a little spanking never hurt anyone

[Jim Guinee]

I got this from the "Psychwatch" newsletter.  It was prefaced
with the question "Sad news?"

Sad news...Gotta love that scientific neutrality!

To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/health/A58526-2001Aug24.html

New Study Gives Green Light to Occasional Spanking

SAN FRANCISCO #150; The occasional spanking does no long term-
damage to a child's emotional or social development, undercutting theories 
which say any physical punishment of children is harmful, according to a 
study released on Friday.

Psychologist Diana Baumrind surveyed more than 100 families and found that
children who are spanked occasionally can still grow up to be happy,
well-adjusted adults.

"We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical
punishment," Baumrind said in an address to the American Psychological
Association annual meeting in San Francisco.

"I am not an advocate of spanking," said Baumrind, "but a blanket
injunction against its use is not warranted by the evidence.  It is
reliance on physical punishment, not whether or not it is used at all,
that is associated with harm to the child."

Baumrind, who co-wrote the study with fellow University of
California-Berkeley psychologist Elizabeth Owens, separated out parents
who use spanking frequently and severely from those who who occasionally
spank their children.

The study, which focused on spanking in middle-class, white families was
undertaken in response to anti-spanking advocates who have claimed that
physical punishment, by itself, has harmful psychological effects on
children and hurts society as a whole.

Surveying extensive records on California families conducted by earlier
studies at Berkeley's Institute of Human Development, other archival
material and independent observations and interviews, the psychologists
compiled a "Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale" to assess various strategies
of parental discipline and their effects on children.

Only a small minority of parents, from 4 percent to 7 percent depending on
the time period, used physical punishment often and with some intensity.
While not legally abusive, these parents appeared to be overly severe and
impulsive when doling out physical punishment, according to Baumrind,
adding that punishment styles often include using a paddle or other
instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifting,
throwing, or shaking the child.

'RED ZONE'

Baumrind said that when this "red zone" group of parents was removed from
the study sample, most of the correlations between spanking and long-term
harm to children also disappeared.

"Red zone parents are rejecting, exploitative and impulsive," Baumrind
said. "They are parents who punish beyond the norm. You have very little
to explain after you remove this small group."

The children of less-determined spankers, classified as falling into
orange, yellow and green zones, appeared to show no long-term harmful
effects, she said.

"There were no significant differences between children of parents who
spanked seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow
zone)," Baumrind said.

Verbal punishment, in which parents use words rather than physical action
to discipline a child, appeared to yield similar results, with researchers
saying severe verbal punishment could sometimes have a more serious
long-term effect on a child than physical punishment. "What really matters
is the child-rearing context. When parents are loving and firm and
communicate well with the child the children are exceptionally competent
and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as
preschoolers."

--- End of forwarded message ---

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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt

**

spanking

[Jim Guinee]

I got this from the "Psychwatch" newsletter.  It was prefaced
with the question "Sad news?"

Gotta love that scientific neutrality!

To view the entire article, go to 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/health/A58526-2001Aug24.html

New Study Gives Green Light to Occasional Spanking

SAN FRANCISCO #150; The occasional spanking does no long term-damage to 
a child's emotional or social development, undercutting theories which say 
any physical punishment of children is harmful, according to a study released on 
Friday.

Psychologist Diana Baumrind surveyed more than 100 families and found that children 
who are spanked occasionally can still grow up to be happy, well-adjusted adults.

"We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical 
punishment," 
Baumrind said in an address to the American Psychological Association annual meeting 
in San Francisco.

"I am not an advocate of spanking," said Baumrind, "but a blanket injunction against 
its 
use is not warranted by the evidence.  It is reliance on physical punishment, not 
whether 
or not it is used at all, that is associated with harm to the child."

Baumrind, who co-wrote the study with fellow University of California-Berkeley 
psychologist 
Elizabeth Owens, separated out parents who use spanking frequently and severely from 
those 
who who occasionally spank their children.

The study, which focused on spanking in middle-class, white families was undertaken 
in response to anti-spanking advocates who have claimed that physical punishment, 
by itself, has harmful psychological effects on children and hurts society as a whole.

Surveying extensive records on California families conducted by earlier studies 
at Berkeley's Institute of Human Development, other archival material and independent 
observations and interviews, the psychologists compiled a "Parent Disciplinary 
Rating Scale" to assess various strategies of 
parental discipline and their effects on children.

Only a small minority of parents, from 4 percent to 7 percent depending on the 
time period, used physical punishment often and with some intensity.
While not legally abusive, these parents appeared to be overly severe and 
impulsive when doling out physical punishment, according to Baumrind, 
adding that punishment styles often include using a paddle or other 
instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifting, throwing, 
or shaking the child.

'RED ZONE'

Baumrind said that when this "red zone" group of parents was removed from the 
study sample, most of the correlations between spanking and long-term harm to children 
also disappeared.

"Red zone parents are rejecting, exploitative and impulsive," Baumrind said. "They are 
parents 
who punish beyond the norm. You have very little to explain after you remove this 
small group."

The children of less-determined spankers, classified as falling into orange, yellow 
and green zones, 
appeared to show no long-term harmful effects, she said.

"There were no significant differences between children of parents who spanked 
seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow zone)," Baumrind said.

Verbal punishment, in which parents use words rather than physical action to 
discipline 
a child, appeared to yield similar results, with researchers saying severe verbal 
punishment 
could sometimes have a more serious long-term effect on a child than physical 
punishment.
"What really matters is the child-rearing context. When parents are loving and firm 
and 
communicate well with the child the children are exceptionally competent 
and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as 
preschoolers."

--- End of forwarded message ---

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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

Re: bumper sticker

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bumper sticker

>   Michael Sylvester wrote:
> 
> > The following bumper sticker was seen on campus:
> >  "The only vitamin for a christian is B1."
> 
>   Your point being?
> 
>   Rick

To test how long it took for you to get it?

I refuse to answer that question, by the way

Re: first day of class

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: First day of class

> (Assuming that yours is a lifespan development course, not just a child
> development course)
> 
> Have you tried the "Decades of Life" thing? You give the students sheets
> with something like
> 
> 0-10
> 11-20
> 21-30
> 31-40
> ...
> 
> 90-100
> 
> You ask the students (individually - they'll share when they've all
> finished) to come up with three words or short phrases describing each
> decade. When they're all done, you look for common answers as well as
> unique ones, and you ask them if certain decades were more difficult than
> others. Then you point out connections to some of the theories they'll be
> learning (Freud, Erikson...). 
> 
> Paul Smith
> Alverno College
> Milwaukee

Wow.  What a cool idea.

I've only used two significant first-day activities, and nothing deep like Paul or 
others.  But I think it's great to consider what significant impact you can have 
on the first day.

At some schools and/or for some profs, I believe the norm is still to show up, 
take attendance, pass out the syllabus, and call it a day.  To me that shows 
the students you're not ready to take your class seriously, and neither 
should they.  That's just an opinion, mind you.

I have done two things to create a stir on the first day:

One I don't think I can do anymore -- I used to sit in the back of the class 
and wait to see how long the students would stir without a teacher.  It was
amazing to me that ten minutes would expire and not a single student would 
say anything about "Where's the teacher?"

At this point I would stand up and begin passing out the syllabus.  The 
people near me always freaked out.

This led into a discussion on, among other things, norms and expectations.  
I'd try to be cool and say "That demo was to show you that I don't do things 
the normal way."  Don't know if it worked.

2.  The other idea came from Doug Bernstein.  He has some great "psychic 
tricks" he's used, tricks that were specifically designed to create a shock, 
but then have the students investigate how the trick was done.  

My favorite was the one with a newspaper column.  Doug instructs that you 
say something about being a psychic, and that you intend to prove it with an 
"experiment."

You hold up a single column article (it has to be a long, single column article 
or it won't work) with one hand, then take a pair of scissors with your other 
hand.  Your hands at this point should be parallel.

Then you instruct the class you're going to take your scissors and move 
them downward, until you come to a point where you begin cutting the article 
in half.  

You pick a student at random and ask them to tell you when to say "Cut."  
You move the scissors downward until you hear "cut," and then cut the 
article in half at that spot.  When your cut is done, the bottom half of the 
article will fall to the ground.

Ask a student from the front row to pick that part up and read the top line of 
the article to the class (just have them read the first sentence).

Then each student is instructed to reach under their desk tops, and search 
for an envelope (I usually tape at least three envelopes).  Any student that 
has an envelope is instructed to stand up, open it, and read the message 
inside.  Of course, the sentence in the envelope is the same one they just 
heard from the article.

No matter how many times I've done it, I love it when the class reacts to 
hearing the same sentences.

Now, ask the students, either individually, or in groups, to develop an 
explanation for how the trick was done. You'll get some obvious 
explanations, and some very creative ones as well.

What's interesting to me is that only one student over the years has actually 
asked to see the rest of the article!  To examine ALL the evidence!

When this student did, he figured it out.  "Hey," he said, "you cut the column 
after the first paragraph (the "read" sentence comes next), turned the rest of 
the column upside down, and taped it back together!"

Jim






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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

Rethinking Kuhn

[Jim Guinee]

{PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=S"}Thought some of you might enjoy this. It was recently 
featured in the "New 
York Times."  Jim G
Sometime in 1962, to paraphrase Virginia Woolf, the world changed. That year a 
physicist and historian of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, did for conceptions of 
science what Copernicus and Einstein did for astronomy and physics. He led a 
revolution, at least if one accepts the analysis in his book, "The Structure of 
Scientific Revolutions," which has sold over a million copies in 20 languages.
Kuhn introduced the now common notion of paradigm as an accepted set of 
principles by which the world is viewed. When a paradigm shifts, when, for 
example, the earth is no longer seen as the center of the universe, old notions of 
truth are discarded and new ones take their place.
But that wasn't all Kuhn said. He argued that new paradigms are no more valid 
than the old; they just turn out to be more useful. Kuhn dismissed the idea of 
scientific progress, portraying scientists as a self-regulated guild that 
excommunicates dissenters and is preoccupied with what he dismissively referred 
to as puzzle-solving.
The implications of these ideas turned out to be far more controversial than Kuhn 
initially imagined, and five years after his death the debate over his intellectual 
revolution continues.
At least three books by and about Kuhn have been published in the last year, 
attacking and defending him. "Thomas Kuhn" (Princeton University Press) by 
Alexander Bird, a philosopher at the University of Edinburgh, evaluates Kuhn's 
analyses of normal and revolutionary science, providing a critical yet sympathetic 
interpretation.
More eccentric and politically charged is "Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History 
for Our Times" (University of Chicago Press) by Steve Fuller, a sociologist at the 
University of Warwick in England, who lays into Kuhn for his elitist and cultic 
view of science.
Finally, in "The Road Since Structure" (University of Chicago Press), Kuhn's own 
essays are collected, chronicling how, for over 30 years, he expanded on his initial 
ideas while trying to protect them from their logical consequences.
The problem is that many of Kuhn's ideas have become part of the postmodernist 
paradigm. According to this set of ideas, Western science is hardly neutral and 
objective. Instead it is full of unexamined prejudices and preferences and 
presumptions. More radically, philosophers of science like Paul Feyer abend have 
argued that even explanatory systems like mythology and astrology stake claims 
as valid as those of Western science.
And Kuhn himself argued that ideas that have been rejected by contemporary 
science — that heat, for example, is caused by phlogiston or that mental health is 
regulated by humors in the body — have been rejected not because they were 
wrong but because they no longer served the needs of scientists.
In other words, the truth is up for grabs. There is, according to Kuhn, "no 
standard higher than the assent of the relevant community."
Kuhn also said that when a new paradigm is created, conservative and 
revolutionary forces fight over its acceptance. This is what happened with Kuhn's 
paradigm, leading to the familiar culture wars (over education and the centrality of 
Western culture) and science wars (over truth and relativism).
One of the most famous science- oriented skirmishes occurred in 1996, the year 
Kuhn died. A physicist at New York University, Alan Sokal, wrote a parody of 
postmodern, relativistic and political views of science, riddling his paper with 
errors. The editors of the journal Social Text published it, catching neither the 
errors nor the satire. Mr. Sokal's prank, which drew worldwide attention, 
demonstrated the absurdities of extreme Kuhnianism and showed how some 
influential scholars cared less about scientific accuracy than about allegiance to 
ideologies.
Kuhn, too, objected to relativistic arguments. Despite the assertions of some of 
his followers, Kuhn insisted in "The Road Since Structure" that the world had an 
objective existence, that it was "not invented or constructed." Indeed, he said, 
scientific exploration is bound by the nature of that world. But Kuhn's attempts to 
reconcile those views with the implications of his earlier views created their own 
controversies.
In his book, for example, Mr. Bird argues that Kuhn's dismissal of absolute truth 
and his attacks on the idea of scientific progress are confused and lead to a 
"metaphysical relativism" that was not Kuhn's intention. Mr. Bird's selective 
criticisms and appreciations leave Kuhn wounded but still a vital presence.
More polemically, Mr. Fuller, in his "Philosophical History," comes after Kuhn 
from the opposite direction, arguing not that he slighted a conservative notion of 
immutable truth, but that he hurt the causes of the political left. Mr. Fuller 
compares him to the blank-faced, illiterate character Chance in Jerzy Kosinski's 
novel "Being There,"

math trouble

[Jim Guinee]

Hello,

Got a problem I can't figure out.  It's me!

Seriously, I have always been very gifted with numbers.  This is not meant to 
boast (plus given the brilliance of many of the list members...), but to 
establish context.

I have always scored very high on math tests, 750 on GRE math, yadda 
yadda yadda.  

And I'm real quick with numbers, too --I can calculate stuff in my head like 
nobody's business.  

But here's what I don't get -- I can't subtract any faster than the average bear. 
In fact, I have to use a calculator for the checkbook because I keep making 
subtraction errors.  I can add and multiple numbers in my head like crazy, 
but ask me to subtract and I need a pen and paper.

What's wrong here? How I can someone add, multiply, even divide so quickly 
and yet freeze up on subtraction?  What mental task am I stumbling over?

I just don't remember enough of my cognitive psych to figure me out.

Thanks,
Jim

math trouble

[Jim Guinee]

Hello,

Got a problem I can't figure out.  It's me!

Seriously, I have always been very gifted with numbers.  This is not meant to 
boast (plus given the brilliance of many of the list members...), but to 
establish context.

I have always scored very high on math tests, 750 on GRE math, yadda 
yadda yadda.  

And I'm real quick with numbers, too --I can calculate stuff in my head like 
nobody's business.  

But here's what I don't get -- I can't subtract any faster than the average bear. 
In fact, I have to use a calculator for the checkbook because I keep making 
subtraction errors.  I can add and multiple numbers in my head like crazy, 
but ask me to subtract and I need a pen and paper.

What's wrong here? How I can someone add, multiply, even divide so quickly 
and yet freeze up on subtraction?  What mental task am I stumbling over?

I just don't remember enough of my cognitive psych to figure me out.

Thanks,
Jim

********
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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

Was the bunny wabbit at Disneyland?

[Jim Guinee]

Interesting study, although I don't find it all that surprising or compelling.
Pick something completely unrelated to Disney characters and then I'll be 
impressed. 
*
About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print advertisement 
that described a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs 
Bunny later said they remembered or knew the event happened to them. 
The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a 
Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney Co. 
property, according to University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie 
Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus. Pickrell will make two presentations on the topic at 
the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) on Sunday (June 
17) in Toronto and at a satellite session of the Society for Applied Research in 
Memory and Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on Wednesday. 
"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a false memory 
can be created," said Pickrell, UW psychology doctoral student. 
"It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a false memory or 
those who witness an accident and whose memory can be distorted who can have 
a false memory. Memory is very vulnerable and malleable. People are not always 
aware of the choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle association 
changes on memory." 
The research is a follow-up to an unpublished study by Loftus, a UW psychology 
professor who is being honored by the APS this week with its William James 
Fellow Award for psychological research; Kathryn Braun, a visiting scholar at the 
Harvard Business School; and Rhiannon Ellis, a former UW undergraduate who is 
now a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. In the original study, 16 
percent of the people exposed to a Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later 
thought they had seen and met the cartoon rabbit. 
In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects into four groups. 
The subjects were told they were going to evaluate advertising copy, fill out 
several questionnaires and answer questions about a trip to Disneyland. 
The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no cartoon 
characters. The second group read the same copy and was exposed to a 4-foot-
tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was casually placed in the interview 
room. No mention was made of Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the 
fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group 
read the fake add and also saw the cardboard rabbit. 
This time 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said they remembered 
or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they visited Disneyland and 40 percent 
of the people in the double exposure group reported the same thing. 
"'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking hands with 
Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no real memory, but are sure 
that it happened, just as they have no memory of having their umbilical cord being 
cut when they were born but know it happened. 
"Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying, 'I know it could have 
happened,' is taking the first step of actually creating a memory. If you clearly 
believe you walked up to Bugs Bunny, you have a memory." 
In addition, Pickrell said there is the issue of the consequence of false memories 
or the ripple effects. People in the experiment who were exposed to the false 
advertising were more likely to relate Bugs Bunny to other things at Disneyland 
not suggested in the ad, such as seeing Bugs and Mickey Mouse together or 
seeing Bugs in the Main Street Electrical Parade. 
"We are interested in how people create their autobiographical references, or 
memory. Through this process they might be altering their own memories," she 
said. "Nostalgic advertising works in a similar manner. Hallmark, McDonald's and 
Disney have very effective nostalgic advertising that can change people's buying 
habits. You may not have had a great experience the last time you visited 
Disneyland or McDonald's, but the ads may be inadvertently be creating the 
impression that they had a wonderful time and leaving viewers with that memory. 
If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never had, that is 
pretty powerful. 
"The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is making the difference. Just 
casually reading a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some other incidental exposure doesn't 
mean you believe you met Bugs. The ad does." 

Re: Diener's letter re: APA controversy

[Jim Guinee]

> >It seems that if you're gonna quit, then quit, and if you're gonna stay,
> >then stay.  But threatening to leave and then telling everyone about
> >it...well, that seems a little less than professional.
> 
> It's called trying to apply some political pressure to counter that which
> produced McCarty's action.
> 
> * PAUL K. BRANDON   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  *

Understood, but can't that be done without threatening to quit?  What about 
rallying the troops? (spoken from a politically ignorant individual)

Re: Diener's letter re: APA controversy

[Jim Guinee]

> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:41:57
> From: "Jeffrey Nagelbush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Fwd: Diener's letter re: APA controversy (fwd)
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I have a tremendous amount of respect of Ed Diener (ever since I sat in his 
class as a little freshman), but I wonder about the use of such a letter.  

It seems that if you're gonna quit, then quit, and if you're gonna stay, then 
stay.  But threatening to leave and then telling everyone about it...well, that 
seems a little less than professional.

But, that's just my opinion.

I wonder if APA is going to suffer a mass exodus from this controversy.

"When the tree falls, the monkeys scatter"
Chinese Proverb

it just never ends, does it?

[Jim Guinee]

Here's a new twist.  I don't have any more information on this lawmaker, so it 
may not be worth putting out at this time.  It's certainly not clear what her specific 
arguments are -- maybe someone else could hypothesize that...
FW:
A Louisiana lawmaker is condemning Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as 
racist, and she wants the disclaimer in textbooks of the state's schools. State Rep. 
Sharon Weston Broome, D-Baton Rouge, is pushing a House resolution against 
the theory based on concerns over race, not religion, "The Baton Rouge 
Advocate" reported. 
"If evolution has provided the main rationale for racism, and we are teaching our 
children evolution in schools, then correspondingly we are teaching them racist 
principles," Broome told a group of 40 people yesterday in Baton Rouge. "If you 
are going to teach it in our schools, you have to make children aware of the 
weaknesses in the theory." 
Broome, who is black, believes Darwin's idea is linked to race problems in Baton 
Rouge. Her resolution says the Legislature rejects those theories "and does 
hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify 
and approve racist practices," the "Advocate" reported. Textbooks that spell out 
Darwin's theory would be required to carry a disclaimer. 
Louisiana is no stranger to the evolution debate. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 
rejected the state's 1981 creationism law, citing that it violated the constitutional 
mandate for separation of church and state, the "Advocate" reported. 


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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

measuring evil

[Jim Guinee]

Given the recent thread on evil, I found this little article interesting.
FW:
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY, Associated Press Writer 
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - "Evil" is not a word most psychiatrists like. But 
some are trying to find a way to measure it. 
During a symposium Thursday at the American Psychiatric Association 
convention, Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, asked more than 
120 psychiatrists to help create a depravity scale which could be used by 
the courts to judge criminals. 
Every day, judges ask juries to decide whether crimes are heinous, 
atrocious, cruel, outrageous, wanton, vile or inhuman - aggravating factors 
which can increase sentences and even lead to the death penalty in some 
states. 
But there are no universal standards to define such terms, Welner told the 
overflow audience. The interpretations often depend on judges' and 
jurors' emotions and biases, and politics or media attention can influence 
whether a prosecutor asks for execution, he said. 
In his effort to create a scale to measure depravity in defendants, Welner, 
who has testified as both a prosecution and defense witness, created a list 
of 26 indications of intent, actions and attitudes which could be used to 
rate crimes. 
Among the intents are whether the person meant to cause emotional 
trauma, cause permanent disfigurement, or terrorize or target the helpless. 
Actions include whether an attack was unrelenting or the attacker 
prolonged the victim's suffering. Attitudes include blaming the victim, 
having disrespect for the victim or taking satisfaction in the crime. 
Welner is asking judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, psychiatrists and 
theologians to go to his Web site and rate each indicator for whether they 
believe it is especially, somewhat or not at all representative of depravity. 
The object is to find indicators which all or most experts agree on, a 
"consensus morality" which could be used in court. 
Thursday's symposium, titled "How Psychiatry Defines Evil," was held on 
the final evening of the convention. 
Dr. Michael Stone of Columbia University also showed slides of nearly 
three dozen killers and others whom he considers evil. 
A woman who burned one of her three daughters alive and starved 
another to death was "at the extreme edge of evil ... one of the most 
clearly evil persons" of more than 400 whose biographies he has read, 
Stone said. 
However, he added that "the bulk of evil on a world scale is committed 
by ideologues and their followers." Wars and persecutions, from the 
Spanish Inquisition to the fighting in Bosnia, show people are capable of 
"bottomless cruelty to those outside the tribe, especially in times of 
hardship and hunger," he said. 
Welner also discussed other research that has highlighted problems with 
trying to measure depravity in criminals, primarily that some traits 
associated with people who cannibalize, mutilate or torture their victims 
also can be found in people who don't commit such crimes. 
Dr. Cleo Van Velsen, a forensic psychiatrist from London who was in the 
audience, said another challenge is determining why people commit acts 
that can be described as evil. 
"We know they exist, but not why they are produced," she said. 
Dr. John L. Young of New Haven, Conn., said he found "depravity" a 
more acceptable term than "evil." 
Trying to create a fairer, more reliable measurement for a word used in 
court is one thing, he said, but "I'm not holy enough, not saintly or godly 
enough to tamper with evil." 

Re: Can Gays Go Straight?

[Jim Guinee]

> > Study: Can Gays Go Straight? 
> 
> Straight?  Always wondered if that words in itself is a judgemental term
> as if homosexuals had somehow taken a crooked path. 

You're correct -- it is judgmental, and I'm surprised they used it.

Language is a powerful thing, eh?  I had some gay acquaintances/colleagues 
at another university who detested being called "homosexual" (as opposed to 
being called "gay").
 
> Of course, the key word is "some."  It is not synonomous with "all." 
> Alas, if people just would cooperate and not be complex or complicated. 

Couldn't this be good news for "some?"  If you want to be one way, go that 
way, and if you want to be another way, well there's that option too?



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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

Re: Can Gays Go Straight?

[Jim Guinee]

> I don't see why it's hard to believe that some portion of the gay
> population can learn to behave and respond in a heterosexual manner if
> they want to. 

But is this just painting the house a different color?


********
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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

Can Gays Go Straight?

[Jim Guinee]

Study: Can Gays Go Straight? 

A psychiatrist at Columbia University has released a controversial new study that 
says some gays can become heterosexual. That conclusion was 
quickly lauded by Christian ministries dealing with homosexuality and challenged 
by gay rights activists. 

Dr. Robert Spitzer said his study was based on 45-minute telephone interviews 
with 143 men and 57 women who had sought help to change their sexual 
orientation. He and his colleagues found that 66 percent of the men and 44 
percent of the women had achieved "good heterosexual functioning," he said. 
"If somebody wants to change and it's not because they are just responding to 
pressure, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that it's irrational or giving in to 
society," Dr. Spitzer told the New York Times. 

Ironically, Spitzer had spearheaded the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 
decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. At the time, he 
said homosexuality does not meet the criteria for a mental disorder, and he called 
for more research to determine whether some people can change their sexuality. 
Spitzer, who does not offer reparative therapy, said that he began his study as a 
skeptic at the prodding of former homosexuals who protested the association's 
policy discouraging "reparative" therapies. 

Spitzer's current study was immediately criticized by gay rights groups, which 
noted that 43 percent of the sample had been referred to Spitzer by Christian "ex-
gay ministries" that offer programs to gay people who seek to change. Another 23 
percent were referred by the National Association for Research and Therapy of 
Homosexuality which considers homosexuality a developmental disorder. 

"It's snake oil, it's not science," David Elliot, a spokesman for the National Gay 
and Lesbian Task Force, a lobbying group in Washington, said of the study. 
"The sample is terrible, totally tainted, and totally unrepresentative of the gay and 
lesbian community," Elliot said. 

John Paulk, Focus on the Family (FOF) gender and homosexuality department 
manager who organized a group of 60 protesters at last year's APA meeting, 
disagreed. He told Charisma News Service (CNS) that the survey was not 
skewed at all, noting that Spitzer has described himself as "an atheist, humanistic 
Jew." 

"He was coming at this completely unbiased," said Paulk, who took part in 
Spitzer's study along with his wife, Anne. "It's hard to argue with the story of 200 
people who had been out of homosexuality for at least five years. Five years is a 
good period of time to show change. Gay activists have been asking, 'Where are 
your study numbers?' Here you go." 

Paulk told CNS the study would gain credibility if Spitzer could publish it through 
the APA. "They [the APA] have been trying to disavow any therapies attempting 
to change sexual orientation," he said. "What we've been looking for is 
documented proof. This psychologically and scientifically legitimizes what's been 
happening for thousands of years going back to biblical times -- that people have 
been overcoming homosexuality. We think it will make a great impact." 

Spitzer said he cannot estimate what percentage of highly motivated gay people 
can change their sexual orientation. But, he said, the research "shows some 
people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that." 


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)

"Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its 
  essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
-- William Hazlitt 

**

student blooper

[Jim Guinee]

In a paper on spanking, a student defined corporal punishment
as "the international infliction of pain on the body for the purpose of 
punishment."

Boy, you talk about painful...

Re: Bullying and Homophobia

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Wuensch, Karl L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Bullying and Homophobia
> 
>  Does the psychological literature contain much on the relationship
> between homophobia and bullying in the schools?  I ask because of an AP
> release I found in our local newspaper today:
> 
>  There is pending legislation in the state of Washington that would
> require schools to take actions to stop the harassment of kids that are
> the target of bullies.  This legislation has, however, stalled after being
> opposed by the Christian Coalition.  The CC opines that the legislation is
> really gay-rights legislation, and that it would interfere with the right
> of Christian students to express their condemnation of homosexuality.

If the CC opposes legislation because it broadens "bullying" and or 
"harrassment" to an individual simply opining his moral disagreement with 
homosexuality, than I suggest they have a legitimate gripe.  

I'd like to see the actual legislation, to see how bullying and/or harrassment 
is defined.  Then I think we can really see what this group finds so 
objectionable.  

> Apparently the eleventh commandment is "Thou shalt beat up homos." ;-(

To do so is clearly unChristlike.  The New Testament repeatedly admonishes 
Christians to obey the laws of the land, to treat non-Christians with 
gentleness and respect.  So while one has the right to "condemn" another's 
lifestyle as immoral, one is prohibited from taking any action, or supporting 
any action that victimizes an individual or any group of people.

Big difference between "My religious views lead me to disagree with your gay 
lifestyle" and "It is my religious obligation to beat your gay butt."  Any 
Christian who cannot discern the difference should be punished appropriately.

Re: the face of a tipster

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: the face of a tipster
> Message-ID: 
> 
> If you dig deep enough, it's on my Web site (no, not the rat;-).
> I suspect the same is true for at least some other Tipsters.

Interesting -- I had imagined you as a younger person.  Of course, I wonder 
how many male tipsters I tend to conceptualize as being similar to me in age 
and appearance.  I wonder how common such that is?  That's not 
ethnocentrism, is it?  

BTW, nice picture.  You're much cuter than the rats...

Re: chalkboard anyone?

[Jim Guinee]

> Dry erase boards suck.
> 
> Nancy Melucci
> ELAC

I'm so shappy someone else feels the same way.

I teach in two different classrooms -- one where there is only the dry erase 
board.  Ugh! Those markers STINK, and they go dry about every three 
seconds.

Of course, my dry cleaner bill has considerably diminished from the lack of 
chalk on my good pants :) 

Jim

P.S.  I've considered asking the dept chair about the cost of "converting" the 
board to a chalkboard.  I can hear her giggle now...

Is addiction really a brain disease (LONG)

[Jim Guinee]

Not my area, but I found it interesting nonetheless.  Am curious to hear 
others' reactions...JPG

> "Addiction Is a Brain Disease"
> "Whether addicts are 'victims' or not, once addicted they must be seen as
> 'brain disease patients.'"
>
> Opinion by Alan I. Leshner
> Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes
> of Health Issues in Science and Technology
>
> (Spring, 2001)--The United States is stuck in its drug abuse metaphors
> and in polarized arguments about them. Everyone has an opinion. One
> side insists that we must control supply, the other that we must reduce
> demand. People see addiction as either a disease or as a failure of
> will. None of this bumpersticker analysis moves us forward. The truth
> is that we will make progress in dealing with drug issues only when
> our national discourse and our strategies are as complex and
> comprehensive as the problem itself.
>
> A core concept that has been evolving with scientific advances over
> the past decade is that drug addiction is a brain disease that develops
> over time as a result of the initially voluntary behavior of using drugs.
> The consequence is virtually uncontrollable compulsive drug craving,
> seeking, and use that interferes with, if not destroys, an individual's
> functioning in the family and in society. This medical condition
> demands formal treatment.
>
> We now know in great detail the brain mechanisms through which
> drugs acutely modify mood, memory, perception, and emotional
> states. Using drugs repeatedly over time changes brain structure and
> function in fundamental and long-lasting ways that can persist long
> after the individual stops using them. Addiction comes about through
> an array of neuroadaptive changes and the laying down and
> strengthening of new memory connections in various circuits in the
> brain. We do not yet know all the relevant mechanisms, but the
> evidence suggests that those long-lasting brain changes are
> responsible for the distortions of cognitive and emotional functioning
> that characterize addicts, particularly including the compulsion to use
> drugs that is the essence of addiction. It is as if drugs have highjacked
> the brain's natural motivational control circuits, resulting in drug use
> becoming the sole, or at least the top, motivational priority for the
> individual. Thus, the majority of the biomedical community now
> considers addiction, in its essence, to be a brain disease: a condition
> caused by persistent changes in brain structure and function.
>
> This brain-based view of addiction has generated substantial
> controversy, particularly among people who seem able to think only in
> polarized ways. Many people erroneously still believe that biological
> and behavioral explanations are alternative or competing ways to
> understand phenomena, when in fact they are complementary and
> integratable. Modern science has taught that it is much too simplistic
> to set biology in opposition to behavior or to pit willpower against
> brain chemistry. Addiction involves inseparable biological and
> behavioral components. It is the quintessential biobehavioral disorder.
>
> Many people also erroneously still believe that drug addiction is
> simply a failure of will or of strength of character. Research
> contradicts that position. However, the recognition that addiction is a
> brain disease does not mean that the addict is simply a hapless victim.
> Addiction begins with the voluntary behavior of using drugs, and
> addicts must participate in and take some significant responsibility for
> their recovery. Thus, having this brain disease does not absolve the
> addict of responsibility for his or her behavior, but it does explain why
> an addict cannot simply stop using drugs by sheer force of will alone.
> It also dictates a much more sophisticated approach to dealing with
> the array of problems surrounding drug abuse and addiction in our
> society.
>
> The essence of addiction
>
> The entire concept of addiction has suffered greatly from imprecision
> and misconception. In fact, if it were possible, it would be best to start
> all over with some new, more neutral term. The confusion comes
> about in part because of a now archaic distinction between whether
> specific drugs are "physically" or "psychologically" addicting. The
> distinction historically revolved around whether or not dramatic
> physical withdrawal symptoms occur when an individual stops taking
> a drug; what we in the field now call "physical dependence."
>
> However, 20 years of scientific research has taught that focusing on
> this physical versus psychological distinction is off the mark and a
> distraction from the real issues. From both clinical and policy
> perspectives, it actually does not matter very much what physical
> withdrawal symptoms occur. Physical dependence is not that
> important, because even the dramatic withdrawal symptoms of heroin
> and alcohol addiction can now b

the face of a tipster

[Jim Guinee]

Is it just me or does anyone else ever imagine what other tipsters look like?

Do you ever wonder what Michael Sylvester looks like?  Stephen Black?
other regular subscribers?

I guess I wonder sometimes if the "image" I've created is anything like the 
real thing.

Do I just have WAY too much time on my hands right now?

Covering my face in shame...

chalkboard anyone?

[Jim Guinee]

After attending some recent workshops on the use of power point and other 
great technological tools in the classroom, I began to wonder "Does anyone 
still use the chalkboard?"

Call me old-fashioned (go ahead), but while I admire, and to some extent 
incorporate, new ways to teach material to students, to me nothing beats a 
nice big chalkboard.  

Are there any tipsters that do not use the board anymore?  How much of 
your presentations is based on use of the chalkboard?  

Thanks,

Jim

15 fun things to do to your student at the final

[Jim Guinee]

A little levity (hopefully) at the end of another semester:

FWD:

15 fun things to do to your students at the final

1. Walk in, get the exam, sit down. About five minutes into it, loudly say, 
"Hey! Who are you people?  Where's my real class?  You people are 
impostors!!"

2.  Keep a box on your desk labeled "Bribes go here.  All major credit 
cards accepted."

3.  When a student asks for a hint, yell, "You want the truth?  YOU 
CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"  
 
4.  Pull out a wad of monopoly money and count through it repeatedly.  
Wink at your students and say, "Ooh, some of you have made me quite 
wealthy this semester."

5.  Hire some cheerleaders and bring them to the test.  Have them make 
up cheers about you.

6.  Pretend to wad up a student's exam.  Giggle and say "Your dreams of 
medical school have just been crushed by my hand."

7.  Walk up to your best student, smile, and say, “You’re an inspiration to 
us all.”

8. Run into the exam room looking about frantically. Breathe a sigh of 
relief. Fling the exams in the air, screaming, "They've found me, I have to 
leave the country!!" and run off.

9.  Write the words "All play and no studying makes Jack fail" all over the 
blackboard.

10. From the moment the exam begins, hum the theme to Jeopardy.

11.  Stand next to a student and after they've answered a question, keep 
saying, “Is that your final answer?”

12.  Wear the costume of your favorite superhero.  When you hand out 
the test, yell to the class, “Hurry and finish now!!  The rest of the universe 
awaits!”  

13.  Wear a wig.  Pull hairs out of it during your exam, telling your 
students, “See what your ignorance has done to me?”
   
14. Dress up like the grim reaper and refuse to utter a word.  Simply 
point at the test and twirl your scythe.

AND...

15.  Place a medicine bottle on your desk.  Moan and say, “Side effects 
include excessive flautulence??  Uh oh -- you people in the front row 
better move back!"

Re: religion and health

[Jim Guinee]

Could the person who posted the website about "religion and health" please 
repost it / e-mail it to me?   Lately I seem to be getting a wee bit sloppy with 
this delete button.

Thanks

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Jim Guinee]

> >Jim Guinee wrote:

> > Nevertheless, while the devil seems a bit of the stuff that
> > myths are made of, there are far too many references in the
> > the New AND Old Testament (or Torah, if you prefer) to
> > easily dismiss his existence.

 
>Rick Adams wrote:

>  That argument is only justified if you can first demonstrate that the
> Bible and Torah are both valid and accurate sources of scientific
> information, 

Maybe you're missing my point.  I'm not suggesting "the bible says the devil 
exists so it must be true."  Obviously you can't scientifically prove the 
existence of the devil, certainly not from the pages of scripture.

If someone wants to disbelieve the bible, that's understandable to me, but 
those who choose to accept it as "God's word" must grapple with the entire 
book, not just parts.  For the religious individual, you cannot simply toss 
Lucifer out of the bible simply because his existence seems to border on 
absolute nonsense.

For born-again Christians, the bible-thumpers, the fundamentalists, it follows 
that if God is perfect, then God would not write a book that contained lies 
and untruths.  That doesn't mean the contents are perfectly clear and 
understandable, that doesn't mean that what is written can be taken just as 
its written, and it doesn't mean you can "verse pluck" -- take a single verse 
and use it as a truth.  But that one cannot throw out what you don't like.  If 
you accept the bible as God's word, you gotta take the whole thing.  
Otherwise, if you start saying "Well, this can't be right" or "There is no 
scientific basis for this" then the entire book collapses.  

It is no easy task to be a fundamentalist, and at times its toll on one's 
cognitions can be significant.

> something I would _love_ to see someone try to do (beyond the
> basic historical information in them, of course). 

By saying you would "love" to see this, are you saying with adequate proof 
you're ready to sign up?  ;)

You know beyond basic historical, archeological evidence, information there 
is no way to prove some/many claims in the bible.  You cannot certainly 
scientifically prove that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.  That is clearly 
a matter of belief.

Now, what may be interesting to the non-believer is: what is that belief, that 
cannot be scientifically demonstrated, based on?  Why would a rational 
person (assuming we bible-thumpers are capable of rational thought) accept 
such a belief?  Are there reasons beyond ones commonly given -- 
desperation, indoctrination from parents, etc?

> I could make precisely
> the same claim (with just as much justification) to "prove" that the
> Moonies are right and that Moon himself is the Second Coming predicted in
> the Bible (read "Divine Principle" for proof). 

Really?  I didn't know he made such claims.  What in the world does he 
base this on (since I haven't read "Divine Principle")?

Of course, Moon is not the first, nor will he be the last, to claim he is the 
Christ.  About a decade ago I seem to remember some middle-eastern dude 
who called himself "Yahweh-Ben-Yahweh" and making similar claims.

Jesus made two important statements about a second coming
1.  There would be false prophets who would claim that they are indeed him
2.  Jesus will come in such a way there will be no question as to who he is.

Matthew 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, 
and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF 
MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.
31 And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY 
WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of 
the sky to the other."

No doubt some will react with sarcasm - "Yeah, like that'll happen!"
I guess one could argue that is Jesus' point -- a second coming will be so 
unusual, "unscientific" in a way, that there would be no doubt.

So, if Moon is the real thing, either he lied 2000 years ago, or I must have 
missed one major event!

> I doubt that you would
> accept such a claim (nor do I, obviously)--why then should anyone take
> claims of a devil seriously simply because they appear in the Bible?

I don't think you accept such a claim simply because it appears in the bible.  
That's too simple, although that works for some.   

I've never seen people believe in God just because some book talks about 
him.  For me, I had no desire to be a Jesus freak, and spent most of my 
college days resisting the church.  But then I saw people transformed in 
such a way that nothing else in my life has done.  I can't explain it.  Then 
again, some people probably

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Jim Guinee]

>  The concept of a devil shouldn't surprise a psychologist at all--any more
> than the concept of a deity should. Deities came about from a desire to
> explain the often terrifying effect of nature. 

That's a pretty understandable conclusion, but it doesn't seem to hold too 
well today.  Given we know so much about the natural world, and it can be 
explained without supernatural phenomena, the continued belief in a deity 
must be largely based on other sources...

What other reasons can we posit for the notion that man (and woman) 
created God?

Rene Descartes (paraphrasing here) once posited that the belief in a perfect, 
infinite being could not have originated from man -- he based this on the 
notion that people are finite beings, and imperfect ones at that, and so he 
argued it was inconceivable that imperfect, finite beings could conceptualize, 
construct an infinite, perfect deity.

> Because people
> want a "father" to turn to for protection or guidance, the concept of a
> more theological deity was needed

You sound a little like Siggie Freud there.  Freud, in 1926, wrote "The Future 
of an Illusion," in which he argued that technological advances would one day 
render God useless, we would wake up and realize we created something in 
our dependency but now no longer need our neurotic attachments to a 
supreme being.  Of course, Siggie got it wrong again...

>--and since people (as we know) attribute
> negative events or conclusions to external forces whenever possible, the
> creation of a "negative deity" was equally predictable.

But as you say, not all religions hold to a "negative deity."  How do you 
explain the religion that teaches a good God and no bad devil?

****
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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Jim Guinee]

> Ah, the Torah really does not dwell on innate evil. It does constantly
> spotlight human imperfection and limitation, and the ability--if not the
> need--to love and be just within those confine. That reminder is what the
> casting out from the Garden of Eden story is all about--at least, the
> Hebraic version. 
> 
> Make it a good day.

Are you saying the devil is not mentioned in Torah?

By using a website, I entered the following names

"Satan" got 48 hits.  The most common references in the Torah were
in "Job" and "Zechariah," and to a lesser extent, "Isaiah."

"Devil" got 34 hits.  None in the Torah.

"Evil" got 300 hits, pretty much all over the OT and NT.

"Lucifer" got zilch.


> 
>--Louis--
> 
> 
> Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Department of History www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html
> Valdosta State University 
> Valdosta, GA  31698   /~\/\ /\
> 229-333-5947   /^\  / \/  /~\  \   /~\__/\
>  / \__/ \/  /  /\ /~\/ \
>   /\/\-/ /^\_\/__/___/^\
> -_~/  "If you want to climb mountains,   \ /^\
>  _ _ /      don't practice on mole hills" -\
> 
> 



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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Jim Guinee]

> I've just begun to read a very interesting document, available only online
> from Barnes & Noble (as far as Iknow), and think if others find it
> interesting, it would be a good new thread.
> 
> The document is called The Lucifer Principle, by Harold Bloom, and while
> not a scientific study, is very well documented.  The basic thesis is that
> "... 'evil' is a by-product of nature's strategies for creation and is
> woven into our most basic biological fabric." 

Interesting stuff, but this argument of man creating the devil has been around 
for years.  There are even offshoots of Christendom that maintain the devil is 
not an actual entitity but something bad within us.

Skeptics claim that within the religious community the concept of the devil is 
not only useful for letting God off the hook, but for scaring the living daylights 
out of people.  Nevertheless, while the devil seems a bit of the stuff that 
myths are made of, there are far too many references in the the New AND 
Old Testament (or Torah, if you prefer) to easily dismiss his existence.

I am drawn to the words of C.S Lewis, who wrote "There are two mental 
dangers when it comes to the Devil -- thinking of him too much, and thinking 
of him not at all."

Later friends,




********
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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

reversing the effects of father time

[Jim Guinee]

To those human encyclopedias out there:

Sat morning I was in the car and listening to the radio.  Some guy (okay, 
Michael, I won't say "d--e") was touting some hormonal injection, claiming it 
could reverse the aging process by as much as twenty years.  I didn't hear 
the rest of this "program," but I tried to retain as much as the gist as I could.

Now, I know nobody ought to run out and stock up just because some 
charlatan sells snake oil over the airwaves, but he made some claims that I 
was sure were wrong, and yet he sounded very convincing (they always do, 
don't they?).  As expected, he threw around a lot of jargon.

He made at least one claim that I found very dubious -- "we now know what 
causes people to age," and went on to describe some hormone in our brain 
that we supposedly lose 80% of from the ages of 21 to 61.  

Huh?  I thought there were two -- and I know this is oversimplifying -- 
competing and viable theories of aging, the "program" camp (we're designed 
to peter out at some point) and the "error" camp (we're designed flawlessly 
and peter out due to the ravages of time, disease, etc).  So, can he make 
such a claim?  Does his claim have any credibility at all -- or sound like 
anything that has been learned in recent years?

How close is science to understanding the most likely cause of the aging 
process?

He also claimed that this hormone has already been approved, and a 
contingent of the elderly have been taking it for some time now.  ANd he 
claimed it can reverse the aging process by as much as 20 years.

Huh.  Just I want -- again, to be 16...young, energetic, and pimple-faced.
****
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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

and so it ends

[Jim Guinee]

Therapists Guilty in `Rebirthing' Case

By JUDITH KOHLER, Associated Press Writer

GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) - Two therapists were convicted on Friday of reckless
child abuse in the death of a young girl who begged for her life while
wrapped in a flannel sheet during a rebirthing therapy session.

A jury deliberated for about five hours before returning the verdict.

As it was read, Julie Ponder, 40, stared straight ahead, closed her eyes
and fought tears. Connell Watkins, 54, showed little emotion.

They face up to 48 years in prison when sentenced.

Mary Davis, the child's biological grandmother, cried and hugged those
around her in the courtroom after hearing the verdict.

Watkins also was convicted of unlawfully practicing psychotherapy,
criminal impersonation and obtaining a signature by deception. Each count
carries a maximum 18-month sentence.

Candace Newmaker, 10, died on April 19, 2000, one day after undergoing the
therapy session at Watkins' Evergreen clinic. The coroner ruled Candace
died of asphyxiation. The defense argued other factors may have caused her
death.

``This was not child abuse,'' Ponder's lawyer, Joan Heller, told the jury.
``This was done for therapy. This was done for all the best intentions -
to try to make sure that this child got a chance.''

Candace was being treated at Watkins' Evergreen office for reactive
detachment disorder, an inability to form loving relationships because of
early trauma.

She was wrapped in a flannel sheet to simulate a womb while four adults
pushed against her with pillows. The hope was that she would emerge
``reborn'' to bond with her adoptive mother, Jeane Newmaker of Durham,
N.C.

On Tuesday, Gov. Bill Owens signed a law outlawing rebirthing therapy.

Prosecutors' key evidence was a videotape of the 70-minute session.
Candace could be heard on the tape pleading for her life, saying she could
not breathe and had vomited and defecated.

After about 50 minutes, Candace's whimpering trailed off. Several jurors
and others in the courtroom cried as the tape was played.

A forensic pathologist who reviewed autopsy results for the defense
testified Candace may have died as a result of the powerful medications
she was taking. The pathologist also said she could not rule out an
undetected heart condition or the effects of Evergreen's 7,040-foot
elevation as potential causes of death.

Craig Truman, Watkins' attorney, said the two therapists had every reason
to believe Candace could breathe during the rebirthing session. Ponder
testified she checked the girl's breathing. Both therapists said they
thought Candace's screaming protests were manipulative behavior.

``It wasn't possible to believe every word Candace Newmaker says,'' Heller
said. ``That's a part of her problem. That's a part of her diagnosis.''

The girl's adoptive mother, who was present for part of the therapy, is
awaiting trial in November on charges of criminally negligent child abuse
resulting in death.

sleep question

[Jim Guinee]

Diana Kyle's post about the sleep program reminded me of a question
a student posed the other day.  It was in my health ed class, and we were 
covering stress, so I began to pontificate about the importance of sleep and 
understanding the nature of your sleep.

Two questions were thrown out:
One had to do with the snooze alarm, which I recommended not using.  A 
student asked "Well, what if I hit the snooze and go back into deep sleep?  
Won't that be beneficial?"

The next one was: "If we go through five stages of sleep, and it's so hard to 
wake up during the latter stages, then how come a simple noise in the 
morning wakes me up so easily.  What if I'm in stage 4.  Aren't I supposed to 
be in deep sleep?"

Thanks,

Jim

********
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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

FW: companion web site to PBS special on ADHD

[Jim Guinee]

> 12. Medicating Kids -- Frontline [RealPlayer]
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/
> 
> Last Tuesday, PBS' Frontline broadcast "Medicating Kids," a documentary
> examining the pervasive diagnosis and drug treatment of ADHD (Attention
> Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) among primary and middle school students.
> This excellent companion Website offers a complete video of the broadcast
> as well as profiles of the four families featured and extended
> professional readings both on the typical drug therapies and on the
> controversy among scientists, educators, mental health professional, and
> activists over the appropriateness of drug therapy and the validity of the
> disease itself. Readings are taken from such sources as _Scientific
> American_, _The National Journal_, _The New Republic_, and _American
> Prospect_. Also included are links to data on ADHD treatment from UN, DEA,
> and university studies. In addition, Frontline has posted transcripts of
> interviews with representatives of the drug industry, mental health care
> professionals, educators, and opponents of drug therapy for ADHD. All
> sides in this issue get ample time to make their case in this typically
> scrupulous investigation from the best national news magazine on
> television. [DC]
> 
> From The Scout Report for Social Sciences & Humanities, Copyright
> Internet Scout Project 1994-2001.  http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/



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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

Re: Can a Master's in Experimental lead to a Ph.D. in Counseling?

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Ferguson, Sherry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Can a Master's in Experimental lead to a Ph.D. in Counseling?
> 
> Tipsters,
> 
> I have a student whose long-term goal is to attain a Ph.D. in Counseling
> Psychology.  But she's going into a Master's program now in Experimental
> Psychology and her advisor has told her that it will be easy for her to
> move to a Ph.D. program in counseling with a master's in experimental.  
> 
> Does anyone know what the chances are of this?  In other words, if her
> goal is a counseling psychology Ph.D., will a pause to pick up a master's
> in experimental psychology help or hurt?
> 
> Thanks!

An important question to ask her:  What is her rationale for going this route 
as opposed to straight counseling psych?  Of course, that's a question I ask 
any student who says "I really want to do X some day, but right now I'm 
going to do Y."  Ok, how will Y make you do a better job with X?

I would think if she was training herself for an academic career this path 
(exper to counseling) would make more sense, but not so sure about 
someone who is bent on being a practitioner.

As far as it affecting her admission to grad school, it certainly depends on 
the program.  Counseling psych programs like Illinois, Missouri, MAryland, 
Ohio State, etc. are known for having a large research emphasis, so that 
could actually benefit her, but others schools (and certainly professional 
psych programs) might be more interested (not necessarily uninterested) in 
her counseling background.


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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

Re: Classification of OCD

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Mark A. Casteel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Classification of OCD
> 
> Are any tipsters aware of recent research arguing that OCD may be more a
> form of a depressive disorder than an anxiety disorder? I'm well aware
> that both OCD and depression are commonly treated with Prozac (arguing for
> the role of serotonin), but other than this common link, other there other
> connections?
> 
> A student has tried to argue with me that his therapist believes that OCD
> is a depressive disorder (I should point out that this student is NOT
> being treated for OCD).

I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I can't speak with much authority on OCD 
(don't see it too often on college campuses).  

But I certainly haven't heard anything about research (or any other source) 
that suggests reclassifying it as a mood disorder.  If I do, I'll be glad to pass 
it on.  

I don't really understand why the therapist thinks OCD is a depressive 
disorder.  The nutshell of OCD is typically a combination of obsessions -- 
unwanted, unpleasant, persistent thoughts and images, and compulsions -- 
behaviors, sometimes ritualistic and repitive, that are enacted to reduce the 
ANXIETY (anxiety precipitated by the obsessions).

I would guess there are OCD people that become depressed -- a few that I 
have worked with struggled with depression, simply because their illness (at 
least before getting it somewhat under control) was so debilitating it caused 
them to become depressed.  But most of the OCD I have worked with/known 
struggled much more with anxiety than depression.

> Since I'm not a clinical psychologist, I've always
> relied on the bible - DSM-IV. Are there more recent views of which I need
> to be aware?

I believe DSM-V is coming out one day soon.  Oh, boy, that puts it up there 
with other sequels like "Planet of the Apes" and "Rocky V."  



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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

the rebirthing trial continues

[Jim Guinee]

'Rebirthing' Therapist Testifies
By JUDITH KOHLER, Associated Press Writer

GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) - A therapist accused in the death of a 10-year-old
during a session that was supposed to simulate the girl's ``rebirth''
testified Monday she was trying to ``bring out the rage'' of the victim.

Connell Watkins and fellow psychotherapist Julie Ponder, 40, are charged
with reckless child abuse resulting in the death of Candace Newmaker.
Candace died of asphyxiation after the session last April.

Watkins said she learned of ``holding'' therapy, in which a patient is
physically held, in the mid 1970s when she was doing social work with
foster children.

``I establish that I am in control and that I am the boss at that time,''
Watkins said. ``That will bring out the rage they have repressed.''

Defense lawyers say Candace's death was a tragic accident. The girl was
wrapped in a flannel sheet to simulate a womb as adults pushed against her
with pillows for 70 minutes. She was urged to emerge reborn to bond with
her adoptive mother, Jeane Newmaker of Durham, N.C.

On a videotape of the session, Candace can be heard screaming that she
couldn't breathe, had vomited and defecated and wanted to die.

She was later uncovered, wasn't breathing, and died the next day at a
Denver hospital.

The girl had been diagnosed with attachment disorder, which makes children
resist forming loving relationships and frequently violent and
unmanageable.

Some of Watkins' former patients testified Monday that they had benefited
from her treatment.

Beth Thomas, 18, a freshman at the University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs, testified that her family took her to Watkins when she was a
child because she had been self-destructive and sometimes banged her head
on walls.

``She would stop me. She did it in a very loving way,'' Thomas said. ``I
am here today because of Connell.''

Deb Hage testified that she had five adopted children with attachment
disorder and all were treated by Watkins. She said she has participated in
two or three rebirthing sessions and had the therapy herself, and that she
considers it safe.

``I put my own children into her care. That's absolutely sacred,'' she
said.

Clinical psychologist Bill Goble testified that holding patients during
therapy is not dangerous and does not violate the code of ethics of the
American Psychological Association.

the good ole US of A

[Jim Guinee]

Rick,

My computer crashed this morning while I was reading your note and
I lost my mail.  I'd like to respond, but I'm having a hard time remembering 
everything you wrote, so I apologize if I miss/misinterpret something.

I also feel pressed to say "one more thing," and move on.  I worry that in 
arguing for some inclusion of religion I have run the risk of shoving down the 
throats of our fellow tipsters.  I think we're getting farther away from the 
mission of tips.

You mentioned religious atrocities in this country.  In my patriotism and 
ethnocentricism, I was speaking more of "Gee, I'm luck I'm not discriminated 
against and terrorized for being a Christian."  It seems like no matter where 
you live, being a minority (religious or otherwise) is a tough deal.  

But, I would maintain there is a heckuva lot more freedom of and from religion 
in this country than many others.  Even for religious minorities.  You can say 
anything hateful you want about Jesus and make some enemies (btw, the 
bibles teaches Christians to love their enemies so the treatment should 
remain the same regardless of behavior/ideology) but I don't think you're too 
likely to wind up in jail or six feet under.  

Maybe I should have said I was grateful for how much freedom we do have, 
relatively speaking, instead of implying there is no oppression, religious or 
otherwise.

Christian missionary friends repeatedly tell me I have no idea what it is like 
to live in a country where you can get thrown in jail for publicly professing 
different beliefs than the majority of the country (or even for suspicion of 
doing so).  Certainly there is persecution of religious minorities in this 
country, but I don't see it reaching the degree and frequency that it does 
across the sea.

As far as the churches and ministers you mentioned harrassing, victimizing 
members of a religious minority, well there are kooks no matter where you 
hang your hat.  Just because that happens doesn't necessarily mean it is 
condoned by any kind of majority.

There is certainly no biblical basis for shooting abortion doctors, harrassing 
gays, blowing up government buildings, killing minorities, and just basically 
being a public menace.  I don't care what some church member did, or some 
church, or some minister -- these kinds of acts are not justified by the 
doctrine of Christianity (look it up) and the majority of churchgoers.  

Jim 

P.S.  I am still appreciative of the opportunity to speak my "religious mind" 
on this list and have it to be so tolerated.  I don't think I have too many 
people on my side on some of these issues, but for the most part people 
seem to be pretty professional and intelligent about how they respond to the 
topics and to me.  

7up commercial

[Jim Guinee]

Has anyone seen the new 7up commercials?

There are at least two that have been shown in my area.  In both, a nicely 
dressed African-American man is touting 7 up:

1)  One is a taste test, where he has people taste the "alternative beverage," 
that alternative usually being something really gross (e.g., sour milk).

2)  In the other, he whips a 7up can and commands a cute little doggie to 
"fetch."  The dog chases down the can, gets under it, and gets whomped on 
the noggin.  At the end of the commercial, the dude is picking up the can 
and the dog is upside down, all four legs in the air.  He may not be dead, but 
he looks like it.

Doesn't this seem like a really bad use of classical conditioning?  I would 
think viewers might connect 7up to being nauseated (taste test) and 
being distressed (puppy). 

If I was teaching gen psych, I'd be curious as to how students would evaluate 
these commercials as good/bad examples of CC.

 
************
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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**

grateful for tips and the US of A

[Jim Guinee]

Hello,

In my mailbox today, I found this piece of news:
--
Police in Pakistan's Punjab province registered another blasphemy case 
against one of its Christian citizens on April 1, jailing a respected high school 
principal for slander he allegedly spoke two months ago against Mohammed, the 
prophet of Islam. 

Pervaiz Masih, founding director of the Iqbal Memorial High School in Chelay 
Kay village near Sialkot, was arrested at his home on April 1 during a late-night 
police raid. 

Accused of committing religious blasphemy against Mohammed as prohibited 
under Section 295-C of the Pakistan penal code, the 33-year-old teacher is liable 
for a mandatory death sentence if convicted. 
--

True news or not, in light of the recent religion/morality/Darwin threads, as 
well as the religious significance this week/weekend has for some of us, I 
find myself being very grateful for being on a listserv and living in a country 
where I can contribute my "religious two cents," and my biggest risk is being 
simply relegated to the status of another bible-thumping nut.

Thanks, 

********
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)

"You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things -- 
to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently
motivated to reach challenging goals."
-- Edmund Hillary, New Zealander mountaineer and explorer 

**
--- End of forwarded message ---

article request

[Jim Guinee]

Sorry to put this on the list:

After giving kudos to someone on the list for posting that interesting 
philosophical piece on morality and religion, I accidentally deleted my
copy.  And I don't remember your name, but could you please resend
it to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks very much 
****
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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: something to think about

[Jim Guinee]

>  Dear Scholar,
>  Why didn't you save the millions of people slaughtered by the
> Inquisition?
>  Sincerely,
>  And a common response to "When can you get pregnant?" is "Only for a few
> days at the middle of your menstrual cycle."
> 
>  The fact that a response is frequent doesn't make it either accurate or
> justified.

True, true.  I never suggested agreement with the statement "Violence 
started when they took God" out of the classroom.  I simply have had 
difficulty formulating an appropriate response to that kind of argument.

The subsequent responses (at least some of them) have provided very 
reasonable arguments to refute such a claim.
 
>  Points:
> 
>  1. There is _not_ more violence in the schools lately--it only appears
> that way because it is occurring in middle class white schools, not
> poverty level inner city ones as it has been for years. There were _less_
> children murdered in schools last year than there were during any year in
> the preceding decade (check the numbers at http://www.doj.gov for
> yourselves)--but because some (still a very small number of the total
> school killings) were in "decent" schools the public was left with the
> impression that the numbers were increasing.

I thought I heard that before -- about the decrease in school violence -- but 
didn't have any data.  Again, it reminds me of Richard Pryor...

>  2. If the "common response" is accurate, there should be considerably
> MORE violence in the schools in Russia, China, Cuba, Sweden, and other
> Communist or Socialist nations where any form of religious teaching at ALL
> is prohibited in the schools. That the opposite is true (no first or
> second world nation on Earth has the violence rate in its schools that the
> US has) is pretty strong evidence that the "common response" is a false
> one.

Well, Americans still tend to be pretty ethnocentric, so obviously people who 
make the claim that godless schools go nuts probably confine their 
boundaries to the good ole US of A.

>  Try asking WHICH "God" should be permitted in the schools. Yours? Linda
> Wolfe's? That of a Muslim? A Wiccan? An animist? Who among educators
> claims to have the _wisdom_ to decide which religion offers teachings that
> are appropriate to our children--and which does not? Simply because the US
> is primarily Christian does NOT mean that Christianity should be treated
> any differently than other religions--but of the many people who call for
> "God in the schools," I doubt very many would permit their children to be
> educated with, for example, pagan moral values in the schools.

I didn't mean to suggest promoting religion in public school.  I, like some 
theologically conservative religious types (sounds so much nicer than 
"fundamentalist" for some reason) actually do NOT feel comfortable with the 
teaching or or the promotion of religion in the public school.  That's what we 
have churches and families for...at least for those of us who wish to instill 
those kinds of beliefs into our children.

In previous conversations on this list, I've maintained that we should try to 
acknowledge its importance to people, and at times discuss it in the 
classroom, but please don't equate that with advocating sticking it into the 
curriculum.

>  "Which God?" may seem a strange response to the response--but it's an
> honest one. And if it can't be answered in a way that shows equal respect
> for ALL religions (including Secular Humanism and those which teach VERY
> different moral values from the ones held by mainstream Christianity)
> perhaps the only valid answer is "NONE."

I actually agree with you.  Thanks.


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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: God and violence in the schools

[Jim Guinee]

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Jim  Guinee wrote:
> >
> > While you normally provide exceptional wisdom and research,
> > I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.
> >
> > Just because something violent happens in a church or other religious
> > setting that defeats the "We need God in the classroom" argument.
> >
> > Puh-lease.  People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next
> > to them, or far off in the universe.
> 
> I thought it was clear enough, as did Robin Pearce, but
> apparently not. 

Again, I apologize for giving your post little thought.  It's the way of religious 
nuts, you know ;)

>Let's review.  In apparent innocence Jim posted
> the following exchange, which I assume is hypothetical (in my
> experience, God does not drop by for a chat). For some reason I
> found the dialogue offensive.
> 
> Here's Jim:
> 
> > Dear God,
> > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado?
> > Sincerely,
> > A Concerned Student
> >
> > Dear Concerned Student,
> > I am not allowed in schools.
> > Sincerely,
> > God
> 
> > Like it or not, a common response to "Why is there so much
> > violence in the school?" is "Because they took God out of the
> > classroom."
> 
> The implication, of course, is that if they left God _in_ the
> classroom, there would be no violence. So I think it's fair to
> ask whether violence disappears when God is allowed in. All we
> need is a single counter-example, but I was able to generate
> quite a few with no trouble at all. Violence--in the form of
> murder and criminal sexual abuse of children--occurs in places
> where God is allowed in. So unfortunately, putting God back in
> the classroom won't help at all.

And I didn't mean to suggest I disagreed with you.  I never claimed to support 
the "Let's put God back in and that'll fix the problem."  Despite sounding like
I'm making that argument, I'm not.  It's too simplistic -- and my reason for 
posting the "dialogue" in the first place was to generate some reaction.

I seem to have done this before -- posting something -- and having it 
assumed that I support what I provide.  AIn't so here, but given my religious 
bias, one could easily draw such a conclusion.

You don't even have to do research to know that the "put God back in the 
school" doesn't solve the problem.
1.  It assumes that removing something like public prayer automatically
boots the Almighty out of the school.  To me, the neat thing about a religious 
belief, and other beliefs, is that no one can keep you from bringing them into 
the classroom.   
2.  Violence can happen anytime, anywhere, and no one is immune to it.
3. Having God in the classroom and God in your life is not necessarily the 
same thing.  It's like suggesting "Go to church" as a mandate for making 
someone "more religious."
4.  It's offensive and wrong to suggest that godless groups will automatically 
be more violent-prone ("the atheists are destroying the schools!"), as if they 
don't have any kind of moral code (which I'm admit is a claim that some 
fundamentalist groups like to make)
5.  The bible gives plenty of examples of violence where religion was 
dominant in that society.  

> > I don't see any shootings in private schools 
> > How do you explain that?
> 
> Once again, the Internet allows trivially easy refutation of that
> claim:
> 
> http://rockypreps.com/shooting/0605priv6.shtml

As I said, I knew that claiming "it hasn't happened" was going to be refuted 
immediately.  I was simply unaware of the incidents.  

Then I thought, "Yeah, but the religious schools don't have this problem 
nearly as much as the public schools.  So, nyah again!"

Then, I thought about it some more (always a good thing).  If I remember 
correctly, and I'm not a sociologist (help me out here), in grad school I read 
about a well-developed theory that predicts a social problem, like drug 
abuse, generally starts in disadvantaged areas, impoverished areas, and 
eventually begins to move into more "protected" groups, groups thought to be 
immune.

So, if the theory does predict accurately, the seepage (is that a word?) of 
violence into a religious school will probably become more common in the 
future.  

For some reason, I'm drawn to the words of that great comedian/philosopher
Richard Pryor.  During a 70s routine, he was talking about the so-called 
"drug epidemic."

"I hear people today sayin' 'Oh, my God, it's an epidemic!'  I guess that mean 
white people be doin' it, too...Maybe the next time you see black people in 
trouble, you'll help...maybe."



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: morality and religion

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Mike Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: morality and religion

> At 09:34 PM 04/09/2001 -0400, Stuart Vyse wrote:
> 
> >Though it is an unpopular view, I, like Jim Clark, believe religion has
> >no special hold on morality.
> 
> Indeed, for me morality has always been the domain of philosophy, but I'll
> leave the details to Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy at
> Muhlenberg College to explain his position on secular humanism below. I
> think this article may be relevant to a couple of related recent threads.

Wow.  That was great!  Seriously -- I'm gonna be digestin' that for a while.

Is this your first post to the list?  Like I would know...  


********
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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

get God out of the NBA?

[Jim Guinee]

In light of the recent thread on God in the classroom,
I found this little newspiece interesting.  JPG

New York Knicks coach Jeff Van Gundy believes that golf is one of the worst 
things that ever happened to the National Basketball Association. The other, he 
told New York magazine writer Chris Smith, is God. 
In a profile in the current issue, Van Gundy says that he would like to limit the time 
team chaplain John Love gets to spend with the players before games, reported 
"The New York Times." An assistant minister at a Baltimore church and professor 
at Maryland Bible College, Love has been the Knicks' chaplain for 10 years and 
holds a 10-minute Bible study before each game. Knicks stars Charlie Ward, 
Allan Houston, Mark Jackson and Kurt Thomas attend, and opposing team 
players are invited along. 
"I'll tell you what I do have a problem with," Smith quotes Van Gundy as saying. 
"We let a preacher into our locker room; spends as much time as he wants with 
our players before games. Now, do people in offices have preachers coming into 
their place of business, interrupting their work? No. They have to do it before or 
after work. As a team and an organization, you've got to try to minimize those 
distractions, period. 
"It used to be alcohol and women more. I think we've given this guy, this pastor, 
too much freedom. And I think the interaction between people before games, 
opposing sides, the fraternization, is wrong for the league, it's wrong for the 
competition. Everybody is hugging before games, praying together." 

spanking as sexual abuse? (long)

[Jim Guinee]

Good morning,

Since I have this passion for causing a ruckus, here is another
lovely subject we've been over before: spanking

I had my students do a paper on spanking, and discuss the "pro's" and
"con's" of spanking children.  One student, in her researching, found a 
website called "nospank.org."

On this website, she found a booklet (?) being touted that claims spanking is 
another form of sexual abuse.  I told her I had not heard of such a claim, and 
did not have the background to respond to such a claim, I found this an 
intriguing argument nonetheless.

Let me provide a few excerpts (I've tried to snip as much as possible and 
leave the necessary info) and ask some of the wizards out there to provide 
any knowledge/data/opinions.

I do not wish to resurrect the spanking argument -- I really don't -- but I do 
want to know how others respond to the spanking as sexual abuse, 
particularly responding to some of the claims this author makes.

I have formed no opinion myself (except to groan at the use of someone like 
Shere Hite as a "sex expert.") 

Thanks, JPG

THE SEXUAL DANGERS OF SPANKING CHILDREN 
by Tom Johnson  (1994, Revised 1996) 
Copyright is waived on this publication 
 
S P A N K I N G, defined as slapping of the buttocks, is a form of hitting and 
thus of physical violence. That fact alone should make the spanking of 
children unacceptable by the same standards that protect adults, who are not
as vulnerable. However, there is more to spanking than simply hitting: 
spanking also trespasses on one of the body's most private and sexual 
areas -- the buttocks. To fully address the wrongness of spanking children,
therefore, we must consider not only the issue of physical violence, but also 
the issue of sexual trespass. 

While the harm of spanking's physical violence has been thoroughly 
explained and demonstrated over the past century in a vast body of 
academic literature, scientific research, legal treatises, and relatively 
recently in the popular media, it is quite rare that the sexual consequences 
of spanking are openly and seriously discussed. This pamphlet aims to raise 
public awareness about the sexual aspects which make spanking an 
especially inappropriate and even dangerous way of disciplining children, 
whether it is done by parents, educators or other caretakers. While this 
pamphlet focuses on "spanking," the most seemingly benign form of 
physical punishment, the arguments raised herein apply equally to paddling, 
switching, caning, strapping, or any other mode of forcible buttock-beating. 

Buttocks are a sexual zone 

Like women's breasts, the buttocks are a sexual or erogenous part of the 
human anatomy, even though they are not actually sex organs. This is why 
baring one's buttocks in public is considered indecent as well as unlawful and
why their exposure in movies or on television constitutes nudity. It is also 
why someone who uninvitedly fondles another person's buttocks is treated 
by law as a sexual offender. The sexual nature of the buttocks is explained
not only by their proximity to the genitals, but also by their high 
concentration of nerve endings which lead directly to sexual nerve centers. 
Hence, the buttocks are a major locus of sexual signals. 

Spanking as sexual violation 

Since children are sexual beings and since the buttocks are a sexual region 
of the body, we should question the propriety of slapping children's buttocks. 
We generally understand that fondling or caressing a child's buttocks is a
sexual offense (even if the child does not understand it to be so). We also 
know that slapping an adult's buttocks is a sexual offense (even if the 
offender does not get sexual pleasure from doing so). 

Spanking as sexual abuse 

As in ages past, there are people today who are sexually excited by 
spanking. This trait, which is often expressed in pornography and associated 
with sadomasochism, is known in the scientific literature as flagellantism. 
While many flagellants seek to engage in consensual spanking between 
adults, some find the spanking of minors to be either more arousing or more 
opportune. 

Spanking and psychosexual development 

Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, spanking can 
interfere with a child's normal sexual and psychological development. 
Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to 
sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary 
sensations of sexual pleasure. This can happen even in very young children, 
and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain. 

This kind of sexual stimulation, which undermines any disciplinary purpose 
and which most people would agree is unsuitable for children in any context, 
can cause a child to impressionably attach his or her sexuality to the idea of
spanking. This fixation may endure to cause problems in adult life. Or, on the 
other hand, the child might react against these unseemly feelings of pl

Re: something to think about

[Jim Guinee]

> >>  Therefore the idea that more religion in the schools would prevent
> >>  violence is clearly wrong.
> >
> >Clearly wrong?  It's funny how we can't prove or disprove anything
> >about human behavior.  Except when it comes to religion.  All of a sudden
> >people seem to get pretty darn dogmatic...
> 
> It's certainly a null hypothesis (i.e., "more religion in schools 
> would prevent violence") that is probably untestable. I haven't come 
> across any studies that would suggest we should reject the null 
> (i.e., that more religion would NOT prevent violence) so, I assume 
> the Null and no effect.

That makes more sense.  Thanks.

So what is a testable hypothesis?  What do we know, if anything, about this 
phenomeon?  Seems like anyone with an opinion, especially simplistic, 
wants to give it.  I'm not necessarily advocating a God argument -- and I don't 
like hearing it use so simplistically (like "take all then guns away!").  But, I 
would like to hear from some sophisticated, cogent theories.

> >I don't see any shootings in private schools (and yes, I know it can and
> >unfortunately probably will happen if it hasn't already).  How do you explain
> >that?
> 
> Jim, did you miss this one cited by Steven or do you literally mean "see" ?
> 
>   SHOOTING-CATHOLIC Mar-7-2001 (360 words)
> Catholic high school shooting called shocking
> By Catholic News Service

I missed it.  But I did say "if it hasn't already."  I knew I would be way off if I 
claimed "It doesn't happen in private schools.  Nyyahh!!"

I don't think it's so shocking it happened in a religious school.  It reminds me 
of what my mother used to say about my high school (private Catholic).
"Now, Jimmy, there are no drugs in your school right?"
"Uh...right, mom."  

It certainly defeats the simplistic notion that automatic inclusion of the 
Almighty is a panecea for eliminating violence.  Stephen already (and I 
missed that, too) pointed that out.

I still maintain that eliminating religion from school is a predecessor to 
increased problems, but I obviously can't stand on a simple equation.
Darn it.



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: something to think about

[Jim Guinee]

 > [This was in response to a message from Stephen Black documenting violence
> in churches.]
> 
> Stephen's post wasn't church-bashing, it was just pointing out that
> violence can happen whether or not "god is allowed in the building."

While I'm a classic misinterpreter (always good when you're a psychotherapist), then 
how do we RESPOND to that argument with a better one?  How do others tend to respond 
to the general public when asked "Why is there so much violence in the school?"

> Therefore the idea that more religion in the schools would prevent
> violence is clearly wrong.

Clearly wrong?  It's funny how we can't prove or disprove anything
about human behavior.  Except when it comes to religion.  All of a sudden 
people seem to get pretty darn dogmatic...
 
> The logic of that is crystalline to me.

Not to me -- there are far too many religious institutions dominated by 
healthy religious behavior that are seriously lacking in violent conflicts.

I don't see any shootings in private schools (and yes, I know it can and 
unfortunately probably will happen if it hasn't already).  How do you explain 
that?

I hope I don't sound I'm starting to start a fight.  That would be foolish, ironic, 
and immoral of me to get ugly with you or anyone else about the problems of 
school violence.



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: something to think about

[Jim Guinee]

> Let's see what happens when we let God in.
> 
> April 9, 2001
> LDS Library Shooting
> Church Statement
> SALT LAKE CITY (AP) _ Here is the text of two statements from the
> First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> Saints, the church's governing body, regarding Thursday's
> shooting at the faith's genealogical library.
> 
> 
> PLACES OF WORSHIP TIGHTEN SECURITY
> Summary:A sanctuary is the most holy place in a church, but
> the word also means `place of safety.' When violence erupts at a
> church or synagogue, it seems to be a particularly brutal
> violation. And it happened again Wednesday, at a church in Fort
> Worth, Texas, where a man shot seven people before killing
>  Dayton Daily News
>  Date:  09/18/1999
> 
> 
> PROVIDENCE - Violence broke out in the city late last night, with
> one young man seriously injured after he was shot in the chest on
> Smith Street, and two people were rushed to the hospital after a
> double-stabbing 20 minutes later at a church in Olneyville.
>  The Providence Journal
> Date:  09/29/2000
> 
> 
> SHOOTING-CATHOLIC Mar-7-2001 (360 words)
> Catholic high school shooting called shocking
> By Catholic News Service
> WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. (CNS) -- A Scranton diocesan spokeswoman called
> the March 7 student shooting at Bishop Neumann High School in
> Williamsport a ``sad and shocking'' reminder that violence can
> occur anywhere.
> 
> 
> Christianity Today, October 6, 1997
> Sexual Abuse in Churches Not Limited to Clergy
> Coppell church accused of hiding sexual abuse
> Ex-deacon, 68, gets 10 years for molesting girl, 4
> 02/27/98
> By Michael Saul / The Dallas Morning News
> 
> Sexual Abuse Suit Against Catholic Church Goes Forward
> New York Law Journal
> July 30, 1999
> BY CERISSE ANDERSON
> 
> 
> Because of the number of recent cases of child sexual abuse
> within the church community, insurance companies are demanding
> that it end. There have been about 3,800 such cases a year since
> 1992, some with huge financial settlements, according to Church
> Law & Tax report, a publication that monitors such statistics for
> both churches and the insurance industry
> Kansas City Star
> Date:  05/05/1996
> 
> -Stephen
> 

While you normally provide exceptional wisdom and research,
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Just because something violent happens in a church or other religious 
setting that defeats the "We need God in the classroom" argument.

Puh-lease.  People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next to 
them, or far off in the universe.

If you're gonna knock an institution just because these things happened (and 
how often do these things NOT NOT NOT happen in those settings?) then
let's close the freakin public schools, post offices, and government buildings.

Ugh




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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: something to think about

[Jim Guinee]

> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jim  Guinee wrote:
> 
> > Like it or not, a common response to "Why is there so much violence in the 
> > school?" is "Because they took God out of the classroom."  I'm all for Jesus, 
> > but I'm not quite sure how to respond to that response.
> > 
> It's hardly worthy of a response. 

I wouldn't say that.  That seems to suggest "What a dumb argument!"

I don't know -- I know we have to respect the separation of church and state 
(and I do) -- but I'd argue the lack of moral authority has taken its toll.

>Look at all the violence associated with
> organized religion over the centuries and you'll see they haven't much
> room to argue. (Yes, of course, those nasty violent people aren't
> following what Jesus/Moses/Mohammed *really* said. But God was certainly
> allowed in the building ...)

Good point.  I don't know why it's so hard to disagree on religious ground 
without being disagreeable.  I've just never figured that out -- how do you 
justify being a religious person while you're stomping on someone else's 
head?

> But there's really no point to arguing. Ever since Littleton everyone,
> left-right-and-spotted-yellow-line, has been blaming the violence on
> whatever hobbyhorse they'd been riding since before the shootings
> happened: availability of guns, media violence, working mothers, economic
> injustice, etc. 

And have we learned a darn thing???

Peace y'all


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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: John Gray

[Jim Guinee]

When I first saw posts regarding his alma mater, I worried that it seemed like 
people were being unfair.  After all, Erikson didn't even have a college degree, 
and I think it's fair to say he's still making an impact on psych. 
I thought, "Just because he went to a lame institiutution doesn't mean he 
can't be brilliant."  

I'm not saying anyone's wrong for slamming the diploma mill, but I wonder 
sometimes if there isn't a little jealousy here.  We went to good schools, 
studied hard, read the journals, cranked out scientifically sound stuff, and 
then this goof shows up out of nowhere and becomes a juggernaut.

> "Gray claims to be a leading authority in communication and
> relationships between men and women. He is the author of several popular
> books such as Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. He is also > 
> one of
> the New Age darlings of public television. He is obviously well-trained,
> but not in the academic discipline of psychology."

This is certainly an appropriate criticism.  Has this guy actually published 
anything in a journal?  What exactly has he done besides his Mars/Venus 
thing?

Speaking of, my gosh he's milked the Mars/Venus thing to death (check 
your local bookstore).  They even have some Mars/Venus show on now (not 
sure of the network).  I've tried to catch a few episodes, and I have no idea 
what the heck they are talking about.

Worse, his "marriage wisdom" is often contradicted by mega-research dudes 
like Gottman and others.  

Gray is a good example of dressing up some old ideas with new clothes.  
There is nothing new or innovative about his work, and worse, either it 
conflicts with empirical evidence or it simply entertains without providing 
much information.



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

something to think about

[Jim Guinee]

> Dear God,
> Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado?
> Sincerely,
> A Concerned Student
> 
> Dear Concerned Student,
> I am not allowed in schools.
> Sincerely,
> God

Not sure how I feel about this, but a friend forwarded it to me today.

Like it or not, a common response to "Why is there so much violence in the 
school?" is "Because they took God out of the classroom."  I'm all for Jesus, 
but I'm not quite sure how to respond to that response.

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Jim Guinee]

or pork, wearing clothing made of
> two or more textiles, having contact with a menstruating woman, etc. Yet
> ONLY homosexuality is singled out as a target by conservative Christians
> from among the "laundry list" of offenses.

There are other offenses you omitted, such as adultery.  I'm not a biblical 
scholar, but let me say a few things.  For one, homosexuality is not only 
condemned in the Old but also the New Testament.  Further, these other 
"offenses" are not mentioned in the NT.  Why?  Because clothing or certain 
foods are not about establishing moral laws but ceremonial ones (can 
anyone with a background in Judaism help here?).  The Jews were to uphold 
certain rules as a way to purify themselves.  Christians are not under the 
law, but grace, so there is no justification for upholding ceremonial laws.  

>  3. The conservative Christian does not merely _hold_ those views, s/he
> actively attempts to make them legally binding on those who do not share
> his/her belief.

What's wrong with that?  I don't want booze sold in my county, so I vote 
against it.  But I acknowledge that others my view it differently, and vote 
differently.  But, to some students and community people, I'm a religious 
bigot because I'm telling other people how to live their life.  If you want to 
drink, fine, just don't cause harm and I'll stay out of your business.

To me, more often those of us in the religious community aren't so much 
trying to get others to agree with out moral system (which we are 
CONSTANTLY accused of) as much as we are trying to uphold our moral 
system and keep the disagreers from telling us how to be.  It certainly works 
both ways, doesn't it? 
 
>  4. Some of the statements by the leaders of the so-called "Moral
> Majority" or the Christian right make it abundantly clear that it is not
> just homosexuality but homosexuals themselves who are to be despised. Look
> at Jerry Falwell's statement about AIDS in which he stated publicly that:
> "AIDS is not God's punishment to homosexuals--it is God's punishment to a
> society that TOLERATES homosexuals."
> 
>  Sorry, but that's bigotry to me.

Understandable, but Jerry Falwell no more speaks for most Christians then 
does Jesse Jackson speak for most blacks.  

I don't know Falwell personally, nor do I know Pat Robertson, and have never 
heard them speak much.  But I tend to be suspicious of religious people who 
constantly seek to be in the public view.  And worse, the media seems to 
like to put these guys in the limelight more than the typical religious leaders.

Who got more press -- Falwell for his comments about "Tinky Winky" or 
Mother Theresa for her tireless efforts?  Who do you think Christians (most 
of us) are more likely emulating???

> >  Jesus said, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."  So even
> > if you consider being gay to be wrong, you are still
> > admonished to love that person.
> 
>  You're also admonished to honor your parents, place personal gain well
> after charity, and a lot of other things modern Christians totally ignore.

Uh...well..there are two ways to look at that.  One is -- all Christians stumble 
because we believe that everyone sins and makes mistakes.  So, I'd be a liar 
if I said I am always following biblical principles.

But if by the word "ignore" you're suggesting that we do this on a consistent 
basis I don't agree.  Anyone can claim to be in the kingdom, but not 
everyone really is.  You follow around a group of Christians who have 
sincerely dedicated their lives to Christ and a group who claim the label and 
do little with it and you're going to see some major differences in their 
behavior.

>  Try an experiment yourself. Go into your classroom and attempt to present
> the topic of religious socialization as a form of brainwashing and see how
> quickly your institution steps in to stop you. 

I don't think that would send too many shockwaves around here.  

I would do it too -- if it was to facilitate people's discussion and 
understanding of religion and religious behavior.  

But, to me, there is a difference between presenting it as "Is this 
brainwashing?" and "This is brainwashing."  I would certainly think others 
would agree.

>  Perhaps because if you DO bring it up, you aren't allowed to express
> anything but a positive attitude toward it--and that would be academic
> dishonesty for many of us who don't share your beliefs.

Sez who?

I did a talk at the honors college last year, and presented on the psychology 
of the religious person.  And I've repeated it to a few groups since then.

It is a balanced presentation of healthy and unhealthy religious behavior, 
based on research.  It neither promotes nor condemns religion, but looks at 
how it is enacted in our culture, and how that is influenced by a person's or 
group's psychological mindset?  Why would anyone be torked (sp?) off by 
that? 

Jim




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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

the new master's degree (long)

[Jim Guinee]

Tipsters,
This is a little long, but a very interesting article from the recent issue of "US 
News 
and World Report."  
Jim Guinee

Smart new degrees take center stage
Innovative master's programs drawn from a savvy mix of specialties can 
give a big boost to your career 
By Rachel Hartigan 
Sarah Craighill was frustrated. The graphic designer was tired of being told how 
to design things by people who knew a lot about business but not much about art. 
She realized that she needed a new career, and that meant graduate school. "But I 
didn't want to go back to school–and pay money–unless I knew there was 
something very specific that I was trained to do," she explains. So she was happily 
surprised to discover a wealth of innovative master's programs aimed at people 
like her–smart, ambitious, and unwilling to spend time and cash on further 
schooling if it doesn't advance their careers. She chose the human-computer-
interaction program at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Its 
coursework combines computer science, design, and psychology to teach 
students to design user-friendly products. 
Although she won't graduate until May, she's already screening calls from 
corporate recruiters. 
Blame careerism, blame credentialism, blame even the commodification of 
knowledge, but the streamlined, targeted, real-world master's degree is beginning 
to elbow the fabled doctorate off academia's center stage. Increasingly, these new 
master's are the must-have degree. Most of them are made up of a combination 
of specialties, geared to the workplace. For instance, Boston University and 
Northeastern University jointly train students to work for biotech companies in 
genome research, while the environmental monitoring program at the University of 
Wisconsin–Madison prepares its graduates to use new technologies such as 
satellite remote sensing in fields like forestry, urban planning, and environmental 
engineering. 
Both students and employers are clamoring for the degrees. "Employers need 
more in the bank than general intellectual skills," explains Clifton Conrad, a 
professor of higher education at Wisconsin and lead author of A Silent Success: 
Master's Education in the United States. Doctoral graduates are too narrowly 
focused for corporate tastes, while recruiters complain that undergraduate 
education barely compensates for the inadequacies of high school. 
Students are seeking master's degrees because they have become the passport to 
entry-level jobs in many fields, or at least the key to moving up the ladder. Even 
the academically inclined are tempted by master's degrees once they get wind of 
the fierce competition for university teaching positions{HYPERLINK 
"gbalternative.htm"}. Meanwhile, working 
professionals just want to keep their jobs. With business and technology seeping 
into nursing, education, science, public policy, and diplomacy, employees must 
learn new skills or risk being passed over. 
Despite academia's historic disdain for most master's degrees as failed Ph.D.'s, 
university administrators are embracing the new ethos. For one thing, they look at 
professional master's programs and see both tuition revenue and future alumni 
support after graduates get the lucrative jobs that they've been trained for. 
Academics also see that these graduates will get the jobs that they want, unlike 
the many Ph.D.'s who do not get tenure-track positions. As the academic job 
market looks ever bleaker, both administrators and professors tend to eye 
changes in graduate education with more enthusiasm. They also hope that by 
welcoming what could be called enlightened careerism into graduate schools, they 
have made undergraduate education safe for liberal arts students such as Craighill 
who can later use the graduate degrees to boost their technical skills. 
Vetted by pros. Although these professional master's degrees vary greatly, they 
tend to share a few characteristics. Most of them have been vetted by 
professionals currently working in the field. Michigan State University in East 
Lansing invited local industry leaders to two meetings to hammer out what 
business skills students in the school's new professional science master's program 
would need to learn. The health care leadership program at the University of 
California–San Diego didn't get started until half the practicing doctors in San 
Diego had a chance to weigh in on the utility of a business degree specifically 
tailored to healthcare professionals. 
And whether they're combinations of business and science, anthropology and law, 
or geography and computing, these new degrees are, for the most part, 
interdisciplinary. In a hyperconnected society, where computer science informs 
chemistry, which informs biology, whic

a shortage of psychiatrists?

[Jim Guinee]

Just call me the newsboy today!  JPG

FW:

Short on Shrinks

Psychologists and Psychiatrists Debate Possible Remedies

By Laurie Barclay, MD WebMD Medical News

Reviewed by Dr. Jacqueline Brooks

March 29, 2001 -- Worrisome statistics from the state of Illinois are
pointing to a shortage of psychiatrists, a trend that is reflected
nationwide. But as the debate rages over whether or not to grant
prescribing privileges to psychologists, experts tell WebMD there are
other strategies to help ensure adequate access to mental health
professionals.

Illinois has 57 counties with no psychiatrists and 17 counties with
only one psychiatrist. While shortages in mental health care have
been defined as less than one psychiatrist for every 30,000 people,
there is one area in Illinois with only one psychiatrist serving
203,000 people.

"In farm and rural areas of Illinois, patients might have to drive
between 50 and 100 miles to the nearest psychiatrist's office," Nancy
Molitor, PhD, president of the Illinois Psychological Association, tells
WebMD. "Even then, there's no guarantee that their insurance plan would
cover that psychiatrist or that he or she would have any openings."

Nationwide, there are 444 counties with no psychiatrist but with at
least one clinical psychologist, according to Marlin Hoover, PhD,
president-elect of the Illinois Psychological Association.

"We have many people who don't receive medications, and others who
do, but [get them] from physician's assistants and nurse
practitioners who may not have much training in mental health.
Psychologists are ideally positioned to be given the training
necessary to prescribe drugs safely," says Hoover, who claims that
psychologists receive seven years of mental health training after
college, more than any other professional.

"It would be a terrible, misguided error for any legislature in this
country to allow psychologists to have prescribing privileges,"
Michelle Riba, MD, MS, associate chair for education and academic
affairs in psychiatry at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor,
tells WebMD. "Quality of care for patients and our medical ethics
dictate that only those who have ... a medical degree and clinical
residency training should be allowed to prescribe medications."

Riba claims there are adequate numbers of psychiatrists, primary care
physicians, and specialists in this country to provide quality care to
patients, and suggests that any remaining shortage could be solved by
innovative programs, such as telemedicine, to provide care in rural
communities and in other underserved areas.

"These programs would make it possible for all patients to receive
the care they need without resorting to lowering our country's
standards of healthcare," says Riba, vice president-elect of the
American Psychiatric Association.

The psychiatric profession in California has been working hard to
increase services to underserved populations, both through
telepsychiatry services and by recruiting psychiatrists to rural
areas, explains Maria T. Lymberis, MD, a clinical professor of
psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine.

But the main problem restricting access to mental health care is lack of
funding, according to a November 2000 report by the Little Hoover
Commission about the state of mental health care in California's public
sector.

"If you do not treat, you save money!" Lymberis says about the
report. "Psychologists do not necessarily charge less, they do not go to
the underserved areas, and they will not solve the problem of the
underserved."

There has been a steady decline in medical school graduates entering
psychiatry over the past decade, down to 482 in 1999 from 664 in 1990.

"Psychiatry has been a very stigmatized field, both for psychiatrists and
patients," Lymberis says. "We are still fighting for nondiscrimination in
the coverage of psychiatric conditions."

"With managed care organizations refusing to authorize needed
services and paying less than cost in many cases, medical students
who are looking for satisfying specialties have shied away from
psychiatry," agrees Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor and chair of
psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in
Worcester, and president-elect of the American Psychiatric
Association.

Medicare cuts of $115 billion over five years beginning in 1998 have
decreased funding for resident education, leading to fewer residency
positions and an even greater decline in the number of specialists,
such as psychiatrists.

Re: participation rubric

[Jim Guinee]

> Hi Tipsters,
> Re Joe's question on participation:
> I  too have desired  to encourage and monitor participation, and so I've
> devised a system  which seems to work well. In my courses, students can
> earn a maximum of  500 points (5 tests x 100 points). I award  1/2 bonus
> point each time a student participates -- i.e. raises his/her hand and is
> called upon. The max. a student can earn is 10 extra points for 20
> participations. So the total is not enough to inflate a grade, but to give
> students a little extra incentive to participate, and count as a very
> monor portion of their overall average.
> 
> To keep track of class participation, I make up a seating chart for each
> section, and make a copy for each class period. When a student raises
> his/her hand, I use my seating chart and I can then: --call on students by
> name --circle their names when I call on them, thus keeping track of
> participation --make sure not to call on the same few students over and
> over again.
> 
> This system seems to work well; I can reward and keep track of those who
> participate, and students -- ever hungry for those bonus points --
> appreciate the opportunity to sock away some extra points for a rainy day.
> 
> Kathleen Kleissler

If this system works for you, then so be it.  But, I worry that we may be 
creating too much forced participation in this sense.

I worry that by giving participation credit we turn a classroom into a bunch of 
barking seals.  Plus, I think we all have had students who talked a lot, but 
didn't necessarily contribute to the discussion. 

Worse, it promotes the idea that verbal participation is the one true indication 
of actual participation.  I have students who rarely say a word, and yet their 
eyes are focused on me almost all of the time.

Don't get me wrong -- I think we should have some kind of incentive system 
for participation.  

In my classes, I use a "nudge factor" system.  I take attendance every class 
period, I routinely make note of each student's attention/participation.  Then 
there are other "nudge factors" I take note of, such as improvement over the 
course of the semester, final exam score, and the amount of work they put 
into their assignments.

At the end of the semester, a student who has an average of 89.2, and has a 
lot of nudge factors in his/her favor will probably get bumped to an "A."  A 
student who has not participated, attended sporadically, etc., does not get 
bumped.

I have used this system for twelve years, and explain it several times during 
the semester.  I don't know how much it has affected grade complaints, but I 
can honestly say I've had less than 10 students in all this time come looking 
for me the next semester because "I don't understand why I got a..."



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Therapy video in rebirthing trial

[Jim Guinee]

Don't know if this has been posted before.

--- Forwarded message follows ---

Chilling Videotape to 'Star' in Rebirthing Trial
By Judith Crosson

DENVER (Reuters) - A 70-minute videotape of a psychotherapy session will be
the ``star'' witness at a trial of two therapists charged in the death of a
10-year-old girl who suffocated while wrapped in a blanket in a procedure
designed to mimic the womb.

``It's like a snuff film. It's going to be very difficult for everybody in
that courtroom to watch,'' Craig Silverman, a Denver attorney and former
prosecutor, said.

The videotape, which one therapist allegedly told police would ``hang us,''
has never been shown publicly.

Connell Watkins, 54, and Julie Ponder 40, have been charged with reckless
child abuse resulting in the death of Candace Newmaker after she underwent
``rebirthing'' therapy last year at Watkins' clinic in her home in Evergreen,
Colo. in April.

If convicted, the therapists face 16 to 48 years in prison.

Potential jurors on Thursday will be given a questionnaire at the Jefferson
County courthouse in suburban Denver and return Friday for further
questioning. Opening statements are expected around the middle of next week.

ADOPTIVE MOTHER PAID $7,000 FOR PROCEDURE

The controversial, new-age psychotherapy session was aimed at helping the
troubled child forge a relationship with her adoptive mother, Jeane Newmaker,
who allegedly paid Watkins $7,000.

According to court documents, Jeane Newmaker, who lived in Durham, North
Carolina, with the child, asked Watkins, a psychotherapist for 20 years, to
cure the girl's ``reactive attachment disorder,'' meaning she had trouble
bonding with her adoptive mother.

In the procedure the child was wrapped in a blanket to simulate the womb.
Large pillows were placed around her and counselors then pressed in on the
pillows to simulate a mother's contractions and to motive her to push out of
the blanket through a twisted end at the top of her head, allowing her to be
``reborn'' to her adoptive mother.

But something went terribly wrong. Instead of working her way out of the
blanket, the child begged for air, while the therapists allegedly berated her
and ignored her pleas, according to prosecutors who have viewed the tape.

The girl told therapists seven times she could not breathe and said six times
she was going to die. But instead of unwrapping her, the therapists said ``you
got to push hard if you want to be born, or do you want to stay in there and
die?''

The procedure on April 18 was taped with the adoptive mother watching on
closed-circuit television from another room.

According to an investigator who viewed the tape, there was a 20-minute lapse
between the time the girl's last breath could be heard on the tape to the time
she was unwrapped. She was rushed to a local hospital where she died the next
day.

Amid this terrifying tale, defense attorneys will paint a portrait of
therapists who do what they do because they care about children, Silverman
said.

``The problem in Colorado is that the title 'therapist' can be used by anyone
who wants to hang up a shield,'' Rhea Farberman, spokeswoman for the American
Psychological Association, said. She said parents must ask therapists whether
they are licensed. Watkins was not.

The defense will be walking a fine line when it comes to convincing the jury
that the child needed the so-called rebirthing therapy because of her
difficult behavior. Details of her behavior have not been disclosed, but
children with attachment disorder can be unruly and unresponsive to their
adoptive parents.

Victim On Trial

``To some extent the victim will be put on trial. The defense will first have
to convince the jury that the child had problems. They'll have to tread
lightly,'' Silverman said.

But rebirthing will also be put on trial. ``This is not something that is
within the mainstream of valid and acceptable psychotherapeutic
interventions,'' Farberman said.

Treatments must be effective and safe, she said, and this ''meets neither''
qualification.

Candace Newmaker's short life was not a happy one.

She was born to Angela Elmore, but became a ward of the state at age 5 after
twice being taken away, according to an account in the Rocky Mountain News.
She was adopted in 1996 by Jeane Newmaker, a nurse who became a single mom.

Therapists say that children having trouble bonding with their parents can be
very difficult to deal with and parents like Jeane Newmaker find themselves at
the end of their rope. ``Family therapy is probably called for in these
cases,'' Farberman said.

``If this case raises the consumer's level of awareness of what is appropriate
and what is not appropriate treatment then that will be the silver lining in
this very tragic case,'' Farberman said.

Two other helpers at the clinic, as well as the child's adoptive mother, have
also been charged and are scheduled to go on trial later this year.

Re: A student is not an input

[Jim Guinee]

> The dehumanization of the student and his/her relationship to education is
> one reason that I refuse (and will always refuse) to use Scantrons for
> tests. 
>  It has gotten to the point where I perceive that students sit in Skinner
> boxes like so many rats waiting for the shock (the Scantron test).  Some
> run around frantically trying to prepare (studying) but others just sit
> and wait. 
>  At any rate, the motivation is limited and questionable.  Scantrons
>  minimize 
> the writing component (which I feel is essential at the college level). 
> Giving the student a test paper to write on, and explain answers, allows
> me to see to what extent the student has grasped the concept - not just
> memorized the answer. And also to see if perhaps I was not as clear as
> possible in how I ask the question.
> 
> I know that these comments probably only marginally related to the
> article, but I have been looking for an excuse
> 
> drnanjo
> (Nancy Melucci)
> ELAC

For once we agree on something :)

I have always written my own tests, and graded them as well.  My exams 
are generally a combination of multiple choice and essays.  In the multiple 
choice section students are allowed to write comments on the rationale for 
their answers, and I reserve the right to give some credit for an incorrect 
answer that has sound logic, understanding.

While some of my colleagues consider this a waste of time, I like grading my 
students' exams.  I know I could save myself a lot of time by making multiple-
choice only, scantron exams, but I think that's laziness.  

I want to understand my students' thought processes as much as I can, and 
that in I feel like it shows them that I want to have a more personal 
connection with them.  And that includes the evaluation process.
****
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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Jim Guinee]

entation.  His comment was "That's none of their business."  He didn't like 
it when I said, "Sure it is.  If the school sets forth a curriculum that has 
certain beliefs, why would they want to hire teachers who would come in and 
turn those beliefs upside down."  

On the other hand (how many is that now?), I realize that in a religious 
institution there is probably some lack of latitude for presenting a different 
point of view, and sometimes that is probably counterproductive to critical 
thinking.  

> If, for example, I were to treat the conservative religious
> views on homosexuality as being pure bigotry (which they clearly are)

I disagree.  Bigotry is defined as "bitter, unreasonable intolerance toward an 
idea, person, thing..." (New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language)

The conservative religious views on homosexuality is that it is contrary to 
God's law.  And this view is based on passages that scripture that speak 
against homosexuality.  How is that bigotry?  

I would consider homophobia as a better example of bigotry -- the irrational 
fear, even hatred of a homosexual person.  Jesus said, "Hate the sin, love 
the sinner."  So even if you consider being gay to be wrong, you are still 
admonished to love that person.

> > On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are
> > free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to
> > the point where they begin to teach science as something
> > completely accurate and fool-proof.
> 
>  You'll note that your concern is strictly one sided. 

Yes, and it wasn't meant to be stated that way.  I realize it works both ways.

> Why should public
> academic institutions become involved in supporting or teaching the
> principles of religion--do the Sunday schools teach evolution?

Maybe we're talking about different things here.

>  Religion has no role in the academic classroom (religiously funded
> schools excepted, of course). The cost of such institutions is borne
> partially or totally by the public and the public has no obligation at all
> to pay for religious training. 

I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying religious training, or teaching religious 
principles -- that really should be more under the purview of the religious 
deonomination, church, whatever.

I'm simply pointing out that many people in this country are religious, and 
they hold religion as important in their lives.  And if you completely ignore it 
and never bring it up, I think you do a disservice to those students.  

Psychology research has been notorious about ignoring religious beliefs and 
religious adherence as an important variable.  And because of that, I 
maintain that sometimes studies completely miss something very valuable.  

I'm not suggesting promoting religion -- I'm just not understanding why 
someone would be opposed to religion that they would never bring it up.

Example:  I teach marriage and family, and the other day we were talking 
about the reasons why people having children.  I suggested that one reason 
was religion -- some religions in particular stress having babies as part of 
their creed.  The question I posed then is "Do you think this is true?" 
Do you see a problem with that?



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

interesting study

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought

>   I teach in both psychology and sociology (as well as occasional political
> science courses), so I tend to deal with a number of rather controversial
> topics (abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, homosexuality, the
> drug war, racism & sexism, adolescent sexuality, etc.) on a day-to-day
> basis. The single greatest handicap I have in teaching students to think
> critically in those classes is overcoming the influence of religious
> indoctrination (I live in a _very_ conservative, very fundamentalist,
> area) so that the students can see _both_ sides of the issues instead of
> just one. 

Since you teach such a course, thought you (and others) might be interested 
in this...

RACIAL STEREOTYPES HURT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE -- IN WHITES

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new study found that negative racial stereotypes
don't just hurt African Americans - they can have negative effects on the
people who hold, or even think about, those stereotypes.

The study found that white students who were subtly primed to think
about racial stereotypes of African Americans performed worse on a
math test than did other white students who weren't so primed.

The results suggest that white people who are made aware of
stereotypes that Blacks don't do well in school may impair their own
academic performance, at least in the short term, said Richard Petty,
co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State
University.

"It sounds strange, but people who think about stereotypes of other
groups may act in ways that are consistent with that stereotype -
even if they are not part of that stereotyped group," Petty said.

Petty conducted the study with S. Christian Wheeler and W. Blair G.
Jarvis, two doctoral psychology students at Ohio State. The results
appear in the March issue of the Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology.

The researchers conducted two similar studies, involving a total of
157 non-African-American college students. All were instructed to
write an essay about a day in the life of a college student named
either "Tyrone" or "Erik" Walker. The belief was that, because of the
names, participants would think of Tyrone as an African American and Erik
as a white student.

After writing the essay, students took a standardized test excerpted
from the math section of the GRE. The test included 30 questions and
students had 20 minutes to complete the test.

Results showed students who wrote about "Tyrone" scored lower on the
test than did students who wrote about "Erik." For example, in one
study, students who wrote about "Tyrone" scored an average of 4.5 on
the test, compared to 6.2 for those who wrote about Erik. (Students
got 1 point for each correct answer, with one-fifth of a point taken
off for incorrect answers.

Although the results might seem odd, they are not without precedent,
Petty said. Other researchers had found that when young people were
primed to think about stereotypes of older people, they were more
likely to act in an elderly manner - walking more slowly after they
thought the experiment had ended. But this is the first study to show an
effect involving the impact of racial stereotypes on academic performance.

The key to this experiment is to get students thinking about the
stereotypes without them consciously knowing what they are doing,
Petty said. In these experiments, students were not given any
explicit stereotypes to consider - they were simply asked to write
about a person with a stereotypically white or African American name.

The more that the name conjures up stereotypical thoughts among the
students, the more effective it will be in influencing their
behavior, Petty said. For example, the researchers found that
students who wrote about Tyrone did worse on the math test if their
essays contained high levels of stereotypical content about Tyrone.
Stereotypical content included references that Tyrone was a star
football or basketball player.

"One strong stereotype is that African Americans are more likely to
be athletes, and that athletes tend to be poor students," Petty said.
"Participants who said that Tyrone was an athlete, or who included other
stereotypes, did worse on the math test."

Participants also did worse on the math test if they wrote about
Tyrone in the first person - as if they themselves were Tyrone. "It
may be that people who wrote in the first person identified more
strongly with the stereotypes or held the stereotype more strongly,
and were thus more affected by them when they took the test," Petty
said. In addition, participants in one of the experiments were
specifically asked at the end of the experiment to indicate the race
of the person they wrote about. Those who indicated Tyrone was an
African American did worse on the math test than those who did not.

The fact that participants in this study were affected by racial
stereotypes does not mean that they are prej

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Jim Guinee]

> Jim Guinee wrote:
> 
> > On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore,
> > even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to
> > teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof.
> 
> There are two confused points here, but I have questions about both:
> 
> 1) What do you mean by "trample over."

Show disrespect.  Treat a religious person like he's an idiot.  For example, I 
attended a seminar on couples counseling some time ago where the speaker 
went on some tangent about the bible and it being "a bunch of crazy shit."  

I'm not saying that's a common problem -- I'm just suggesting that there are 
religious people foaming at the mouth over the evolution debate, and there 
are science people foaming on the other side of the fence.  

If an instructor finds no value in including religion in the classroom, I can 
understand that.  I'd rather have it omitted than abused.

> 2) Do you know of anyone who teaches science as completely accurate and
> fool-proof.  If so, they obviously know little about what they are teaching.

No, that was an obvious overstatement.  But I have met science instructors 
who seem absolutely convinced of something, even though some of the facts 
rest on theoretical assumptions.  Yet, despite there being some gray area 
they regard the entire set of material as completely true.  Worse, if you 
disagree, you're just stupid.  But I realize that this behavior can be said of 
anyone talking about anything at any time.



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought
> 
>  Jim wrote:
> 
> > Although, the reflexive response of "why this is not good science"
> > immediately steers the discussion in a negative direction.
> 
>  Do you apply that same criteria to discussions of "why sexism is wrong"
> or "why is racism not a good practice?" When we come to topics such as
> that, no one particularly cares if we take a negative direction with
> them--why should the very dishonest and flawed "science" present in
> creationist claims be treated any differently?

THat's a really good point, but don't you think sexism and racism are in a 
different category, mostly because there seems to be a consensus in our 
culture that sexist and racist ideologies are harmful?

Religion, on the other hand, rarely yields a consensus, even within a 
particular religious community (e.g., capital punishment comes to mind).

For the record, I rarely find anything in the classroom to be dogmatic about, 
and I try to stay away from discussions I feel overly passionate about, unless 
it really needs to be covered.  I guess that's an advantage of teaching in a 
low-consensus field -- you can throw out some different points of views and 
let the students chew on them.  
  
>  The very insistence of "religious folk" that their personal beliefs be
> taught in schools is reason ENOUGH to "take some more whacks" at them.

How nice

> Creationism is a religious belief, not in even the remotest manner a
> scientific theory--the insistence that our students be taught such a
> subject and that it be treated with the same deference as a sound and well
> researched scientific concept is offensive to ANY teacher who cares about
> scientific accuracy in the classroom.

I never said it should necessarily be treated with the same deference as a 
sound and well researched scientific concept.  I certainly understand your 
objections.

Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that just can't be 
integrated into the classroom.

On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are free to ignore, 
even trample over religious beliefs, even to the point where they begin to 
teach science as something completely accurate and fool-proof.



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Would Darwin agree?

[Jim Guinee]

And on the lighter side of natural selection...

A herd of buffalo can move only as fast as the slowest buffalo.  When the
herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are
killed first.  This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole,
because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by
the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest
brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, we all know, kills brain cells, but
naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way
regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the
brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter
after a few beers.

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Jim Guinee]

> >Ah, yes. Evolution is the evil work of the devil. Was that
> >intentional?
> >
> >And while we're on the topic, a thought, although I expect (with
> >trepidation) I'm going to hear from Jim Clark about it. We're
> >rightly outraged by the attempt by the religious right to censor
> >Darwin.  But we have no problem with censoring creationism from
> >textbooks, on the grounds that it's not science. True, it's not,
> >but why not let it in anyway?
> 
> Because it confuses the issue.
> We try to teach students what science is, and then present an example of
> nonscience labeled as science. I'd have no problem with a biology text
> that included Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, and then analyzed
> it, pointing out why it is _not_ good science. However, I doubt that this
> would be acceptable to its proponents.

You're probably right.  

Although, the reflexive response of "why this is not good science" 
immediately steers the discussion in a negative direction.  Wouldn't it be 
more fruitful to ask questions such as "why is X incapable of being 
scientifically demonstrated?" or "do we have any scientific evidence for such 
a claim?" (e.g., great glood)

> >The best response to an untenable position is reason, not
> >censorship. Why not allot the creationists one page to take their
> >best shot at evolution, and one page for the rebuttal. This will
> >give them an opportunity to make their case, even if not equal
> >time. Better to have it out in the open where the wrong-
> >headedness can be addressed. Otherwise students may just get it
> >elsewhere, and we won't have the chance to point out why it isn't
> >science. To labour the point, wouldn't it be more educational to
> >point out what's wrong with "creation science" or "intelligent
> >design" rather than to just suppress it?
> 
> Ideally -- true.
> However, I suspect that the reality would be giving some high school
> science teachers carte blanche to teach religion under the guise of
> science.

I agree, but it would also open the door for others to take some more whacks 
at religious folk.



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: graduation speakers

[Jim Guinee]

> From: "Patrick Cabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Commencement speakers...
> 
> I've been asked to help come up with a list of candidate speakers for our
> commencement ceremonies. The aim is to generate a longish list from which
> to choose for future ceremonies (this year's speaker, I understand, is
> already set). Given the lead time necessary to get a distinguished
> speaker, we want to be readier to invite someone than has been the pattern
> in the past.
> 
> So the generic question is: If you could have anyone at all come to give a
> commencement address, who would you choose (and perhaps why)? 
> 
> Alternatively, who would you like to (a) have talk to your graduates
> and/or (b) hear at your own commencement ceremony?
> 
> Cost, of course, will be a constraint eventually, but should not be a
> major consideration in your suggestions. Speakers, equally obviously,
> should be among the living.
> 
> Pat Cabe

I guess there's a lot of great speakers/lecturers/entertainers out there, but 
how fruitful would it be to list someone who may not necessarily be a good 
graduation speaker, or is too famous to be scheduled?

When my wife graduated from the University of Illinois, they had Marian 
Wright Edelman speak.  She was (and still is) an amazing woman, and a 
great speaker.  She was thoughtful, philosophical, intelligent, and challenged 
students in an appropriately moral way.

When she finished, the entire Assembly Hall (18,000 people) leaped to their 
feet and applauded.

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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

malingering & MMPI-2 study

[Jim Guinee]

"The ability of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 validity scales
to detect fake-bad responses in psychiatric inpatients" by Paul Arbisi &
Yossef Ben-Porath

*Psychological Assessment,* September, 1998, vol. 10, #3, pages 221-228.

ABSTRACT  The effectiveness of P. A. Arbisi and Y. S. Ben-Porath's (see record
1996-10046-001) Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale, F(p), in discriminating
between groups of psychiatric inpatients who were administered the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R.
Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989) under 2 scripted conditions, honest
and fake bad, was examined. The F(p) scale's incremental validity, in
reference to the Infrequency (F) scale, was tested with 74 Minneapolis Veteran
Affairs Medical Center inpatients (64 men and 10 women). The results support
the use of F(p) in the detection of malingering in psychiatric patients and
indicate that in settings characterized by high base rates of psychopathology,
F(p) outperforms F and accounts for all the predictive power when
distinguishing between psychiatric inpatients responding honestly and
attempting to fake bad.

********
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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: abnormal psychology

[Jim Guinee]

> Jeff Ricker wrote:

> I have had several students develop psychotic episodes during the
> semester (and sometimes show up for class during them)

How do you know they had developed a psychotic episode?  Doesn't that 
sound more like the power of suggestion -- what kind of students do you 
teach?

What have you when this has occurred?

Sorry, I just find your experience so interesting I'd like to hear more.


********
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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

morbid question

[Jim Guinee]

A student of mine asked the other day "How long does it take for someone 
to commit suicide by sitting in a car, in an enclosed garage, with the motor 
running?"

Naturally other students were alarmed, and one asked "Uh...why do you 
want to know that?"  

I've had the student in other classes and know he just likes to ask unusual 
questions.  He told his classmates he thought it was important to know with 
respect to response time.

Does anyone have a general idea?  I can think of some factors that affect the 
exact time, but as far as setting a time range I have no clue...

Thanks


********
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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: 5 theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

Uh...I think I may have sent part of this already.  In the middle of typing 
computer services called and I meant to send what I did to myself and go 
back to it later.  Jim Guinee

> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: 5 theories of creationism?
> 
>  Ok, how about this contradiction:
> 
>  GEN 1:11-13 -- Describes the creation of plants, on the third day.
>  GEN 1:14-19 -- Describes the creation of the Stars, the Sun and the Moon,
> on the fourth day.
> 
>  Are we to assume that plants (including, according to Genesis all herbs,
> fruits, etc.) were able to survive BEFORE the Sun existed (or that the
> Earth existed before the Sun and other stars, for that matter)?

No one would assume that...it is either wrong or there is some other 
possibility.  

In Genesis 2:5 it reads "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and 
no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain 
upon the earth..."  What can we take from that?

>> The more I think of the "ideal age" theory, the more intriguing
>> I find it.  

>It's an ideal theory--it requires no proof (and, in fact, demonstrates
>that any "proof" which contradicts is, by its very aging a clear
>demonstration that the theory is right)

Yes, I've been well-informed by now that a sound background in the natural 
sciences makes this theory seem pretty lame.  Even the fundamentalist 
author who described it (along with four other theories) stated it is untenable 
because it contradicts science, ANd it contradicts scripture.  So even the 
fundamentalist can't hang on to it.

I should have clarified what I meant by "intrigued," and obviously should have 
studied it more before  I thought it was interesting that perhaps, if trees were 
created, how old would they appear to be?  How old would Adam have 
appeared?  Obviously questions that aren't worth pursuing too deeply...to me 
 
>appeals to anyone who lacks
>scientific understanding, and carries superstition to the thought disorder
>stage.

Thanks, I feel better now

>Of course, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the scientists who date
>the materials--it rests with those who claim those dates are false because
>the materials were "planted" to test our faith, but they are so sold on
>their theory that they ignore this obvious fact. 

I think you make a great point.  It's better to try and find theological and 
scientific explanations that agree, not to cling to beliefs (the shroud of Turin 
might be appropriate here) especially if they contradict what appears to be 
true.

>What they believe isn't
>really a theory, of course, instead it's the pale cry of the religious
>zealot whose irrational beliefs are in the process of being revealed to be
>scientifically absurd.

Out come the fangs!

 

Re: 5 theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

From:   "Jim  Guinee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization:   University of Central Arkansas
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent:  Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:58:52 -0600
Subject:Re: 5 theories of creationism?
Priority:   normal

> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: 5 theories of creationism?
> 
>  Ok, how about this contradiction:
> 
>  GEN 1:11-13 -- Describes the creation of plants, on the third day.
>  GEN 1:14-19 -- Describes the creation of the Stars, the Sun and the Moon,
> on the fourth day.
> 
>  Are we to assume that plants (including, according to Genesis all herbs,
> fruits, etc.) were able to survive BEFORE the Sun existed (or that the
> Earth existed before the Sun and other stars, for that matter)?

No one would assume that...it is either wrong or there is some other 
possibility.  

In Genesis 2:5 it reads "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and 
no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain 
upon the earth..."  What can we take from that?

>> The more I think of the "ideal age" theory, the more intriguing
>> I find it.  

>It's an ideal theory--it requires no proof (and, in fact, demonstrates
>that any "proof" which contradicts is, by its very aging a clear
>demonstration that the theory is right)

Yes, I've been well-informed by now that a sound background in the natural 
sciences makes this theory seem pretty lame.  Even the fundamentalist 
author who described it (along with four other theories) stated it is untenable 
because it contradicts science, ANd it contradicts scripture.  So even the 
fundamentalist can't hang on to it.

I should have clarified what I meant by "intrigued," and obviously should have 
studied it more before  I thought it was interesting that perhaps, if trees were 
created, how old would they appear to be?  How old would Adam have 
appeared?  Obviously questions that aren't worth pursuing too deeply...to me 
 

, appeals to anyone who lacks
>scientific understanding, and carries superstition to the thought disorder
>stage.
Well, why don'


 Imagine if the courts were compelled to accept a comparable "theory" from
defendants--that all the evidence, no matter how scientific in nature,
used against them was created as a way of "testing" the faith of the
jurors.

 Hmm . . .

 Of course, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the scientists who date
the materials--it rests with those who claim those dates are false because
the materials were "planted" to test our faith, but they are so sold on
their theory that they ignore this obvious fact. What they believe isn't
really a theory, of course, instead it's the pale cry of the religious
zealot whose irrational beliefs are in the process of being revealed to be
scientifically absurd.

 Rick,


 



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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: 5 theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

> At 03:36 PM 3/8/01 -0600, Jim  Guinee wrote:
> >(snip)
> >I see what you mean.  I hadn't given it much thought -- obviously -- it was
> >more like "hey, I've never heard that before" and don't have enough
> >background in the certain sciences to see the immediate difficulties.
> >
> >Of course, I would have felt more edified without the sarcasm
> >
> I apologize, Jim.  You caught me on a bad day and I shouldn't have taken it
> out on you.  Thanks for considering my message despite its tone.

That's fine.  I admit I was partly annoyed because your post revealed my 
ignorance on the topic.  Boy, I hate that!  

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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: 5 theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

> At 08:42 AM 3/8/01 -0600, Jim  Guinee wrote:
> 
> >The more I think of the "ideal age" theory, the more intriguing I find 
> >it.  That's
> >the one where everything that is created looks older than it really is.  Of
> >course, it is a biblical and geological stretch, and I don't want to cling to
> >some theory simply because it cannot be disproven.
> 
> Intriguing?  God really created the Earth a few thousand years ago, but 
> (s)he made
> it appear as though it is billions of years old, with fossilized flora, 
> fauna and excrement
> that never existed deeply buried, the Grand Canyon beautifully carved out, 
> geographical
> strata artfully layered, glacier scratches along rock, and Adam with a 
> navel.  Well, if
> nothing else, it proves that God is a much greater practical joker than the 
> Bible suggests!
> Who needs a whoopie cushion when you can pull a stunt like that?

I see what you mean.  I hadn't given it much thought -- obviously -- it was 
more like "hey, I've never heard that before" and don't have enough 
background in the certain sciences to see the immediate difficulties.  

Of course, I would have felt more edified without the sarcasm





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)

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! 
It comes bundled with the software."
**

Re: 5 theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

> >> I'm afraid you'll have to stay with your "pictorial-day"
> >> interpretation. The "age-day" interpretation contradicts the geological
> >> and genetic evidence that flowering plants are a recent development,
> >> chronologically speaking. They emerged _after_ 'the beasts of the
> >> fields'.
> >
> >I don't understand.  Weren't plants created before the beasts of the
> >field?
> 
> Nope, flowering plants evolved much more recently.
> 
> >Why would it matter that a subset of plants emerged after?
> 
> Because it appears to contradict the biblical description of the order of
> events. 

I don't necessarily think so (not an expert on this) -- to me if there were no 
plants at all, I think we'd have more of an apparent contradiction.  

> That's why if you wish to maintain some sort of
> biblical/geological consistency, the least specific of your alternatives
> appears to be the only tenable one.

The more I think of the "ideal age" theory, the more intriguing I find it.  That's 
the one where everything that is created looks older than it really is.  Of 
course, it is a biblical and geological stretch, and I don't want to cling to 
some theory simply because it cannot be disproven. 



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: from religion to the paranormal

[Jim Guinee]

> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:28:41 -0600
> From: "Timmerman, Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: From religion to the paranormal
> 
> Schwartz has also appeared twice on the Art Bell show.
> Which, of course, automatically disqualifies him from
> possessing any credibility.
> TT

Who is Art Bell?


********
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: five theories of creationism?

[Jim Guinee]

> >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?
> 
> I'm afraid you'll have to stay with your "pictorial-day" interpretation.
> The "age-day" interpretation contradicts the geological and genetic
> evidence that flowering plants are a recent development, chronologically
> speaking. They emerged _after_ 'the beasts of the fields'.

I don't understand.  Weren't plants created before the beasts of the field?

Why would it matter that a subset of plants emerged after?

 



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

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?  
 
***

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: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Mike Scoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: question for all of you
> 
> Jim Guinee wrote:
> 
> > Therefore, anyone, no matter
> > how good the deeds they do, that does not acknowledge Christ, cannot be
> > reconciled with God.
> 
> Is it difficult to see just how offensive this is to people of other
> faiths?
 
No, it's not difficult.  In the New Testament there are plenty of warnings of 
how offensive these beliefs will seem, and that a Christian should expect to 
be persecuted for professing and adhering to those beliefs.  In other parts of 
the world Christians are being imprisoned and slaughtered...it is sad that 
people can't just let others believe what they want to believe and everyone 
live as peaceably as possible. 

I'm not sure if your original question means "You do see how you can offend 
others, right?" or is it more "How can you believe something so offensive?"

There are a lot of beliefs and behaviors in the world that I personally view as 
offensive, but unless they directly harm me I simply have to acknowledge a 
person's right to hold to those beliefs and/or enact those offensive behaviors.

Everytime I pass by the booby-bar near Morgan/Maumelle I find that very 
offensive, but nonetheless other people have a right to be there if they 
choose.

> > Christians should not view themselves as
> > better than non-Christians (although this is a common problem), just
> > reconciled with God.
> 
> And, that this is equally offensive to atheists?  What a crock, "I'm not
> saying that I am *better*, just reconciled with God.  I mean golly, don't
> take it so personally."

If you're an atheist, why would you care about someone's professed 
relationship with God?  If God doesn't exist, then someone claiming to be 
close to a non-entity should be meaningless to you.
 
> >  And more than one Christian theologian has elegantly
> > stated that Christianity is not a religion of exclusion because ANYONE
> > can join the faith.
> 
> Does history provide us with any comfort to those with faith different
> from that of those in power?   Have you ever heard that familiar Southern
> greeting, "What church ya'll go to?"  How about, "Avrem, what the hell
> kinda name is that?".  

I'm a transplanted Southerner, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

As I said, it is a very troubling aspect of Christian doctrine to suggest that 
those outside of the club have to stay outside the door.  I have an 
enormously difficult time with this...if a Christian doesn't wrestle with this, 
he/she isn't thinking too deeply.

> > Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
> > President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
> 
> Is it possible to keep this "Jesus is the only way" perspective out of a
> counseling relationship? 

I don't know why, but this particular part of your mail caused my blood 
pressure to boil.  I'm not suggesting you're attacking me personally, that's 
just how it feels.

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?

I am happy to respond, because it IS a great question, and clearly very 
relevant to psychology and psychotherapy.  As a follower of Jesus, it is at 
times quite difficult to work with people in the field of mental health, because 
values and beliefs and behaviors come up so often.  I am constantly 
questioning myself, wondering how helpful I am to a student, and regularly 
consult with colleagues, particularly when I feel there is too much discomfort 
for the client's good.  I've had to accept that working in a state institutition 
will cause people to be a little suspicious of me, and I think that's clearly 
appropriate.

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is 
God's."  I work for a state agency, and I was hired to help people solve their 
mental health problems, and adhere to a code of ethics that respects 
another's belief system.  If I cannot do this, I should not work with a client, 
and if I find I cannot do this at all, I should not work in this type of setting at 
all.

> I have heard good Christian counselors say,
> "There is no way I could deal with a gay client."  (Well, I suppose that
> the person *might* be able to deal with a gay client if the client wanted
> to be saved and go straight.)

It's fascinating to me that anytime a therapist professes a deep belief in a 
religion, the focus of the discussion automatically seems to go to gay 
clients.  While it is an important question, that particular therapist is 
statistically mo

Re: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Robin Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: question for all of you
> 
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote:
> > 
> > Is it possible to keep this "Jesus is the only way" perspective out of a
> > counseling relationship?  I have heard good Christian counselors say,
> > "There is no way I could deal with a gay client."  (Well, I suppose that
> > the person *might* be able to deal with a gay client if the client
> > wanted to be saved and go straight.)
> > 
> I wonder about this myself. How could a Biblically-literal Christian even
> bring him- or her-self to treat a nonbeliever? If you believe someone will
> be tortured forever for not believing in the right way, isn't helping them
> to be better-adjusted here on earth a major case of rearranging the deck
> chairs on the Titanic?

That is a constant struggle for any religious therapist -- "WHat good is 
helping someone with anxiety if it doesn't bring them closer to God?"

But if you take that position, I think you run into the wall.  You would see any 
good deed as worthless, and that not only violates most people's 
sensibilities but runs counter to biblical principles as well.

Certainly there, for example, fundamentalist Christians out there selling 
houses, treating physical illnesses, paying bills, paying taxes, etc., 
endeavoring in non-religious activities or activities that benefit, collaborate 
with non-religious people.

This very issue comes up in the New Testament, and Christians are 
admonished to work for the welfare of others, regardless of the other person's 
belief.   

There's absolutely nothing biblical about "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not going to feed 
a hungry person unless he loves Jesus first."  

Yes, I realize that mentality and behavior does exist, however.  Very sad.



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: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Annette Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: question for all of you

> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Robin Pearce wrote:
> > 
> > I wonder about this myself. How could a Biblically-literal Christian
> > even bring him- or her-self to treat a nonbeliever? If you believe
> > someone will be tortured forever for not believing in the right way,
> > isn't helping them to be better-adjusted here on earth a major case of
> > rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
> 
> I think that many therapists with deep religious beliefs--no matter the
> religion, limit themselves to a practice restricted to their faith, as
> through some type of "ministry". and that is probably quite appropriate!
> annette

This is generally true, although there are deeply religious therapists in non-
religious settings.  It is clearly easier to work in a setting where a conflict of 
beliefs is less likely.

On the occasion that a deeply religious grad student therapist-wannabe is 
investigating working in religious and non-religious settings, a fair question 
that I pose is : "How easy/hard will it be for you to work with non-religious 
people, how easy/hard will it be for you to keep your beliefs in check?"

 



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: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> At 8:51 AM -0600 3/1/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
> As a psychologist, I am more interested in what people actually _do_ in
> the name of religion than what the Words of the religion actually dictate.

Just for the record -- I did not write this. I'm not sure who did, but somehow it 
got attributed to me.  

Interesting statement.  Maybe one could argue that psychologists are 
probably more appropriately able to investigate the behavior of religious folk 
than examining their doctrines.






************
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: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: question for all of you
> 
> For what it's worth:  Way back when I learned my Catholic doctrine, we
> were taught that those "otherwise blameless people" were not sent to a
> very bad place (Hell), but were to remain forever in Limbo, where they
> would never experience the "knowledge of and togetherness with" God but
> would not be punished as those in Hell would be.  
> 
> Margie Stinson
> Lee College Adjunct Faculty
> Huntsville, TX

That sounds a little different than Catholic doctrine, at least as it is stated in 
the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church.  There is no mention of limbo 
in the Bible, as there is no mention of purgatory.  Nonetheless, Catholics 
continue to integrate it into their theology.
********
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: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> > Admittedly, a very unpleasant aspect of biblical Christianity is the
> > belief that non-Christians go to a very bad place.  This should never be
> > taken lightly by the church, and is cause for much suffering and
> > grieving.  I don't like professing this belief one bit, but I don't see
> > that professing it would make me judge and jury of the rest of my fellow
> > earthlings.
> 
> Admittedly not a topic for TIPS, but fascinating to me, to have
> Jim confirm this view so bluntly. Would not a God who would
> condemn billions of otherwise blameless people to "a very bad
> place" solely for not believing appropriately be an evil, cruel
> and malicious entity? How can this be consistent with a belief in
> a just, kind, and caring God?
> 
> -Stephen

Stephen

Nice to hear from you.  I wondered when you would chime in.

To answer your question in a simplistic fashion is probably beyond my 
capabilities, but if I can try, the essential point behind the narrow road of 
salvation in Christianity is that since each person sins, each person 
becomes separated from God as a direct result of that sin.  Therefore, it 
doesn't matter whether one sins a little bit or a lot, it is still disobedience to 
God's law.  In the Old Testament (as I understand it), sacrifices were made 
to God to atone for the sins of God's people.  In the New Testament, Jesus 
offers himself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the people.  Therefore, 
when one becomes a Christian, one is "saved" because you are 
acknowledging that Christ paid your sin debt.  Therefore, anyone, no matter 
how good the deeds they do, that does not acknowledge Christ, cannot be 
reconciled with God.  In the New Testament the apostle Paul repeatedly 
explains that people cannot earn their salvation.  Therefore, good works are 
viewed as important, but are not capable of cleaning one's soul.  So a loving 
God desires all people to be saved but those who do not accept Christ are 
basically condemning themselves.  Christians should not view themselves as 
better than non-Christians (although this is a common problem), just 
reconciled with God.  And more than one Christian theologian has elegantly 
stated that Christianity is not a religion of exclusion because ANYONE can 
join the faith.  And since it is belief, and not works that get you in, no one 
then is unable to become a Chrisitian.

I am sure many on the list will find this theology ridiculous.  It is not easy for 
religious folks to digest, no matter how simple-minded some of us may 
appear to be.  

I am drawn to the writings of C.S. Lewis, perhaps the greatest Christian 
theologian of the 20th century.  When commenting on the difficult theology of 
Christianity, he suggested that one way to view it as God's word was that if 
people had really invented Christianity as a religion (for one reason or 
another), they would have made it a lot simpler.

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

(Fwd) Religious humor

[Jim Guinee]

Sneakin' this in...

--- Forwarded message follows ---

 A newly discovered chapter in the Book of Genesis has
 provided the answer to "Where do pets come from?"

 Adam and Eve said, "Lord, when we were in the garden,
 you walked with us every day.  Now we do not see you
 anymore.  We are lonesome here and it is difficult for
 us to remember how much you love us."

 And God said, "No problem!  I will create a companion
 for you that will be with you forever and who will be
 a reflection of my love for you, so that you will love
 me even when you cannot see me.  Regardless of how
 selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new
 companion will accept you as you are and will love you
 as I do, in spite of yourselves."

 And God created a new animal to be a companion for
 Adam and Eve.  And it was a good animal.  And God was
 pleased.  And the new animal was pleased to be with
 Adam and Eve and he wagged his tail.  And Adam said,
 "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the
 Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new
 animal."

 And God said, "No problem.  Because I have created
 this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you,
 his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you
 will call him DOG." And Dog lived with Adam and Eve
 and was a companion to them and loved them.  And they
 were comforted.

 And God was pleased.

 And Dog was content and wagged his tail.

 After a while, it came to pass that an angel came to
 the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam and Eve have become
 filled with pride.  They strut and preen like peacocks
 and they believe they are worthy of adoration.  Dog
 has indeed taught them that they are loved, but
 perhaps too well."

 And God said, "No problem!  I will create for them a
 companion who will be with them forever and who will
 see them as they are.  The companion will remind them
 of their limitations, so they will know that they are
 not always worthy of adoration."

 And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam and Eve.
 And Cat would not obey them.  And when Adam and Eve
 gazed into Cat's eyes, they were reminded that they
 were not the supreme beings.  And Adam and Eve learned
 humility. And they were greatly improved.

 And God was pleased.

 And Dog was happy.

 And Cat didn't care one way or the other.

 Amen.

Re: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Hank Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: question for all of you
> 
> Greetings Will,
> You, too, "need to be held responsible for [your] behaviors" and beliefs.
> including those that condemn most of the world's population to damnation
> (or,at very least, to lack of salvation) just because they don't believe
> the same things that you do. Is it remotely possible that there are many
> routes to "salvation?" Warm Regards, Hank

I think Hank presents his questions in a most elegant fashion.  
Unfortunately, I think apologetics, albeit important, is REALLY getting away 
from the true purpose of TIPS.

I'm as guilty as anyone of continuing these discussions, but for the most part 
I'm trying to discuss the psychology behind the religious person/individual.  
When it comes to debating doctrine itself, that needs to be done off-list.

My apologies to anyone that believes I have used the list inappropriately.



********
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: question for all of you

[Jim Guinee]

> > such as the comment that believing in the
> > Bible is akin to "intellectual dishonesty" or
> > inferring that religious fundamentalists are all
> > close-minded.
> > 
> > I am "one of those" religious fundamentalists who
> > believes that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant
> > word of God, that Christ was crucified and resurrected
> > for our sins, and that the only way for one to achieve
> > salvation is through faith in Christ.  
> 
> As you have just alienated and condemned a very large proportion of human
> beings on the planet, who do not practice Christianity, I think you have
> pretty much proved our point.
> 
> Nancy Melucci
> East Los Angeles College

I don't see the writer condemning anyone.  Christians should not be 
condemning anyone, just stating their beliefs.  To me, there is an important 
distinction there.  In this case, "Will" is simply stating what he believes.  If 
you find his belief offensive, you are free to disagree.

Admittedly, a very unpleasant aspect of biblical Christianity is the belief that 
non-Christians go to a very bad place.  This should never be taken lightly by 
the church, and is cause for much suffering and grieving.  I don't like 
professing this belief one bit, but I don't see that professing it would make 
me judge and jury of the rest of my fellow earthlings.

Can't we all just get along?



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: Gallup/Creationism

[Jim Guinee]

>  As far as the "which behaviors" question...
> > Take the "premarital sex" and "cheating on test" examples you
> > refer
> > to below. Two completely different things. Religions seem to put
> > exceptional focus on control of sexuality, and I would never argue that
> > fundamentalists dominate violations of their own sexual ethics. Of
> > course, the remarkable string of conservatives (off the top of my head,
> > Hyde, Livingston, Gingrich, Helen C., Barr, Burton...) revealed during
> > the 1998 impeachment to have had affairs even in some cases as they
> > investigated the President's affair certainly raises questions.

Don't confuse political conservativism with religious conservativism.  

I suspect that too many political conservatives are a lot closer to Pharisee-
type behavior than being Christ-like.

> > Regardless, whether violations of the fundamentalists' ethics constitute
> > "misbehavior" is of course not an empirical question.
> > As far as more basic character issues which are reflected in
> > things
> > like "cheating on tests", I simply disagree. Whatever strengths
> > religious fundamentalists have, honesty is clearly not among them (see
> > below). As I noted in my other message, if that's not already apparent
> > to you (and I obviously suspect that it isn't), then there's not much
> > point in continuing the discussion.

No, it is not apparent to me.  You have not given any specific evidence that 
religious people are dishonest.

You do realize that dishonesty violates biblical principles, right?  

> > > I contend that outward behavior is not necessarily a manifestation of
> > > religiosity, but nonetheless it can be quite telling.  Take the
> > > students at your school -- I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that
> > those who
> > > score higher on religiosity scales are less likely to be having
> > > premarital
> >
> > > sex, cheating on tests, etc.
> >
> > it'd be pretty difficult to explain the
> > central role of dishonesty in fundamentalist endeavours such as
> > creationist teaching

which could just be attributed to different beliefs than outright lying

> the attempt impeach President Clinton

this is dishonesty?  I thought that was a political procedure?

>, the attempt
> > to recriminalize abortion

based on a different belief system than that which put the law into place

Again, no specifics, and confounding political behavior with religious beliefs.

IN SUM,
I'm not saying religious people don't lie, and they don't bend the truth.  And 
I'm not saying they don't look at the facts sometimes (e.g., teaching 
evolution) simply because it automatically (but not necessarily) contradicts 
their belief system.  But, please don't try to make us out to be a bunch of 
political hysterics who are out picketing anyone we disagree with and using 
dishonest tactics to promote our simple-minded theology.

BTW, Paul, I do admire your intellect and ability to debate complicated 
issues.  Hopefully we are disagreeing without being disagreeable.  For me, if 
I wind up looking like a jerk in this debate, I have just violated enacting the 
very theology that I am sincerely trying to explain/defend.





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: Gallup/Creationism

[Jim Guinee]

> > And what have the fundamentalists done to show themselves *completely
> > untrustworthy*?  For that matter, how they have shown themselves more
> > untrustworthy than the government?  Oh wait, that was the previous
> > administration...
> 
>  I'm talking, of course, about the Christian Coalition in all its
> guises: the creationists, organized anti-abortionist groups, anti-Clinton
> groups etc. If, after that clarification, you don't clearly see why I said
> they're untrustworthy, then there really isn't any point in discussing
> this point. We would have to disagree on facts and/or values so
> fundamental to the discussion that progress in a discussion isn't at all
> likely. I fear that may be an accurate description of the state of the
> world right now with respect to ethics in general. 
> 
> Paul Smith
> Alverno College
> Milwaukee

Sigh.  No clear examples here of untrustworthy behavior.

And please don't lump all religious fundamentalists into this pot.

Contrary to what some believe, most theologically conservative religious folk 
are not out there threatening abortion clinics, calling for Clinton's 
impeachment, etc.  

Part of the problem with religion and religious individuals is that anyone can 
claim they are of a certain religion, but that doesn't tell you whether they 
really adhere to those beliefs or not.  I suspect that some political and/or 
activist-type people's true beliefs and behavior are quite different from what 
they profess to believe.

Further, Christians ARE often very poor physical representations of 
Christianity.  To a non-Christian, then, this very serious problem results in 
the non-Christian developing his/her view of Christianity not from the bible but 
from the behavior of a religious individual and/or community.

As Christians, we are not any better than anyone else out there, and our 
religious communities are unfortunately sometimes very guilty of being quite 
unbiblical.

But, DO NOT confuse biblical Christianity with the attempts of its followers to 
live out its principles.  You will find (sadly) much difference.

Speaking of Clinton, I remember during the Clinton impeachment process, 
our pastor asked us to pray for Clinton, to pray for his salvation, and pray for 
the healing of our nation.  He also admonished us not to engage in Clinton-
bashing.  Why?  Because he said the bible commands Christians to respect 
the authority of the leadership of a nation, and that Christians are to pray for 
their leaders and act respectfully while under their rule.  I think more than a 
few of us felt pretty-well rebuked.



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: Gallup/creationism

[Jim Guinee]

> Paul Smith wrote:
>
>   To his credit, when he announced the faith-based program office,
> Bush explicitly said that the goal was to only promote programs that had
> supporting empirical evidence. An interesting contradiction, 

Why?  What about a faith-based program that has demonstrated efficacy in 
solving a particular social problem (promoting abstinence to decrease std's 
and unwanted pregnancies)?

> SNIP
> Of course, in practice is a vastly different matter, and the religious
> fundamentalists have consistently shown themselves completely unworthy of
> our trust. I do wish that someone would just simply bring that out into the
> open. 

Our trust?  Who are you speaking for here?

And what have the fundamentalists done to show themselves *completely 
untrustworthy*?  For that matter, how they have shown themselves more 
untrustworthy than the government?  Oh wait, that was the previous 
administration...

********
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: Gallup/creationism

[Jim Guinee]

y untrue (and not biblically supported, by the way).  To 
paraphrase myself, I said the "high rate" of misbehavior.  There are plenty of 
studies out there that will demonstrate folks who more closely adhere to 
religious beliefs are much less likely to "misbehave."

>  In fact, I'm almost certain (though memory does occasionally fail
> me) that when I presented with Steve Davis on academic honesty at APA a
> few years ago, someone in the audience asked him about his observations
> with respect to (professed) religious belief, and that his answer didn't
> bode well for the notion that cheating and religious faith are
> incompatible. Rationalization works wonders. 
> 
>  If, in fact, your claim is that a person has a world view dominated
> by religion if and only if that person consistently behaves in such a way
> as to square with some defined set of religious values (e.g., the Ten
> Commandments), then _no-one_ has a world view dominated by religion - even
> according to the Bible. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
> God" (a paraphrase - my Confirmation was a LONG time ago!). But then none
> of this is very interesting. For example, if professed belief is not at
> all relevant to behavior, that's pretty much a death knell for
> "faith-based initiatives", right?   :)

Again, I think you misunderstood.  And I probably didn't make myself clear.

I contend that outward behavior is not necessarily a manifestation of 
religiosity, but nonetheless it can be quite telling.  Take the students at your 
school -- I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that those who score higher on 
religiosity scales are less likely to be having premarital sex, cheating on 
tests, etc.

BTW, nice use of scripture to support your point (that was a sincere 
compliment)
 
All the best,



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

clones

[Jim Guinee]

Hey,

The thread about religion and science made me think about cloning, and 
cloning made me think of a joke.  Of course these days in the era of "e-
jokes" you've probably heard this one.  For the 1% who haven't...


-

A scientist was lonely -- his best friend and assistant had died recently and 
he missed him terribly.

So, through the wonders of modern technology he was able to clone his 
deceased buddy, and the clone quickly grew to adulthood.

At first, it was great.  They got along very well, and the scientist began to 
dramatically increase the rate of conducting scientific experiments.

"I should make a few more of him," the scientist thought to himself.  "What a 
magnificent scientific team we would have."

But then things began to get ugly.  The clone began becoming more and 
more aggressive, pushing the scientist around.  He started calling him 
names, swearing like crazy.  

"You stupid &#@%%% and you mother&&##** he would scream over and 
over.

After a few more days, the clone was constantly bullying the scientist, 
swearing at him.  Even when other people came to the lab the clone would 
scream and curse at them, causing them to flea in terror.

The scientist knew he had to do something about his terrible and profane 
assistant.

Suddenly he got an idea.

"Look out the window!  A supernova!"  The scientist yelled.  The clone 
quickly rushed to the window, in order to get a better view.  The scientist ran 
up behind him and pushed the clone out of the window, causing him to fall to 
his death.

WHen the police arrived, they were directed to the scientist's laboratory by 
witnesses, and they arrested him and led him out of the building.

As the police began stuffing the scientist into a police car, he vainly 
protested.  "Wait a minute, officers!  What did I do?  What's the charge???"

One officer smiled at the other.  "Well, sir, we're charging you with..."




SCROLL DOWN










READY?








YOU CAN STILL GO BACK








"...making an obscene clone fall."

Re: sensitivity to worldviews

[Jim Guinee]

> "Roderick D. Hetzel" wrote:
> 
> > On the other hand, if
> > students come to you during office hours and want help in understanding
> > the science of psychology from a Christian perspective, can we talk with
> > them and help them in this endeavor?  If discussing Christian theology
> > falls within your area of competence, the answer is a resounding yes.
> 
> Which Christian perspective/theology?

Good question.  I don't know how much we should be discussing "theology,"
particularly at the risk of pushing it or usurping the role of the clergy.
 
> No thanks, I will continue to "push" science, even if some find it
> offensive.  I will have to live with comments like the following one on
> course evaluations: "One day, Dr. Scoles will have to stand before God and
> answer for his attitude. . . .  

Do you mind eloborating on "his attitude?" 

>But, the Randi video was pretty good."

What did you show?  Was it related to religion?  Just curious -- I heard the 
Amazing One speak when I was a student at Illinois.  I wish I had his 
intellect.



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: sensitity to students' worldviews

[Jim Guinee]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: sensitity to students' worldviews
> 
> One of thes problem with trying to use the Bible to formulate a coherent
> worldview is that the Bible may in fact not be a "coherent" document but a
> pastiche of differing worldviews. 

Nancy,

Different authors, yes, but different worldviews, I don't really see that at all.

> It was written over many centuries and
> speaks to an age or ages and culture(s) that faced very different problems
> than ours does.  

That's a familiar argument, and it doesn't wash.  

The moral problems that people in the bible faced are generally the same 
moral problems today -- cheating, adultery, violence, selfishness, sexual 
immorality, etc.

> For an example of this problem check out this website:
> 
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl.htm
> 
> It doesn't for example present a uniform view on capital punishment.

Excellent point.  And you'll find religious folks on both sides of the issue (are 
there just two sides?).  So, it's pretty tough to use the bible to 
justify/condemn capital punishment.

> I used to try to be respectful of student's adherence to the Bible by
> speaking to its utility as a history of people and compendium of ethics,
> but I am not even convinced that it works for that purpose.  It is a book
> with true and false things written in it, 

True and false?  What's true?  What's false?

Isn't that really more a matter of faith -- and proving/disproving the truth a 
matter of using faith?  If we cannot test the bible empirically, how can we 
declare true and false?





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: Gallup/creationism

[Jim Guinee]

> From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Gallup/creationism
> 
> > Jim Guinee wrote: 
> > Like it or not, many Americans are quite theistic and tend to 
> > use religion as a means to understand and live in the world.  Why not
> > engage 
> > people in religious discourse?  Challenge their ways of knowing?  Get
> > them to analyze religious and scientific explanations for the same
> > phenomena?
> 
>  In a way, this is an equally good argument for _not_ spending
> classroom time presenting the religous point of view. As you said,
> Americans are already quite theistic. Those religious explanations
> permeate popular culture and tradition. Challenging their existing views
> implies presenting an alternative to the viewpoints they bring to the
> classroom - presenting a scientific viewpoint, in this case. If the goal
> is to challenge existing beliefs and present a balance so that students
> can make educated choices, I think it's pretty clear that we need to spend
> a LOT more time on science than we already do. 

You make soom good points here.

I'm not necessarily advocating overthrowing the curriculum.  In my courses I 
don't bring religion up very much, partly because this is a state school and I 
don't want to be inappropriate, but also there are certainly a lot of things out 
in the world that religious doctrine/dogma just doesn't cover.  

I teach a health ed course where we cover a lot of "factual material" -- 
prevalence of health problems, contraceptive failure rate, percentage of 
students on campus who problem drink.  Obviously there are a lot of things 
we learn and teach that seem unrelated to religion.  However, in this class 
when it comes to discussing why people make certain health choices, I try 
to be supportive and ask questions about different value systems.  

I think that's really one of my main points -- we should be teaching what we 
are supposed to teach.  But I do get irritated when I hear about certain psych 
professors that try to present certain information that contradicts religion as 
factual (e.g., spanking leads to abuse) when that ain't necessarily so, and 
worse when I hear of prof's making snide comments about religion and 
religious people.

>The creationists' arguments
> against evolution make that point crystal clear. 

Hmm...I'm not so sure.  Certainly there are those in the religious and non-
religious community who still don't have a good grasp of evolution.  I realize 
that evolution is more than just a theory, but I would still contend that micro-
evolution is much closer to being "factual" than macro. 
 
>  I have nothing against the general principle of discussing religion
> in the classroom (in fact, I was one of only two faculty members to show
> up at a special meeting we had yesterday to discuss the thread of
> religious faith at our institution). But the notion that we get an overall
> balance in students' lives by equally presenting religion and science in
> the classroom is simply wrong, in light of the fact that outside of the
> classroom religion absolutely dominates their views 

Oh, I would disaree with that very much.  My experience with students and 
my perusal of research on religious behavior simply does not support the 
statement that religion dominates students' views.  

If so, how do we explain the high rate of premarital sex among students? 
cohabitattion?  How about Stephen Davis' research suggesting that 60-70% 
of college students have cheated on at least one occasion in college?

I know I said many Americans are theistic, but that does not necessarily 
mean the same percentage of Americans are strongly adhered to a set of 
religious beliefs.

This is especially true for college students.  Based on research, we can 
*tentatively* conclude that late adolescence/young adulthood (where age-
wise most of our college students are) is a time in life where religion is far 
less important, and church attendance is far more infrequent than at any 
other point in the lifespan.

>(how many of your
> students spend over an hour of their free time once a week at scientific
> lectures? Now, how many attend church weekly? ). 

Good question -- but mere attendance at EITHER event doesn't necessarily 
mean the material is getting through.

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than 
going to a garage makes you an automobile." 
   ... Billy Sunday (1862-1935)


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

non-psych related math problem

[Jim Guinee]

> > 
> > MATH RIDDLE - MUST BE DONE IN YOUR HEAD
> >  >
> >  >This riddle must be done IN YOUR HEAD and NOT
> >  >using paper and a pen.
> >  >Try it - it's weird
> >  >
> >  >Take 1000 and add 40 to it. Now add another 1000.
> >  >Now add 30. Another 1000. Now add 20. Now add
> >  >another 1000. Now add 10. What is the total?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >(Scroll down for the answer)
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >Did you get 5000?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >The correct answer is actually 4100. Don't believe it?
> >  >Check with your calculator! The brain sure knows how to play
> >  >little tricks on us, doesn't it?
> > 
> > 
> > 

Re: Gallup/creationism

[Jim Guinee]

> "the public" is unfortunately ignorant about how science differs from
> religion, and which topic is appropriate in which classroom.
> 
> * 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*

That sounds a little pedantic, don't you think?

So are you saying religion is not appropriate in the classroom.
At all?

I'm certainly not advocating "promoting" religion, whether we promote one or 
all of them, in a secular institution.  Even evangelistic folks need to be 
mindful that they are not being paid to promote religion.

But it seems that some folks over-expand this idea -- since we shouldn't 
promote it, or some don't but into it, let's not discuss it all.

Like it or not, many Americans are quite theistic and tend to use religion as 
a means to understand and live in the world.  Why not engage people in 
religious discourse?  Challenge their ways of knowing?  Get them to analyze 
religious and scientific explanations for the same phenomena?


************
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: Gallup Poll: Creationism in schools?

[Jim Guinee]

> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:53:55 -0600
> From: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 11:57 AM -0600 2/21/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
> >It seems that "popular" stuff is allowed in the door, but as soon as
> >someone brings up an issue that is non-psych and most people don't
> >like/agree with (e.g., religion), the internet cops scream bloody murder.
> 
> Jim--
> You're setting up a straw man.
> I haven't seen any postings on this list objecting to religion.
> It's the conflation of religion and science that some of us (including
> those with relgious inclinations) find objectionable.
> 
> * 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*

At the risk of rehashing an old issue, I'm not sure I see the problem with 
"conflating" science and religion.  (BTW, what is the precise meaning of this 
word?  I couldn't find it in the dictionary)

As far as the straw man, I'm not yet willing to concede my man is made 
entirely of that material...

For example, I remember posting a news bit on the shroud of Turin (sp?) as 
an example of collecting data and was immediately questioned about using it 
as a means to promote (as opposed to analyze) religion.

In a more recent post I forwarded a website entitled "Al Gore or the 
Unabomber: You decide?"  I got more than one response that essentially 
posed the question "WHat the heck does this have to do with teaching 
psychology?"

I'm probably still being overly sensitive, but nonetheless I contend that more 
popular topics that have little relevance to teaching psychology are given 
much more e-time.

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: psi chi talk

[Jim Guinee]

> Hi.  I was asked to give a short talk at my school's upcoming 
> annual Psi Chi Banquet for new members and their families.  I don't 
> mind the public speaking part so much, but I truly have no idea 
> what I would talk about.  Any ideas?  Thank you ahead of time.
> 
> Elizabeth Mazur, Ph.D.
> The University of Michigan - Flint
> Department of Psychology
> 303 East Kearsley Street
> MSB 411
> Flint, MI  48502-1950
> 810-762-3424

Since your audience may be a little more general (with family members 
present), you could talk about how psychology informs us about human 
behavior.  Hmm..that's vague.  Maybe you could pick a subject of interest to 
most people and show how psychology improves our understanding of it.

I remember a prof who did a great talk on motivation -- he talked about how 
great motivation was -- as a topic.  His premise was simple -- the more you 
understand what motivates people, the more you understand how to analyze, 
predict, and control their behavior.  He used all sorts of examples, from 
music, film, literature, child rearing.  It was quite useful and had something 
for everyone.


********
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)

"The ballot is stronger than the bullet"
 -Abraham Lincoln

marriage and family text

[Jim Guinee]

Happy Valentine's Day (or Happy VD, if you like)

I have a question.  Does anyone on the list teach an 
undergraduate marriage and family class?

I am currently using the text  “Marriage and Family: A Brief 
Introduction”  by David Knox & Caroline Schacht (1999).  Wadsworth 
Publishing Company.  It's ok, but my impression is that there have to be 
better texts out there.

I have until April 1st to order a different book for next year, so any 
suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

************
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)

"The ballot is stronger than the bullet"
 -Abraham Lincoln

FWD: Psychoanalysts Live Longer

[Jim Guinee]

Psychoanalysts Live Longer

New Study Further Links Mind and Body

By Denise Mann WebMD Medical News

Reviewed by Dr. Jacqueline Brooks

Feb. 2, 2001 -- A new study suggests exactly why Sigmund Freud,
referred to as the father of modern psychoanalysis, may have lived to the
ripe old age of 83 in a time when the average life span was only about 50
years.

A soon-to-be published study in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of The
American Psychoanalytic Association found that psychoanalysts live longer,
on average, than men in the general population and men in other medical
specialities.

"We can say that psychoanalysts have a 44% lower death rate than
medical doctors including psychiatrists and neurologists, and 48%
lower than men in the general population," says the study's author,
Edward H. Jeffery, an independent researcher in Northridge, Calif.

Psychoanalysis is based on the observation that individuals are often
unaware of many of the factors that determine their emotions and behavior.
These 'unconscious' factors may result in unhappiness, troubling
personality traits, difficulties in work or in relationships, or
disturbances in mood and self-esteem. Typically, the patient comes in up
to four or five times a week, lies on a couch, and attempts to say
everything that comes to mind. These conditions permit the emergence of
aspects of the mind that people are not usually immediately aware of.

Analysts and those in analysis hope that all this talk may help
lessen stress, which is known to have a negative effect on the immune
system.

Still, the exact reason for the findings are unclear, says Jeffery.
Perhaps there is something life-extending about talking through
problems and emotions but "another major variable that may account
for the lower mortality in this profession is the careful way in
which psychoanalytic institutes select their candidates for training. They
reject applicants who seem to have serious psychological problems," he
says.

Therefore, psychoanalysts may be mentally healthier than the general
public or even psychiatrists, Jeffery says.

His next step is to try and do a study comparing psychiatrists who
undergo psychoanalysis to psychiatrists who have not and see how the
two groups compare in terms of longevity.

In an editorial slated to accompany the new study, Norman Doidge, MD, a
psychoanalyst at the University of Toronto writes that the new study
"makes us wonder whether this treatment has the power to prolong life."

He adds that a recent German study found that people undergoing
psychoanalysis made one-third less medical visits than those that did not,
and other research found that women with advanced breast cancer who
participated in weekly group therapy sessions extended their survival
rates by 18 months.

"Orchestra conductors live longer than other types of professionals
because they jump around a lot and get exercise, but this doesn't
account for psychoanalysts," says New York psychoanalyst Arnold David
Richards, MD, also the editor of the Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association.

"My feeling is that psychoanalysts have all been analyzed and have
the tools to deal with conflict and stress. This is very positive for the
immune system and the other systems of the body that have been implicated
in causing disease," he tells WebMD.

All this talk may spare us from some of the diseases that tend to
kill people early, Richards says.

The new findings "really speak to the mind-body connection and
probably the mediator is through the immune system," says Leon
Hoffman, MD, a New York based child psychoanalyst and the chair of
the American Psychoanalytic Association's committee on public
information.

Studies have shown that people with less stress are less prone to
colds and other illnesses, says Hoffman.

"As we are learning more about the importance of the immune system
and the connection between psychology and biology, this work
highlights the importance of trying to deal with psychological issues and
that they can have a profound effect on physiological health," he says. --

Re: TIPS Digest V #1407

[Jim Guinee]

> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:19:18 -0600
> From: Mike Scoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Freud's case studies
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Although I didn't see the Rat Man or other such goodies, there is some
> Freud on one of my favorite sites:
> 
> http://psychclassics.asu.edu/author.htm

Wow.  What a way cool site.  Thanks, Mike!

I couldn't believe there was an article about Babe Ruth!


************
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)

"The ballot is stronger than the bullet"
 -Abraham Lincoln