Again, the two sysytems work under such different assumptions that it's
> really hard to make a comparison.  By accepting one set of assumptions we
> have made out choice!

Does that mean that psychologists should not even try to explain
religious behaviour in naturalistic terms?

Best wishes
Jim


James M. Clark  (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology(204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg  4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA  http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark

Re: Nobels

[Gerald Peterson]

Pavlov would not be considered a "founder" of psychology by most psych
historiancs.  Clearly the work of many Nobel holders is relevant to
psych, but whether they can be considered, or considered themselves as
psychologists is what I was wondering.  Pavlov would roll over in his
grave at the thought.   My  point was NOT to look at the fact that
psychologists' history can easily lead to finer distinctions and
hair-splitting, but rather that the Nobel is not open to formal
recognition of psychological work.  It was this I was pondering.
That psychologists are not conscientious in keeping their
identification as psychologists uppermost in the public eye, is another
tale with many motivations.  I am dismayed when good psychological
research gets media attention but the researcher/s do not point out
their work is psychology, and their identification is as psychologist. 
Regards,  Gary Peterson


Claudia Stanny wrote:
> 
> This is a difficult question.  When we look at the history of psychology,
> how many founders were "psychologists?"  When we examine the current trend
> of psychology blending with other disciplines such as neurosciences and
> computer science (re: the thread about the current state of psychology), we
> are faced with the same questions.  Clearly, the research for which these
> individuals received their Nobel awards was directed at questions claimed
> by psychologists.  This research is part of the core research for
> psychology as evidenced by the frequency with which it is cited in our
> textbooks.  These individuals frequently work in psychology departments,
> present at psychology conferences, give colloquia for psychology
> departments, etc.  I think we can claim them as psychologists even if their
> degree says physiology.
> 
> By the way - the list of Nobel laureates includes that of our own dear
> founding father - I. P. Pavlov, although we do admit that the prize was
> awarded for his work on digestion rather than Classical Conditioning, per se.
> 
> Claudia Stanny
> 
> >
> >   Except for Simon, how  many of these folks are psychologists?  I
> >believe Hubel and Weisel do not have degrees in psychology per se?  And
> >of course, psychology proper I thought, was excluded from Nobel areas
> >considered?   Gary Peterson
> >
> >   G. Peterson
> >   Saginaw Valley State University
> >
> >
> >
> >Tom Allaway wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe Simon's Nobel was for his work with decision theory,
> >> particularly the concept of "satisficing" r/t maximizing.
> >>
> >> Lorenz, Tinbergen and Von Frisch got the Nobel for work whose topic
> >> was certainly behavioral.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Department of PsychologyPhone:  (850) 474 - 3163
> University of West Florida  FAX:(850) 857 - 6060
> Pensacola, FL  32514 - 5751
> 
> Web:http://www.uwf.edu/psych/stanny.html

Re: Another religious message

[Paul Brandon]

Yeah, she's good!
Her most recent NYT article is at
.
You'd have to pay for the 'outing' article; it's not in the open archives.
It's at
.

At 12:03 PM -0500 3/5/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>Relax! It's only a reference.
>
>I was listening to the People's radio on Sunday morning (that's
>the CBC up here in the Great Frozen North), and there was an
>interview with the severely talented science journalist Natalie
>Angier, who writes for the New York Times. It seems she has
>"outed" herself as a "prickly atheist" in the New York Times
>Magazine recently (January 14, 2001: Confessions of a lonely
>atheist).
>
>It's a provocative essay, with provocative quotes, and, as is her
>style, sprinkled with interesting data. For example, while 40% of
>individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science profess a
>belief in a "personal God", only 7% of those admitted to the more
>exalted National Academy of Sciences do. But more than 99% of
>those in US Federal prisons are believers.
>
>I wouldn't dare comment on what those figures mean. I cite them
>only to encourage you to dig this thoughtful article up,
>especially those in the throes of our current discussion of the
>topic.


* PAUL K. BRANDON   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *
* Psychology Dept   Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001  ph 507-389-6217 *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

Re: Another religious message

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:17 PM -0600 3/5/01, jim clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>The article Steve mentioned is excellent!  It can be found at:
>
>www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html
>
>In reading the article and looking at related material on the
>www, the idea sharpened for me that psychology's involvement in
>discussions about religiousness should be quite central.  Would
>not a fundamental question be whether in explaining human
>religiousness (beliefs, feelings, actions) we need to incorporate
>supernatural elements?  Or are natural processes adequate to
>explain such beliefs?

Isn't this tantamount to proving the null hypothesis?
There will always be unanswered questions about human behavior (we lack
complete data), and God can always slide into these gaps (to coin a phrase
;-).

The real question is whether natural processes are the most effective way
to account for human behavior.

Again, the two sysytems work under such different assumptions that it's
really hard to make a comparison.  By accepting one set of assumptions we
have made out choice!

* PAUL K. BRANDON   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *
* Psychology Dept   Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001  ph 507-389-6217 *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

RE: Another religious message

[Rick Froman]

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:03 AM
To: TIPS
Subject: Another religious message

It's a provocative essay, with provocative quotes, and, as is her
style, sprinkled with interesting data. For example, while 40% of
individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science profess a
belief in a "personal God", only 7% of those admitted to the more
exalted National Academy of Sciences do. But more than 99% of
those in US Federal prisons are believers.

I wouldn't dare comment on what those figures mean. I cite them
only to encourage you to dig this thoughtful article up,
especially those in the throes of our current discussion of the
topic.
---
These results are certainly thought-provoking but, ironically, they
generally confirm Paul's observations in I Corinthians 1:19-31. I won't bore
you with the details. I cite it only to encourage you to dig it up (it is
available to all at http://bible.gospelcom.net).

Re: Movie on Repressed Memories

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:01 PM -0500 3/5/01, Deborah Briihl wrote:
>My students will be presented a debate on repressed memories and they
>wanted to start with a film clip. One of the students remembers a film
>about repressed memories that was shown on Lifetime, but can't recall the
>name of the film. Any help? I already looked on Cannon's website for films
>for psychology.
>Deb

Have you checked under "fiction"? ;-)

* PAUL K. BRANDON   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *
* Psychology Dept   Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001  ph 507-389-6217 *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

RE: Movie on Repressed Memories

[Kirsten Rewey]

>= Original Message From Deborah Briihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
>My students will be presented a debate on repressed memories and they
>wanted to start with a film clip. One of the students remembers a film
>about repressed memories that was shown on Lifetime, but can't recall the
>name of the film. Any help? I already looked on Cannon's website for films
>for psychology.
>Deb


Deb -

Luckily I remembered that Shelley Long (of Cheer's fame) starred in the movie.
 I did a quick check on the internet and you can find a synopsis of the movie 
"Fatal Memories" at:

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Long%2C+Shelley

Look for #15 - "Fatal Memories."  Unfortunately the movie was made for TV so 
I'm not sure if the movie was ever sold/rented in the US.  Perhaps you can try 
your local video store?

Kirsten

Kirsten L. Rewey
Department of Psychology
St. Mary's University of Minnesota
700 Terrace Heights, Box 1464
Winona, Minnesota  55987

Office:  (507) 457-6991
Fax:  (507) 457-1633

http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~psychology

Online courses

[William Ghiselli]

If the prospect of online psychology courses is of interest or concern to 
you, I would strongly recommend the following monograph:  Twigg, C.A. 
(2000).  Who owns online courses and course materials?  Intellectual 
property policies for a new learning environment.  It is available in pdf 
format from:  http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono2.html  It very clearly 
presents most all the faculty and institutional issues surrounding the 
development and use of online courses.

Bill Ghiselli
Psychology Department
University of Missouri at Kansas City

"One man's fish is another man's poisson"

Re: Another religious message

[Robert Herdegen]

At 12:03 PM 3/5/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Relax! It's only a reference.
>
>I was listening to the People's radio on Sunday morning (that's
>the CBC up here in the Great Frozen North), and there was an
>interview with the severely talented science journalist Natalie
>Angier, who writes for the New York Times. It seems she has
>"outed" herself as a "prickly atheist" in the New York Times
>Magazine recently (January 14, 2001: Confessions of a lonely
>atheist).
>
>It's a provocative essay, with provocative quotes, and, as is her
>style, sprinkled with interesting data. For example, while 40% of
>individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science profess a
>belief in a "personal God", only 7% of those admitted to the more
>exalted National Academy of Sciences do. But more than 99% of
>those in US Federal prisons are believers.
>
>I wouldn't dare comment on what those figures mean. I cite them
>only to encourage you to dig this thoughtful article up,
>especially those in the throes of our current discussion of the
>topic.
>
>-Stephen
>
Certainly brings to mind the old line, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
And aside from the obvious empirical questions this raises (such as the
relationship between religiosity or belief in the [an?] Almighty, and sense
of desperation in one's own life circumstances), this also could be good
fodder for discussion in class of correlation/causation. Are they believers
or nonbelievers because of where they are, or are they where they are
because they are believers/nonbelievers, or is some third variable behind
them both?

Bob


Robert T. Herdegen III
Department of Psychology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney, VA  23943
804-223-6166

five theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

> Jim Clark wrote:

> Similarity of conviction is one criterion, but not sufficient to
> equate the two sides as fundamentalist (unless one wishes to
> diminish the impact of the scientific perspective).  I am quite
> definite that the earth rotates around the sun, that biological
> characteristics (many with psychological implications) are
> transmitted by genes from one generation to the next, that
> e=mc^2, that people who are similar to one another are more
> likely to become friends, and so on almost endlessly.  Some
> fundamentalists on the religion side are equally certain that the
> world was created in 7 days (although there is some waffling on
> the length of a day)

Waffling may not be the correct word, but there does appear to be some 
latitude among biblical literalists.  That may surprise some of us, but it does 
seem that a fair number of biblical literalist scholars often do not provide 
simplistic answers to complex questions (e.g., Was the world really created 
in 7 days?).

As one example, Erickson notes that that bible says the world was created 
in six days (God rested on day seven) days.  So, taking this literally means 
that a creationist could date the world as being about 6000 years old.  This 
conclusion was accepted as true until modern geology, and the scientific 
consensus that the earth is actually several billion years old, perhaps 5-6, or 
even more.  

Surprisingly there is no attempt by the writer to attack science.  He points 
out that very often science demonstrates something very apparent, and 
suggests that the literalist can broaden his/her interpretation in a way that 
does not deny the possibility that the bible is inerrant.

There are at least five different theories offered as attempts to reconcile the 
creationist and the scientist:

1)  The "gap" theory holds that there was an original, quite complete creation 
of the earth perhaps billions of years ago (Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God 
created the heavens and the earth.").  Then a catastrophe occurred -- and 
the creation became empty and unformed (Genesis 1:2 "The earth was 
formless and void...").  Then God re-created the earth a few thousand years 
ago, populating it with all the species (Genesis 1:3-1:27).  The apparent age 
of the earth and fossil records showing development over long periods of time 
are to be attributed to the first creation.

2)  The "flood" theory views the earth as only a few thousand years old.  At 
the time of Noah, the earth was covered by a tremendous flood; therefore 
these extreme geological circumstances accomplished in a short period 
what geologists believe would ordinarily require three billion years to 
accomplish.

3)  The "ideal-time" theory says that God created the world in a six-day 
period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it appear as if it were 
billions of years old.  For example, Adam did not begin his life as a newborn 
baby -- at any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or "ideal") age 
many years old than his actual age.  The ideal-time theory extends this 
example to the rest of God's creation.

4)  The "age-day" theory is based upon the fact that the Hebrew word for 
"day" usually meant a 24-hour period, but by no means was it limited to that 
meaning.  It can also mean epochs or long periods of time, and this is how it 
should be understood in this context.

5)  The "pictorial-day" (or literary framework) theory regards the creation as 
more a matter of logical structuring than of chronological order.  Either God's 
revelation to Moses (believed to be the author of Genesis) came in a series 
of six pictures, or Moses arranged the material in a logical grouping which 
took the form of six periods.  

The author summarizes by suggesting that the most tenable theory is the 
"age-day" theory.  He states that there are too many exegeticl difficulties 
attached to the gap theory, and the flood theory involves too great a strain on 
geological evidence.  The ideal-time theory is ingenious and in many ways 
irrefutable scientifically and exegetically, but presents the theological 
problem that it makes God look deceptive (and if God is supposed to be 
truthful, this is contrary to the bible writers claim that God is not God's 
nature).   The pictorial theory resolves the problem of chronological 
sequence, but has difficulties with God resting on the seventh day 
(suggesting there IS some sort of chronological sequence).

The author contends that the age-day theory is the option that best fits 
biblical wording and geological evidence.  Yet, he also points out that a) 
there is no way to be dogmatic about this, and b) the age of the universe is a 
topic that needs additional scientific and biblical analysis.

How about that?  
 

Jim Guinee, Ph.D.  
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor

President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas

Re: Another religious message

[jim clark]

Hi

The article Steve mentioned is excellent!  It can be found at:

www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html

In reading the article and looking at related material on the
www, the idea sharpened for me that psychology's involvement in
discussions about religiousness should be quite central.  Would
not a fundamental question be whether in explaining human
religiousness (beliefs, feelings, actions) we need to incorporate
supernatural elements?  Or are natural processes adequate to
explain such beliefs?

Best wishes
Jim


James M. Clark  (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology(204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg  4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA  http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark

Movie on Repressed Memories

[Deborah Briihl]

My students will be presented a debate on repressed memories and they 
wanted to start with a film clip. One of the students remembers a film 
about repressed memories that was shown on Lifetime, but can't recall the 
name of the film. Any help? I already looked on Cannon's website for films 
for psychology.
Deb

Dr. Deborah S. Briihl
Dept. of Psychology and Counseling
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
(229) 333-5994
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dbriihl/

Well I know these voices must be my soul...
Rhyme and Reason - DMB

Re: Nobels

[Claudia Stanny]

This is a difficult question.  When we look at the history of psychology,
how many founders were "psychologists?"  When we examine the current trend
of psychology blending with other disciplines such as neurosciences and
computer science (re: the thread about the current state of psychology), we
are faced with the same questions.  Clearly, the research for which these
individuals received their Nobel awards was directed at questions claimed
by psychologists.  This research is part of the core research for
psychology as evidenced by the frequency with which it is cited in our
textbooks.  These individuals frequently work in psychology departments,
present at psychology conferences, give colloquia for psychology
departments, etc.  I think we can claim them as psychologists even if their
degree says physiology.

By the way - the list of Nobel laureates includes that of our own dear
founding father - I. P. Pavlov, although we do admit that the prize was
awarded for his work on digestion rather than Classical Conditioning, per se.

Claudia Stanny

>
>   Except for Simon, how  many of these folks are psychologists?  I
>believe Hubel and Weisel do not have degrees in psychology per se?  And
>of course, psychology proper I thought, was excluded from Nobel areas
>considered?   Gary Peterson
>
>   G. Peterson
>   Saginaw Valley State University
>   
>
>
>Tom Allaway wrote:
>> 
>> I believe Simon's Nobel was for his work with decision theory,
>> particularly the concept of "satisficing" r/t maximizing.
>> 
>> Lorenz, Tinbergen and Von Frisch got the Nobel for work whose topic
>> was certainly behavioral.
>



Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of PsychologyPhone:  (850) 474 - 3163
University of West Florida  FAX:(850) 857 - 6060
Pensacola, FL  32514 - 5751 

Web:http://www.uwf.edu/psych/stanny.html

Another religious message

[Stephen Black]

Relax! It's only a reference.

I was listening to the People's radio on Sunday morning (that's
the CBC up here in the Great Frozen North), and there was an
interview with the severely talented science journalist Natalie
Angier, who writes for the New York Times. It seems she has
"outed" herself as a "prickly atheist" in the New York Times
Magazine recently (January 14, 2001: Confessions of a lonely
atheist).

It's a provocative essay, with provocative quotes, and, as is her
style, sprinkled with interesting data. For example, while 40% of
individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science profess a
belief in a "personal God", only 7% of those admitted to the more
exalted National Academy of Sciences do. But more than 99% of
those in US Federal prisons are believers.

I wouldn't dare comment on what those figures mean. I cite them
only to encourage you to dig this thoughtful article up,
especially those in the throes of our current discussion of the
topic.

-Stephen


Stephen Black, Ph.D.  tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology  fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's Universitye-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
   Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
   http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/

Herb Simon

[Ronald C. Blue]

I read recently that Herb Simon had died.  Age I believe was around 84.
Ron Blue

> 
> Herb Simon, a cognitive psychologist, received the Nobel prize in
> Economics.  I'm not sure what aspects of his work were cited in
> the award.
> 
> Best wishes
> Jim
> 
> 
> James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
> Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
> University of Winnipeg 4L05D
> Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
> 
> 

Re: words for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

>  Psycholgocial theory also assumes that physical
> punishment of children should be avoided

THAT is an overgeneralization, is it not?

, whereas the Bible adjures: Spare
> the rod and spoil the child.

No, "spare the rod" is not in the Bible.  It is thought to be an old English 
proverb.




Jim Guinee, Ph.D.  
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor

President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard HallConway, AR  72035USA   
(501) 450-3138 (office)  (501) 450-3248 (fax)

"No one wants advice -- only corroboration"
 -John Steinbeck

Re: words for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> > I think we have covered this issue before -- I believe you have brought
> > it up on more than one occasion.  I wonder if you're even more likely to
> > hold me suspect because we work at the same institution?
> 
> No Jim, it's no more personal than the suggestion that non-Christians are
> missing something.  I don't recall getting into this discussion before--at
> least not at this length.  Finally, you may have noticed that I noted your
> position in the Arkansas Counselor Association and deliberately omitted
> reference to our common institutional affiliation.  I would be equally
> interested in the your how you handle faith and professional issues if you
> were President of a state counselor's association elsewhere.
> 
> --
> * http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html 
> * Mike Scoles   *[EMAIL PROTECTED]  *

Thanks for the clarification.

My apologies for being oversensitive and reading too much into your 
message.

BTW, does anyone remember who started all of this?



Jim Guinee, Ph.D.  
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor

President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard HallConway, AR  72035USA   
(501) 450-3138 (office)  (501) 450-3248 (fax)

"No one wants advice -- only corroboration"
 -John Steinbeck

Re: Nobels

[Gerald Peterson]

Except for Simon, how  many of these folks are psychologists?  I
believe Hubel and Weisel do not have degrees in psychology per se?  And
of course, psychology proper I thought, was excluded from Nobel areas
considered?   Gary Peterson

G. Peterson
Saginaw Valley State University



Tom Allaway wrote:
> 
> I believe Simon's Nobel was for his work with decision theory,
> particularly the concept of "satisficing" r/t maximizing.
> 
> Lorenz, Tinbergen and Von Frisch got the Nobel for work whose topic
> was certainly behavioral.

Re: Nobel prize; psychologists [and others]

[Jeff Ricker]

Dap Louw wrote:

> I'm looking for info on psychologists who have made important
> research contributions .  For example,  as far as I know two trained
> psychologists have received the Nobel Prize:  Roger Sperry for his
> split-brain research, but I don't know who the other person and
> what his contribution was.  Do you know what their qualifications in
> psychology are?

I'm not going to answer Dap's question (because I don't know the answer) but I
did want to mention the only psychiatrist who ever won a Nobel Prize: a former
classmate of Sigmund Freud, Julius Wagner von Jauregg, who won the prize for
his fever treatment of general paresis. Another reason for recommending Wagner
(in my opinion, at least) was that he was highly critical of Freud's work.
According to Roazen (1984):

"Although Wagner may have admired Freud personally, ... as a leading
psychiatrist [he had a chair in psychiatry at the University of Vienna] Wagner
had to take a position vis-á-vis psychoanalysis. What to Freud seemed like
great discoveries were so much nonsense to him [although] Wagner was more
mocking than aggressively hostile to Freud's ideas." (p. 225)

Freud had a great desire to win the Nobel Prize himself. According to Gay
(1988), Freud was first nominated for the Prize in 1917 (in physiology and
medicine) by a Nobel laureate, Robert Barany, but he did not win. Others
continued to nominate him often in the years following 1917. In the late 1920s,
for example, a psychoanalyst by the name of Heinrich Meng mounted an intense
campaign to get the Prize awarded to Freud, but in literature this time, not
medicine, because a consultant for the latter prize viewed Freud to be a "fraud
and a menace." Many distinguished people supported Freud's candidacy for the
Nobel Prize in literature:

"He [Meng] collected an impressive outpouring of prestigious signatures; those
responding included such prominent German admirers as the novelists Alfred
Döblin and Jakob Wasserman, and also eminent foreigners--philosophers like
Bertrand Russell, educators like A.S. Neill, biographers like Lytton Strachey,
scientists like Julian Huxley Eugen Bleuler, too, though he had after some
years' flirtation eluded Freud's wooing, joined the signatories." (Gay, p. 456)

Albert Einstein refused to sign, stating that he was unable to offer an
authoritative opinion of Freud's work.

The fact that he never was awarded a Nobel Prize seemed to rankle Freud, even
though he was awarded many other prestigious awards throughout the last several
decades of his life.

I, too, have been passed over for the Nobel Prize many times. Freud and I have
that much in common. I did, however, once receive a "World's Best Dad" trophy.
Did Freud?? I thought not!

Jeff

Reference:
Roazen, P. (1984). Freud and his followers. Washington Square, NY: New York
University Press.
Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A life for out time. New York: Anchor.

--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D.  Office Phone:  (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd.FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ  85256-2626

"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
  Karl Popper

Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS)
http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html

Nobels

[Tom Allaway]

I believe Simon's Nobel was for his work with decision theory,
particularly the concept of "satisficing" r/t maximizing.

Lorenz, Tinbergen and Von Frisch got the Nobel for work whose topic
was certainly behavioral.

RE: Nobel prize; psychologists

[Gary Klatsky]

I believe that David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel received Nobel prized the same
year as Sperry. They received their award for work on feature detectors in
the visual system.

Gary J. Klatsky, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oswego State University of NY   http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
Oswego, NY 13126Voice: (315) 312 3474

 -Original Message-
From:   DAP Louw (Sielkunde) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Monday, March 05, 2001 6:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Nobel prize; psychologists

Tipsters

I'm looking for info on psychologists who have made important
research contributions .  For example,  as far as I know two trained
psychologists have received the Nobel Prize:  Roger Sperry for his
split-brain research, but I don't know who the other person and
what his contribution was.  Do you know what their qualifications in
psychology are?

Thanks

Dap

**
DAP LOUW, PH.D.(Psych.), PH.D.(Crim.)
HEAD: CENTRE FOR BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES
PROFESSOR: DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
P.O. BOX 339
BLOEMFONTEIN
9300 SOUTH AFRICA   TEL: INTL + 51 + 4012444
FAX: INTL + 51 + 447-5719
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

Re: Nobel prize; psychologists

[jim clark]

Hi

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, DAP Louw (Sielkunde) wrote:
> I'm looking for info on psychologists who have made important 
> research contributions .  For example,  as far as I know two trained 
> psychologists have received the Nobel Prize:  Roger Sperry for his 
> split-brain research, but I don't know who the other person and 
> what his contribution was.  Do you know what their qualifications in 
> psychology are?  

Herb Simon, a cognitive psychologist, received the Nobel prize in
Economics.  I'm not sure what aspects of his work were cited in
the award.

Best wishes
Jim


James M. Clark  (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology(204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg  4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA  http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark

Nobel prize; psychologists

[DAP Louw (Sielkunde)]

Tipsters

I'm looking for info on psychologists who have made important 
research contributions .  For example,  as far as I know two trained 
psychologists have received the Nobel Prize:  Roger Sperry for his 
split-brain research, but I don't know who the other person and 
what his contribution was.  Do you know what their qualifications in 
psychology are?  

Thanks 

Dap

**
DAP LOUW, PH.D.(Psych.), PH.D.(Crim.)   
HEAD: CENTRE FOR BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES
PROFESSOR: DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
P.O. BOX 339
BLOEMFONTEIN
9300 SOUTH AFRICA   TEL: INTL + 51 + 4012444
FAX: INTL + 51 + 447-5719
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**