Re: Other APA manual silliness

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:42 PM -0400 9/25/01, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:00:18 -0500 Mike Scoles
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> While I'm on a rant about the publication manual, the
>> subjects/participants distinction seems silly.
>
>What is the distinction according to the APA manual?
>
>As I read the relevant sections (pp. 18-19, 65, 70, 393-394)of
>the new manual, the distinction is that humans are participants
>and animals are subjects.  Informed consent does not matter.
>
>Even the manual has problems with the distinction.  Consider the
>following quotation from the manual, "When humans participated
>as the subjects of the study, ..." (p. 18).

I suppose that that's better than saying that "When humans were subjected
to participation in the study, ..." ;-)

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

Re: Other APA manual silliness

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:00 PM -0500 9/25/01, Mike Scoles wrote:
>While I'm on a rant about the publication manual, the
>subjects/participants distinction seems silly. 

When sentences have participants and objects I will use the term when
referring to the subjects of research.

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

Re: Parsimony

[Paul Brandon]

Just one slight amendment:

At 10:22 AM -0400 9/21/01, Tom Allaway wrote:
>  Just a couple of points:
>
> *  Parsimony is certainly a principle rather than a law; it is a rule to
>guide our thinking.  It is  best called a heuristic.* *  Parsimony does
>not say everything is simple.  It says that when we are choosing between
>two or more explanations, both of which fit the observed data,

equally well

>we should prefer the simpler one.  This of course leaves open the
>possibility that additional data may force a reassessment.* *  Nature
>never promised to be simple...  hence the parsimony heuristic may not
>always lead us to truth.  But it's the best guide we have.*
>
>


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

Re: Student ?:dyslexia and ambidextrous

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:30 PM -0400 9/20/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!  I haven't posted here before so I'll beg your indulgence
>>if I'm
>> asking too much
>>
>> One of my students asked a question that I don't have an answer for:
>> Is there a link, a relationship between those who are dyslexic AND are also
>> ambedextrous?  Wondering if there's a brain linkage?
>
>Hi Judy:
>
>Congratulations on your new status as a non-lurker. I'm not aware
>of any association between being ambidextrous and dyslexic, but I
>believe that the incidence of dyslexia is greater in kak-handers
>(ok, left-handers) like myself. The presumed cause would be brain
>dysfunction that is responsible for both conditions. We're also
>supposed to die younger. Sigh!
>
>I can probably dig up a reference if needed.

I'd be amazed if there were NOT a correlation between the diagnosis of
dyslexia and a preference for the sinister hand.

I'd not presume that this relationship were a causal one.
Lefties might simply be attracting more attention from teachers and parents
("there's something wrong with my kid!").

PS
--
Can one be ambisinister?

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

RE: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:47 PM -0400 9/20/01, Stephen Black wrote:

>A less ambiguous answer to the question is in an article titled
>"Rational Fanatics" by Ehud Sprinzak (at
>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_SeptOct_2001/sprinzak.html),
>originally published in _Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2000). He
>provides an informative analysis of suicide bombing, and argues:
>
>"The Black Tigers [Tamil Tigers] constitute the most significant
>proof that suicide terrorism is not merely a religious phenomenon
>and that under certain extreme political and psychological
>circumstances secular volunteers are fully capable of martyrdom.
>The Tamil suicide bombers are not the product of a religious
>cult, but rather a cult of personality".
>
>That opinion clearly supports Wayne Spencer's contention.

One might still speculate on cultural transmission and the role Islamic
traditions (going back to the Assassins in the 12th century) played in the
development of Tamil ideology.

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

RE: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:20 PM -0500 9/19/01, Rick Froman wrote:
>I suppose Dawkins might be disturbed to note the irony that his comments
>place him in the same class of broad brush blamers as the Falwells and
>Robertsons of the world.

I don't recall Dawkins threatening to drop any meteors on New York.
Something else for the FBI to investigate ;-)

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

Re: Richard Dawkins on Suicide Bombings - some food for thought

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:22 AM -0500 9/19/01, Jim Dougan wrote:
>I thought people might find this thought-provoking.  It certainly has that
>old Dawkins flair, does it not?

>>Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too
>>unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate
>>enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

While his description of Skinner's "Pigeon in a Pelican" is reasonably
accurate, the current suiciders don't seem to match the traditional profile.

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

Re: Letter from Afghani

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:44 PM -0700 9/16/01, Payam Heidary wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I am copying a letter below from an "Afghani" that was
>posted on a discussion board I saw. It is a good
>example that illustrates the need to make a
>distinction between the actions and desires of country
>leaders and those who live there (normal citizens of
>the country). In other words the people are not the
>government and vice versa. Therefore, they should not
>be treated the same i.e., ethnic stereotyping and
>racial profiling. It is a good letter to read to your
>students which I will be doing with mine.

>From today's Nw York Times
 (fr
ee registration):

September 17, 2001

THE NEIGHBOR

Pakistani Team Giving Afghans an Ultimatum

By JOHN F. BURNS
Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Monday, Sept. 17 - Pakistan sent a group of
high-ranking military officers to Afghanistan today to demand that the
Taliban government hand over the accused terrorist Osama bin Laden and his
top associates to the United States or face almost certain American
military action, senior Pakistani officials said.

The group is led by Maj. Gen. Faiz Gilani, one of the top officers in
Pakistan's military intelligence wing, the Inter-Services Intelligence
directorate, or ISI, which is thought to have unique intelligence on Mr.
bin Laden's operations in Afghanistan and his whereabouts.

Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had agreed to relay the
ultimatum after days of intensive discussions between American and
Pakistani officials, in Washington and Islamabad, the Pakistani officials
said. But the officials also cautioned that the chances of the Taliban
bowing to the American demand were slim.

In the first test of its pledge to make nations choose sides in a war
against terrorism, the Bush administration has placed relentless pressure
on Pakistan to cooperate in capturing or eliminating Mr. bin Laden, who is
suspected of masterminding Tuesday's catastrophic attacks on New York and
Washington.

In effect, the Pakistani officials said, American officials had told
General Musharraf's government that Washington would use every lever "short
of war" to punish Pakistan unless it cooperated.

The officials said that at the meeting in Kandahar, where the delegation
arrived this morning, the Taliban leaders would be told that they had "only
a few days" to hand over Mr. bin Laden or face an eventual American
military attack that would almost certainly target the Taliban as well as
Mr. bin Laden, and possibly lead to American troops entering Afghanistan.

Alternatively, the Taliban would be told, according to those officials,
that if they agreed to hand over Mr. bin Laden and his associates and close
down all his training camps, the Taliban would be left to continue in power.


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

Re: solving future plane strategies

[Paul Brandon]

The basic learning principles that account for thinking of a name
associated with a place are obvious enough.  You might have considered them
before posting this message with its implications.

>As soon as the news reports about the suspects receiving flight training
>in Florida were broadcast, Michael Sylvester was the very first name
>that entered my consciousness.  That is particularly amazing when you
>consider how much trouble I have with names.  When the Flight Instructor
>who did the simulator training was being interviewed, I was on the edge
>of my recliner, watching for the name Michael Sylvester to appear below
>his picture.
>--==>> ô¿ô <<==--
>Sometimes you just have to try something, and see what happens.

And sometimes you should know enough not to try.

* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

RE: solving future plane strategies

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:40 PM -0400 9/14/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:

> Let get to the roots  of the past and current factors that contribute
>to that type of insanity.

The roots of the problems in the Middle East go back _at least_ 2000 years.
So far, you haven't mentioned anything further back than 50.

* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

Re: solving future plane strategies

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:17 PM -0400 9/14/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Paul Brandon wrote:
>
>> At 11:46 AM -0400 9/14/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>> >Give back the land to the Palestinians and halt Israeli
>> >expansionism.
>>
>> Which lands?
>> What land is there in the former British Mandate that both Israelis and
>> Palestinians do not claim (and with some validity)?
>>
>
>   Read Robert Ardrey "The territorial imperative"

You might read some history and get some facts instead.

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

Re: solving future plane strategies

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:20 PM -0400 9/14/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Louis_Schmier wrote:
>
>> As the great historian, Burkehardt said, "beware the simplifiers!"
>>
>>
>> Make it a good day.
>>
>
>  how about the law of parsimony. Why look for complex solutions
>if a simple solution would do.

"For every problem there is a solution that is neat, simple and wrong".
H.L.Mencken


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

Re: solving future plane strategies

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:46 AM -0400 9/14/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>Give back the land to the Palestinians and halt Israeli
>expansionism.

Which lands?
What land is there in the former British Mandate that both Israelis and
Palestinians do not claim (and with some validity)?

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

RE: seeing satan

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:13 PM -0500 9/12/01, Paul Smith wrote:
>Hey Gary et al., how about this one? It appeared today on a message board on
>which I participate:
>
>>
>>Nostradamus' prediction on  WW3:
>>
>>"In the year of the new century  and nine months,
>>From the sky will come  a great King of Terror...
>>The sky will  burn at forty-five degrees.
>>Fire  approaches the great new city..."
>>"In  the city of york there will be a great  collapse,
>>2 twin brothers torn apart by  chaos
>>while the fortress falls the great  leader will succumb
>>third big war will  begin when the big city is burning"

Remember:  even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

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

Re: plane tragedy

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:31 AM -0700 9/11/01, Payam Heidary wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Please read more carefully what I am saying. I am just
>saying that we must be CAREFUL and wait for more
>details and information from the authorities and
>critically evaluate it before we call anything a
>"terrorist act" and before we blame any persons or
>groups responsible. The media is always quick to blame
>most things on "terrorism" and we must not act the
>same way as the media. I am not saying this is a
>terrorist act or not. All I am saying is that it is
>premature at this point to draw conclusive
>conclusions.

One plane crashing into a building might be an accident.
Two planes crashing into two towers of the same building is a deliberate act.
How would *you* label that act?
"Inconclusively conclusive"?

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

Re: plane tragedy

[Paul Brandon]

At 7:53 AM -0700 9/11/01, Payam Heidary wrote:
>Paul,
>
>You should not be so quick to blame the tragedy on
>"terrorist acts" without sufficient evidence to
>support this claim. This is what the media likes to do
>on a regular basis which only serves to perpetuate
>myths and stereotypes in our society about who the
>terrorists are, who is to blame, etc.
>
>Payam Heidary

If you are referring to some _particular_ terrorists (such as Bin Laden,
who threatened just this sort of attack three weeks ago
 then you may have a point.

If you are referring to terrorism in general, please present a conceivable
alternative explanation.  It seems to fit the definition.

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

Re: all girls' schools

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:45 PM -0400 9/10/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>somewhere I read that girls learn more and have greater academic successes
>in those schools than attending co-ed institutions.
>is this currently valid and reliable?

Only if the young women are randomly assigned to the institutions, and the
institutions are matched in such measures as class size, library resources,
faculty salaries and work load.

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

Re: Not that I think we need "relevance police, but..."

[Paul Brandon]

>   I'm astounded at your ability to get things wrong on multiple
>levels. A little attention to the facts would go a LONG way, you know.

How Eurocentric ;-)

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

Re: simple learning (one more try)

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:56 AM -0400 9/5/01, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>Chuck:
>
>Classical conditioning of paramecia has been a controversial
>topic.  One problem in the case below is that both the CS and
>the UCS are the same type of event thus making it difficult to
>determine whether or not the backing up represents some kind of
>temporal summation of effects of both stimuli.
>
>One needs to run a series of tests to separate true conditioning
>from pseudoconditioning.
>
>Here is a reference to a study that may provide some help on
>these issues...
>
>Hennessey, T. M., Rucker W. B., & McDiarmid, C. G. (1979).
>Classical conditioning in paramecia.  Animal Learning &
>Behavior, 7, 417-423.

Actually, I have some doubts about that study, since it was done in our
department and I was helping with it.
The main observation was done by Todd Hennessey, a grad student of Bill
Rucker's.
Since it was a somewhat subjective judgement call on the movement of a
paramecia in response to a stimulus (vibration -- a microscope slide was
mounted on a speaker cone) I suspect a strong demand effect.
As far as I know, this study was never replicated.
BTW -- Bill Rucker also claimed to have demonstrated operant conditioning
with the same experimental model.
Of course, he was also convinced that learning was molecular, and
(semiseriously) agreed with Aristotle that the brain's main function was
colling the blood.

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

Re: Sharks and Mozart

[Paul Brandon]

At 3:28 PM -0400 9/4/01, Beth Benoit wrote:
>TIPSters,
>With the attack and subsequent death of yet another child in a shark attack,
>the tongue-in-cheek joking on TIPS about attracting/repelling sharks makes
>me uncomfortable.  Think we can tone it down?

Or maybe deal with real problems.
What is the relative risk of dying in a traffic accident on the way to the
beach vs. being bitten by a shark?
A couple of orders of magnitude, I believe.

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

Re: Sharks and Mozart

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:49 AM -0400 8/31/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>I am toying with the idea of conducting experiments in shark infested
>waters in the Daytona Beach area.My plan will be to go into the water
>and start playing recordings of Mozart to see if the calming effect
>of the music will deter the sharks from attacking swimmers.
>We have had a number of shark attacks in the area recently.
>Suggestions solicited.

Since the sharks in question seem to prefer surfers, you might have better
luck with some of the mellower Beach Boys songs.
Maybe if you played Surfing USA the sharks would just get up on the boards
and dance with the surfers.

* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

Re: Pathologizing of Society?

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:11 AM -0500 8/29/01, Mike Lee wrote:
> On a related note
>
> Ritalin Acts Like 'Cocaine  Dripped Through Molasses'
> Source: Journal of the American Medical Association

More to the point, this article does not really address the question of
whether Ritalin, et.al. affect individuals diagnosed as ADHD any
differently than it does individuals not so diagnosed.

The normal effect of stimulant drugs is to increase concentration and
narrow the range of behavior emitted.

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

Re: Astrology school accreditation and something even worse

[Paul Brandon]

Of course, much of Sociology (the degree in question) has abandoned any
pretense to science-as-we-know-it.
Has Sociology become a social disease?

At 12:45 AM -0400 8/29/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>Joe Horton drew our attention to a news report that the
>Astrological Institute in Phoenix recently received US Federal
>accreditation. Joe commented:
>
>> One of the saddest things about this is they claim to teach psychology.
>
>What could be sadder than that? Well, suppose that one of the
>foremost universities in the world, say Harvard or Oxford,
>decided to award someone a doctorate for a thesis defending
>astrology. In fact, that has now happened, only the university is
>none of the above, but the pride of France, the prestigious
>Sorbonne.
>
>At least we should be grateful that the discipline in which
>the degree was awarded wasn't psychology.

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

Re: Carazy rats and mice

[Paul Brandon]

At 4:38 PM -0500 8/28/01, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
>Another interesting (at least to me) article.
>
>Cage life may drive lab animals so insane
>  that experiments are invalid
>
>  James Meek
>  Guardian
>
>  Tuesday August 28, 2001
>
>  It is a scientist's reward: after feeding a laboratory mouse an
>  untried medicine, or turning it into a cocaine addict, or flashing
>  lights at it, the rodent appears to get smarter, or slower, or more
>  discerning. Do it a hundred times, and you have got a research
>  paper - or a billion-pound drug.
>
>  But what if the mouse, in the bleak, confined circumstances of
>  its laboratory cage, has gone quietly insane before the
>  experiment even begins?
>
>  That is the possibility being raised by US scientists who say
>  they have found evidence that the sheer boredom of life as a
>  captive lab animal may be enough to incur brain damage.
>
>  If true
   ^^
Another hypothesis that's been around for years.
What is the natural environment of an animal bred for the lab?
Of people who have lived in "unnatural" environments for millenia?

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

Re: Schools' Backing of Behavior Drugs Comes Under Fire

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:40 PM -0400 8/19/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This morning I was watching a 1995 Merrow Report installment that alledged
>that CHADD, a leading advocacy group for children with ADD, receives 20% of
>its funding from Ciba-Geigy, the pharmaceutical company that makes
>you-know-what drug.
>
>I was wondering if that was an outdated or inaccurate estimate, but I am
>gathering that it was not.

It's probably on the low side ;-)

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

Re: Help: Skinner

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:51 AM -0400 8/17/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>When Skinner wrote the piece "Are theories of Learning necessary?"
>was he focusing more on laws or principles or relationships?
>
>Michael Sylvester,PhD
>Daytona Beach,Florida

He was concerned with the nature of that set of scientific principles
termed "theories".

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

RE: The Law of Effect

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:19 AM + 8/16/01, Richard Pisacreta wrote:

> As I was taught, a Law is a description of a function, a relation between
>two or more phenomena, that holds true 100% of the time. A law must be
>represented mathematically so that various values can be entered and produce
>precise mathematical predictions.  As I asked Paul, why isn't it Premack's Law
>instead of Premack's principle?

I think that you (or your source) are reading too much into the term "law".
Psychology has always had a bad case of Physics Envy; the physics in
question being classical Newtonian mechanics.  Quantum Mechanics is less
precise.

The terms 'law' and 'principle' are often used interchangeably in science.

>I remember Dick Herrnstein talking to me about his early days at Harvard.
>Whatever interesting data he presented to the senior faculty, their reply
>was invariably, "Show us a function".

Sounds like Smitty Stevens.

>Ironically, it motivated him to discover the Matching Law.

Which is, of course, a mathematical restatement of the Law of Effect.
There's a lot of experimental literature concerning the precise
mathematical nature of that law based on data and predictions.

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

Re: The Law of Effect

[Paul Brandon]

At 5:09 PM + 8/14/01, Richard Pisacreta wrote:
>
>Hey Folks:
>
>Most of us cover the Law of Effect in the learning chapter of our intro
>courses. I have a question. Laws usually involve some precise mathematics,
>e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity, the gas laws. The Law of Effect doesn't
>provide some predictive mathematics. So, why is it a law?

Clark Hull tried precise mathematical prediction; his laws lacked generality.
We've since backed off a bit.

Really exact scientific predictions are pretty well restricted to classical
(Newtonian) mechanics.  Modern physics (quantum effects) tend to be
stochastic.
Of course, chemistry and biology are even more heavily statistical (think
Mendel).
Generally, as systems become more complex, our predictions become less precise.
Partly, this is simply a consequence of experimental control -- human
behavior involves many more variables than an idealized perfect billiard
ball on a perprect table (and then there's the three-body problem ;-).

At this point, our predictions are pretty well at the binary
increase/decrease level.
For very simply situations one might make more precise predictions, but
again (see Hullian theory) they'd lack generality.

In other words, the consequence of a young science dealing with a complex
and not easily controlled subject matter.

However (to return to your original question), a change in rate in a
specified direction under a specified set of conditions is still a
prediction, so the Law of Effect does qualify.

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

RE: The secret to academic success: hours--and hours--of study

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:55 AM -0400 7/31/01, Larry Z. Daily wrote:
>It seems to me that time spent studying isn't the only factor that
>influences GPA. I can't believe there's no mention made about the method of
>studying that the students used. A student who goes through the book simply
>highlighting isn't going to remember as well as one who does more
>elaborative kinds of rehearsal.

But the biggest difference is still between studying and not studying ;-)

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

RE: operant or classical??

[Paul Brandon]

At 2:37 PM -0500 7/30/01, Rick Froman wrote:
>I appreciate that behavioristic accounts don't require mechanisms, only
>stimulus-response connections. I teach that negative reinforcement is when
>the removal of a stimulus is followed by an increase in the behavior. But,
>what stimulus is removed in the case of moving the head? If negative
>reinforcement involves the removal of an existing aversive stimulus, how can
>avoidance learning be negative reinforcement if the aversive stimulus never
>occurs? Although I know that the behavioristic approach doesn't require a
>mechanism, it seems that it would require, at least, an observable stimulus.

Negative reinforcement is more generally defined as the strengthening or
maintenance of a behavior by a consequence that involves a reduction in the
frequency of some aversive event.

There are two subcategories:
1)  Escape -- the removal of an aversive event as a consequence of
behavior.
This is your use of 'negative reinforcement'.
2)  Avoidance -- the prevention or postponement of an aversive event as a
consequence of behavior.  In this case (as Sidman demonstrated) the
aversive event need not occur.

A couple of classic articles:

Sidman, M. (1962). Reduction of shock frequency as reinforcement for
avoidance behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5,
247-257.
An avoidance technique was used in which rats had two levers
available, with independent shock schedules associated with each.
Behavioral patterns in initial conditioning and in the maintenance of the
responses with various response-shock intervals led to the suggestion that
reduction of shock density be considered an important variable in avoidance
behavior.


Herrnstein, R. J., & Hineline, P. N. (1966). Negative reinforcement as
shock-frequency reduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 9, 421-430.
Is a conditioned aversive stimulus necessary in avoidance
conditioning? Or is a reduction in the rate of aversive stimulation alone
sufficient to generate and maintain an avoidance response? Rats were
subjected to an avoidance procedure in which shocks occurred randomly in
time, but a response could reduce the overall rate of shock. Fifteen
acquisition curves, obtained from 16 animals, showed both immediate and
delayed, rapid and gradual increases in response rate; there was no
representative acquisition curve. Response rates were directly related to
the amount by which the response reduced shock frequency. In extinction,
when shock rates were not affected by responding, the response total was
inversely related to the amount by which the response had reduced shock
frequency during prior conditioning, with as many as 20,000 extinction
responses when the shock frequency reduction had been relatively small.
Responding on this procedure shows that avoidance conditioning can occur
without benefit of either classical exteroceptive stimuli or covert stimuli
inferred from the temporal constancies of a procedure. It also shows that
reduction in shock rate is alone sufficient to maintain avoidance.



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

Re: CR as a copy/was: operant or classical??

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:58 AM -0400 7/30/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>> At 12:42 PM -0400 7/29/01, K. Kleissler wrote:
>
>> >I need some help in analyzing a situation as to operant vs. classical
>> >conditioning. The scenario is this: 
>
>Paul Brandon replied:
>>
>> For this to be classically conditioned behavior, the conditioned response
>> would have to be similar to (but more stereotyped than) the original
>> response.
>
>I have to query this. There's no requirement that the response
>have any particular form to be considered a CR. But it is an
>interesting question to ask what that form is likely to be.  I
>don't think similarity to the UR is the most promising choice.
>Instead, the CR usually (always?) has the form of a preparatory
>response. The CS says: "Here it comes!". The CR responds: "OK,
>I'm getting ready for it!".

I believe that _some_ varieties of learning theory treat it this way.
However, this makes it very difficult to discriminate between operant and
classical conditioning (I'm also aware that some theoretical approaches
downplay this distinction).

If we accept the assumption that classical (Pavlovian) conditioning begins
with an unconditioned reflex, then the process is one of shifting the
control of the response from the unconditional stimulus to the conditional
one.  This is why classical conditioning is sometimes referred to as S-S
(stimulus-stimulus) conditioning, to distinguish it operant conditioning
which is an R-S (response-stimulus) relationship.

>An old demonstration of this is to place someone's hand, palm
>down on a shock pad, and condition a finger withdrawal response
>to a tone. After training, the subject is asked to turn his hand
>over. When the tone is sounded, the response is still a
>withdrawal, even though the actual finger movement is now a
>flexion rather than a contraction of the finger.

_Must_ be an old demo if it uses shock!
However, it is still an interesting case.
If the finger withdrawal terminates the shock then we have a case of
operant negative reinforcement (escape conditioning) superimposed on the
classical conditioning
This also demonstrates the difficulty of isolating a single conditioning
function in a realworld event.  Usually _both_ operant and classical
conditioning are involved.

>Similarly, I
>believe that the conditioned response to an insulin injection is
>hyperglycemia, the opposite to the effect of the insulin itself,
>but certainly preparatory for it.

My physiology is a bit weak in this area, but again there is the
possibility that more than one internal reflex is occuring and being
conditioned.

>Kohn and Kalat (1992) have an amusing and instructive
>demonstration of this. They show that the CR to a threatened
>balloon-popping is not the flinch/jump evoked by the pop itself,
>but instead a preparatory tensing of the muscles.
>
>Kohn, A, & Kalat, J. (1992). Preparing for an important event:
>  demonstrating the modern view of classical conditioning.
>  Teaching of Psychology, 19, 100--

Again, a combination.
Did they rule out the possibility that the flinch/jump was also occuring,
but swamped by the negatively reinforced muscle tensing.
This would be an example of the therapeutic process of counterconditioning.


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

RE: operant or classical?? II

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:18 PM -0500 7/29/01, Rick Froman wrote:
>It is avoidance learning. There are some behavioristic explanations for it
>but there are problems. If it is operant, what is reinforcing the behavior?
>Not hitting your head? Can a lack of a stimulus be a reinforcer?

>If so then
>why doesn't not hitting your head reinforce all kinds of other behaviors?

Sometimes it _does_!
This is known as superstitious conditioning (other terms:  accidental,
adventitious).
However, since there is usually a stronger relationship between behaviors
that actually cause some outcome to occur less frequently and those
outcomes, the functional behaviors are more likely to be reinforced.

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

RE: operant or classical??

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:18 PM -0500 7/29/01, Rick Froman wrote:
>It is avoidance learning. There are some behavioristic explanations for it

Behavioral explanations account for behavior by looking for the conditions
under which the behavior typically occurs and for regularities ion
behavior<=>environment relationships -- we do not look for mechanisms.

Avoidance behavior is defined as behavior reinforced by a reduction in the
frequency (likelihood) of some event.
If ducking makes in less likely that you will hit your head, then ducking
is (negatively) reinforced.
Murray Sidman demonstrated many years ago that avoidance conditioning is
possible without the presence of a conditioned aversive stimulus.
See a good conditioning/learning text such as Catania's LEARNING (1998) for
more details.

We'll let the cognitivists try to figure out _why_ it works.

>but there are problems. If it is operant, what is reinforcing the behavior?
>Not hitting your head? Can a lack of a stimulus be a reinforcer? If so then
>why doesn't not hitting your head reinforce all kinds of other behaviors?
>
>The two-factor explanation says it is due to a combination of operant and
>classical conditioning. Classical conditioning produces a fear response to
>seeing the beam and performing the avoidance behavior decreases this fear
>response (operant negative reinforcement). So, you don't actually move to
>avoid hitting your head but to get away from the fear stimulus (the beam).
>One problem with this idea is that classical conditioning isn't usually
>maintained in the absence of the US (hitting the beam) and certainly the
>fear of the beam would quickly extinguish once you stopped hitting it with
>your head. So what keeps you making the avoidance response? Cognitive
>psychologists would point to expectations as being important to maintaining
>the behavior.

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

Re: operant or classical??

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:42 PM -0400 7/29/01, K. Kleissler wrote:
>Hi Tipsters,
>I need some help in analyzing a situation as to operant vs. classical
>conditioning. The scenario is this:
>A person is walking through a room with a low beam and hits his head on
>it. The next time the person walks through the room, he ducks as he
>nears the place where the beam is located. Is this a classically
>conditioned response, because it's a reflexive response to avoid pain --
>the cs being a certain place in the room? Or operant, because he has
>voluntary control over this behavior? (He was punished for the behavior
>of walking in a certain place in the room, and now voluntarily executes
>the avoidance behavior?)

For this to be classically conditioned behavior, the conditioned response
would have to be similar to (but more stereotyped than) the original
response.
As this is not likely, (the original response to contact with the beam was
more likely to be a jerk backwards) the response itself is more likely to
be an operant avoidance response.
There probably is a classically conditioned component as well -- the person
probably experiences fear-type responses when near the beam which was the
original source of pain.

* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

RE: The Future of TIPS ? Please Read and pass on

[Paul Brandon]

At 2:03 PM -0400 6/9/01, Rick Adams wrote:
>   Paul wrote:
>
>
>> TIPS seems to be working extremely well as it is currently
>> configured. I'd resist the pressures from the IT people to
>> implement some sort of package whose primary purpose is
>> running a Web-based bulletin board type discussion group,
>> with traditional listserv functions as an afterthought. I've
   ^^
>> had all sorts of access problems with lists that have done
>> this (and heard the complaints from others on these lists).
>
>   I have to disagree with you to a point on that, Paul. I manage
>over 40 lists and have tried both email-only and web-only systems (both
>of which are available in packages that don't have the kinds of problems
>you describe above--they were _designed_ as listservers)

Rick--
That was my point!
It _can_ be done properly, but sometimes isn't.

>and ended up
>selecting a system that offers _both_ interfaces. The ability to post to
>a list on the web, versus only by email, means that a list member can
>post (and read messages) from public terminals and other computers that
>they can't receive email on (unless they use a web based email address,
>of course, which no one here on TIPS does as far as I know). That's a
>pretty nice advantage, particularly when you consider that well designed
>list managers with web interfaces (I use Lyris personally, but several
>exist) are just as efficient (and full featured) as the traditional
>"Listserv" when it comes to the email list functions.
>
>   I _do_ agree that a web only interface is a pain--and stifles
>open discussion. But if Bill is able to implement a web/email interface,
>it would certainly add new resources to TIPS that would benefit
>everyone.
>
>   Rick
>--
>
>Rick Adams
>Department of Social Sciences
>Jackson Community College
>Jackson, MI
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
>you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "


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

Re: The Future of TIPS ? Please Read and pass on

[Paul Brandon]

At 3:33 PM -0400 6/7/01, Bill Southerly wrote:
>3.Most likely, there will be some major changes on how TIPS operates. 
>This will all depend on what software is adopted and what
>features it provides.  My hope, is that the new software will
>allow me to do many more things with TIPS that I couldn't because of the
>limitations of our freeware.  In any case, I will let you know
>more about this once it happens.
>
>4.Given this point of transistion TIPS is facing, please feel free to
>send me suggestions on what you would like to see happen with TIPS
>and its operations including any comments on whether you believe
>that TIPS has run its course and should be retired.  You can either
>send the comments to the TIPS address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if
>you would like to generate a discussion or to me personally
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]).  In any case, any and all comments are
>welcome.

TIPS seems to be working extremely well as it is currently configured.
I'd resist the pressures from the IT people to implement some sort of
package whose primary purpose is running a Web-based bulletin board type
discussion group, with traditional listserv functions as an afterthought.
I've had all sorts of access problems with lists that have done this (and
heard the complaints from others on these lists).

Beware of solutions looking for problems!


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

Re: Diener's letter re: APA controversy

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:21 AM -0400 6/1/01, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>Michael:
>
>I don't think that we are in disagreement.  By "professional" I
>meant a career in the arena that represents the profession in
>governmental circles, etc.  Many of us are doing what we want to
>do in other areas of psychology, with success, and consider
>ourselves successful.  But we are unlikely to be called upon to
>suggest funding priorities or write a friend of the court brief.
>
>I don't disagree with Paul Brandon's characterization of the
>purpose of the Diener letter.  My point was that this was a
>pretty weak threat and that one reason it was so weak was that
>Diener could not resign and go to a professional organization of
>similiar influence.

>From one person, it's a weak threat.
If large numbers followed him, it might be real (and make APS a real
alternative).

>My fear is that the current APA is the real psychology of the
>new millenium...

And agreed :-(

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

Re: Diener's letter re: APA controversy

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:07 AM -0500 5/31/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>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.

It's called trying to apply some political pressure to counter that which
produced McCarty's action.

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

Re: FWD: "Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect"

[Paul Brandon]

At 6:10 PM -0400 5/23/01, David wrote:
>Um...  er...   discuss.
>
>The investigators, Dr. Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche
>analyzed 114 published studies involving about 7,500 patients with 40
>different conditions. They found no support for the common notion that
>about a third of patients will improve if they are given a dummy pill
>and told it is real. Their paper appears today in the New England
>Journal of Medicine.

I'll have to read the original article to discuss its methodology properly.
As an initial reaction:

Assuming that:
1)  Placebo effects are real (note the plural).
2)  They are behavioral (psychological) in nature (this does not contradict
#1).

One would expect that these effects are very situation specific.
The conditions under which the placebo is given are what matters, since it
is these conditions which determine the effect, not the inert pill or dummy
treatment.
I'd suspect that they've lumped together a lot of treatments that, while
they may be _medically_ equivalent, are psychologically very different.
The kind of problem that physicians tend to get into when they get out of
their field ;-).

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

Re: FWD: "Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect"

[Paul Brandon]

>Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth

The next debunking, of course, will be meta-analysis (literally: "beyond
analysis").

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

Re: deeply disturbing developments at the American Psychologist

[Paul Brandon]

At 6:24 PM -0500 5/17/01, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
>>>   Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:06:30 -0400
>>>   From: Scott Lilienfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> I am writing this message to inform you of what I believe to be
>>>some deeply disturbing developments at the American Psychologist, as well
>>>as to solicit your assistance.

In a word: gutless.
It is clear that the APA (the American selfPreservation Association) is
becoming a selfperpetuating bureaucracy, more concerned with the value of
its real estate investments than with science.
I remain a member (in the vain hope of exercising some control) but it gets
harder!


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

Re: Can Gays Go Straight?

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:24 PM -0400 5/16/01, Dave Myers wrote:
>Curious about Robert Spitzer's widely reported study of  '200 Subjects Who
>Claim to Have Changed Their Sexual Orientation from Homosexual to
>Heterosexual,' I obtained a copy last weekend, drafted a synopsis and some
>reflections for my file, and then had a cordial exchange of  e-mails with
>him.

I think that the key word in here is *claim*.
As well as being based on _claims_ of changes in sexual orientation made
over the phone, it sounds like other individuals with their own agenda are
making much stronger claims than Spitzer himself.

>From your very nice analysis:

>   What the
>  sexual reorientation efforts did for these folks, Spitzer
>  concludes, is not trigger a 180 degree U-turn but rather move them
>  from one point to another "along a multidimensional continuum"-and
>  with accompanying increases in personal well-being for these
>  conflicted individuals.


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

Re: Can Gays Go Straight?

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:35 PM -0400 5/10/01, Robin Pearce wrote:
>On Thu, 10 May 2001, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>
>> Study: Can Gays Go Straight?
>>
>
>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.

Sure  Rock Hudson did it professionally for years!
Didn't make him straight, 'tho.

More to the point -- it's hard to take the research methodology seriously.
Half hour phone interviews?  What sort of data is that?

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

Re: Walking the line between cynicism and credulity

[Paul Brandon]

Where is John Allen Paulos when we need him?

At 12:45 PM -0500 5/4/01, jim clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>Rick cited the Best article, which is good.  It had also been
>mentioned recently on the sci.stats.edu newsgroup, in particular
>an allusion to Best's discussion of a statement in a 1995 journal
>article to the effect that since 1950 the number of children
>gunned down in the US had doubled every year.  Without some
>appreciation of numbers, people cannot appreciate how completely
>impossible this is.  Here are the values that would be involved
>if only 1 child had been gunned down in 1950, culiminating in 13
>trillion being gunned down in 1995.  Best notes that this far
>exceeds the total population of the world throughout its entire
>history.  He tracked down the apparent source for the figure, and
>it appears to be a statement that the number of child deaths from
>gunshots doubled since 1950.
>
>Year   # Children Gunned Down
>1950   1
>1951   2
>1952   4
>1953   8
>1954  16
>1955  32
>1956  64
>1957 128
>1958 256
>1959 512
>1960   1,024
>1961   2,048
>1962   4,096
>1963   8,192
>1964  16,384
>1965  32,768
>1966  65,536
>1967 131,072
>1968 262,144
>1969 524,288
>1970   1,048,576
>1971   2,097,152
>1972   4,194,304
>1973   8,388,608
>1974  16,777,216
>1975  33,554,432
>1976  67,108,864
>1977 134,217,728
>1978 268,435,456
>1979 536,870,912
>1980   1,073,741,824
>1981   2,147,483,648
>1982   4,294,967,296
>1983   8,589,934,592
>1984  17,179,869,184
>1985  34,359,738,368
>1986  68,719,476,736
>1987 137,438,953,472
>1988 274,877,906,944
>1989 549,755,813,888
>1990   1,099,511,627,776
>1991   2,199,023,255,552
>1992   4,398,046,511,104
>1993   8,796,093,022,208
>1994  17,592,186,044,416
>1995  35,184,372,088,832
>
>Best wishes
>Jim
>
>
>James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
>Department of Psychology   (204) 774-4134 Fax
>University of Winnipeg 4L05D
>Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
>



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

Re: Heads of a tipster?

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:46 AM -0500 5/2/01, Chuck Huff wrote:
>Colleagues,
>Just to let you know that I am already a member of the Luxuriant
>Flowing Hair Club for Scientists.

Well, thirty years ago .

 PKB_photo.gif

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

Re: the face of a tipster

[Paul Brandon]

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.

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

Re: chalkboard anyone?

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:11 PM -0400 5/1/01, Louis_Schmier wrote:
>I do, even if my handwriting resembles Sumerian cunieform.

Try using chalk instead of a hammer and chisel ;-)

>Too often I
>find that powerpoint presentations are just glorified, high-tech, boring
>overheads.

I agree!
We've been trying to get away from talking head dog-and-pony shows for years!

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

Re: Is addiction really a brain disease (LONG)

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:18 AM -0600 5/1/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>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

Well, that's his opinion.
There's certainly some interesting data showing correlations between
addiction and brain conditions.
Which are causes and which are effects is another question, not (IMHO)
settled yet.

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

Re: Mirror Tests Reflect Dolphins' Intelligence

[Paul Brandon]

At 7:49 PM -0400 4/30/01, Pollak, Edward wrote:
>I thought some of you folks might be interested in this
>Ed
>>
>> Mirror Tests Reflect Dolphins' Intelligence
>> By Will Dunham
>>
>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a reflection of their intelligence, bottlenose
>> dolphins named Presley and Tab at the New York Aquarium have displayed the
>> ability to recognize themselves in a mirror -- a quality previously seen
>> only in people and the great apes, researchers said on Monday.

Or, for a movie of pigeons doing the same thing, see:

Cognition, creativity, and behavior,
the Columban simulations [videorecording]
Research Press Company
[produced by] Norman Baxley and Associates ; producer and director, Norman
Baxley ; writers, Norman Baxley and Carolyn Dunaway.
Champaign, Ill. : The Company, 1982.1 videocassette (30 min.) : sd., col. ;
1/2 in. + 1 discussion guide.
Documents experiments carried out by B.F. Skinner and Robert Epstein in
which pigeons exhibit behaviors heretofore attributed by psychologists only
to man and the higher apes, such as symbolic communication, self-awareness,
and insight.

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

Re: Harlow's Folly (Now Spence Vignette)

[Paul Brandon]

At 5:28 PM -0400 4/28/01, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>Hank:
>
>Before you go...
>
>Would you write a vignette that captures Kenneth Spence as a
>person, or researcher, or psychologist, or whatever you choose.
>I am always looking for stories that characterize the people I
>mention in class.
>
>I sent this to the list since I assume there are other faculty
>who do the same.

I can contribute a second hand one.
My graduate advisor (for a couple of years) was Edward Walker; a student of
Spence's.
He like to tell me about his last meeting with Spence, which ended in an
argument with Spence yelling down the hallway at him.
I eventually got the hint and found another advisor ;-)

A second hand Skinner vignette:
This is from Charlie (C.B. -- he had trouble settling on first names)
Ferster -- one of Skinner's first grad students at Harvard.
Skinner dislike his given first name (Burrhus -- wonder why ;-) and
preferred to be called Fred.  He had, however, some problems getting his
grad students to loosen up.
Ferster wrote that one day he walked into Skinner's living room to find
Skinner setting there with a large sign hung around his neck saying "FRED"!

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

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:39 AM -0400 4/25/01, Louis_Schmier wrote:
>It is real to the believers.  They act and respond as if it is real.
>Doesn't that make it "real," or, at least, their reality?

Mostly, this makes the word "real" meaningless.
You're changing its definition in midstream.

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

Re: a true experimentalist

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:34 PM -0400 4/25/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Steven Specht wrote:
>
>> A true experimentalist would have LOTS of problems with this design!
>> What about experimenter bias? What about effects of observation on the
>> dependent variable? What about confounding extraneous variables
>> (especially at this point in the semester)? etc.
>> You would at least have suggested an ABA design with a blind observer
>> (and that doesn't even begin to address other potential problems).
>> True experimentalist ? Hmmm, I hope students in my introduction to
>> experimental psychology course do better on their final.
>>
>   However since it was a peronal behavior modification program,
>   a one subject single design could be appropriate.
>   Btw,there are designs that utilize subjects as their own control.

Such as the ABA design mentioned above ;-)

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

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:03 AM -0500 4/25/01, Mike Scoles wrote:
>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.
>
>Perhaps others on the list can answer this.  Do ALL major religions include a
>devil-like entity?  If the answer is "no", then we have an example of the
>worst type
>of Eurocentric thinking!  If the answer is "yes", I am still not sure of the
>importance of the observation.  Does a universal belief in something make
>it real?

Buddhism, of course, breaks the mould in many ways, having no deity, either
good or bad.

I think that the basic concept of the bipolar deity started with
Zoroasterianism (Iran/Persia).
In at least some forms of modern Judaism (I'm not sure how far back the
concept goes -- but see "Job") Satan is less an incarnation of evil than a
'prosecuting attorney'.
Any experts on Confucianism/Taoism/Shinto out there?
Of course, more pantheistic religions, from the ancient Greek to the modern
Hindu, have an array of deities both good and bad (or both or neither).

Offhand, I'd say that that old devil myth is neither universal nor Eurocentric.

Michael Sylvester might enlighten us on Santerria/Vodun (although I believe
that Christianity -- somewhat modified -- is the main religion in the
Carribean).

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

RE: bystander effect and cross-cultural research

[Paul Brandon]

At 2:23 PM -0400 4/24/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
> Observations (not one observation) is another form of research
>methodology.Not all topics are researchable.One ought to distinguish
>opinion from observations.

Well (if not grammatically) said.
Unfortunately, all forms of research methodology are not created equal (not
a religious statement despite the allusion to creation).

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

RE: bystander effect and cross-cultural research

[Paul Brandon]

At 2:36 PM -0400 4/24/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:

> What is more real a confirmation bias or a scientific hypothesis?

Apples are definitely more real than oranges!

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

Re: The Lucifer Principle

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:42 PM -0400 4/24/01, Beth Benoit wrote:
> I've just begun to read a very interesting document, available only
>online >from Barnes & Noble (as far as I know), and think if others find
>it interesting, it would be a good new thread.
>
> The document is called The Lucifer Principle, by Harold Bloom,

Note:
The author is _Howard_ Bloom... there's a difference.
The ebook is a reprint of a hardcover version published in 1994.

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

RE: bystander effect and cross-cultural research

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:47 PM -0400 4/23/01, Ann Calhoun-Sauls wrote:
>Actually, this question was prompted by a student who had the same "only in
>selfish, self-centered America" reaction to my discussion of the topic.

This assumes, of course, that there is one monolythic 'Amurican' culture.
Out here in (semi)rural Minnesohta, I see much more willingness to help
than on the coasts.
I'd suspect that China is at least as culturally heterogenous.

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

Re: Reversing the effects of father time

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:34 PM -0400 4/23/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>>
>> How close is science to understanding the most likely cause of the aging
>> process?
>>
>> Huh.  Just I want -- again, to be 16...young, energetic, and pimple-faced.
>
>Jim, you're in luck. I just happen to know the secret of long
>life. It's simple. Eat less.

Actually, life just _seems_ longer!

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

Re: is learning unnatural?

[Paul Brandon]

At 1:49 PM -0400 4/23/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:

"whatever goes around,comes around".

But once is enough!

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

Re: is learning unnatural?

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:43 PM -0400 4/23/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Paul Brandon wrote:
>
>> At 11:07 AM -0400 4/23/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>> >of all the topics in Psychology,the one that appears to be contrived
>> >and artificial is the subject of learning.
>>
>> You've made this statement (troll) before.
>> The answer hasn't changed.
>
>But there are new tipsters!

In other words, it _is_ a troll, not an honest question.

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

Re: is learning unnatural?

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:07 AM -0400 4/23/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>of all the topics in Psychology,the one that appears to be contrived
>and artificial is the subject of learning.

You've made this statement (troll) before.
The answer hasn't changed.

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

Re: info:C in grad school

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:02 AM -0400 4/23/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
> is it still true that a grad student is  allowed to have
>only one C in couses taken?
>(for example : stats)

That's our policy (but we usually shoot them first ;-).

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

Re: decline of "good morning"

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:46 AM -0400 4/18/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>I usually say" good morning" to my class when I enter the room.
>But I have observed no return of the same from the students.
>How should this be interpreted?
>Since I do not get a response,should I discontinue the practice?

How early is it?
Are they awake?
Alive?

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

RE: Grateful for the US of A?

[Paul Brandon]

>Historian to the rescue!
>
>
>This is from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. U.S.
>(1919), setting limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
>First Amendment to the Constitution.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
>Junior, wrote:  "The most stringent protection of free speech would
>not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
>panic."

Thanks!
I checked a couple of sites that had Holmes quotes, but couldn't find that one.
(Just a lot addressed to some guy named Watson ;-)

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

RE: Grateful for the US of A?

[Paul Brandon]

At 3:05 PM -0400 4/14/01, Rick Adams wrote:
>   Paul wrote:
>
>> But something about the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre?
>
>   That particular quote (usually attributed to a US Supreme Court Chief
>Justice) happens to be an urban myth--it was never uttered in the court.

Oliver Wendell Homes, I believe.
I'm not sure if he said it in the context of a legal opinion, 'tho.
I'll see if I can find it.
All I've got so far is:

"Rosencrantz: Fire!
Guildenstern: Where?
Rosencrantz: It's all right - I'm demonstrating the misuse of free speech.
Stoppard_Tom/Rosencrantz_&_Guildenstern_Are_Dead"

>   You _do_ have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater--from
>a free
>speech perspective. What you do NOT have the right to do, however, is:
>
>   1. Disturb the peace--by shouting the word you infringe on the
>rights of
>the other patrons to peacefully enjoy their chosen entertainment.
>
>   2. Endanger the lives and safety of the other patrons. By shouting
>"fire"
>you encourage high risk behavior (a rush for the doors) which can result
>in injury or death. If such an injury (or death) results, you can be held
>liable for it. Again, this is NOT a free speech issue, it is a public
>safety one.

Could be...

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

Re: Grateful for the US of A?

[Paul Brandon]

At 4:51 PM -0400 4/13/01, Louis_Schmier wrote:
>Well, the real test of a comittment to a right such as free speech is to
>defend its exercise when you disagree with the content of the expression.
>Support of a right applauds the right, not necessarily the manner in which
>it is used or its ends.

But something about the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre?

>And understand that free speech is not synonomous
>with agreed speech or comfortable speech.  Were it to be otherwise, there
>would be no dissent.  There would have been no abolionist movement, no
>suffragette movement, no civil rights movement, no labor movement, etc,
>etc, etc
>
>
>
>Make it a good day.
>
>   --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" -\


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

Re: Faith-based TIPS?

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:19 AM -0500 4/12/01, Deborah Hume wrote:
>Maybe it is too early in the morning and I'm feeling a bit prickly, but this
>certainly rubbed me the wrong way. Leaving aside for the  moment the
>possibility that there are some valid critiques of traditional western
>scientific methodology, how is it that irrationality, invalid inference, and
>tolerance for logical contradiction get automatically equated with women and
>racial minorities?  Wasn't Deridas a white male?
>I realize that many of the criticisms of western scientific methods and
>thought have been raised by those who have been excluded from the power
>structure of science - and I realize that postmodern critics are heavy
>handed with their vocabulary and convoluted sentence structure- I am not
>arguing those points. However, the tone here, even though it was
>tongue-in-cheek, is one that is so dismissive of "women and racial
>minorities" as not able to think their way out of a paper bag, that I find
>it quite aggravating!
>Deb Hume

Are you assuming that women and minorities use postmodern reasoning
exclusively?
I don't think that the original posts said or implied that.
Can you cite a specific statement that is directed at a group of people,
rather than at a method of analysis?

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

RE: morality and religion

[Paul Brandon]

At 4:49 PM -0500 4/11/01, Timmerman, Thomas wrote:
>Paul Brandon wrote:
>> And finally, the volume of social services delivered
>> publically is an order of magnitude greater than that delivered privately.
>
>I wonder how these would compare if the publicly-delivered
>services were funded by passing a collection plate or
>staffed through volunteer hours.

Or if we had bake sales for bombers?

>The following has nowhere near the scientific elegance of
>a rat's bar press, but here's more data from the Univ. of
>Pennsylvania in one of the first studies of its kind.
>
>For those without the time to read the whole thing, the big
>finish at the end is an estimate

Based on what?

>that religious congregations
>in Philadelphia provide services worth $227,772,960 per year.
>
>Just imagine what they could do if the government wasn't
>forcing individuals to work Jan-May to pay taxes.

'Could' and 'would' are not the same.

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

RE: Faith-based TIPS?

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:18 AM -0500 4/12/01, Paul Smith wrote:
>some  "deconstructive intelligence", "invalid inference
>intelligence", and "tolerance for logical contradiction intelligence" have
>apparently rubbed off on me.

Yellow laundry soap will take it off.

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

Re: morality and religion

[Paul Brandon]

At 9:27 AM -0400 4/11/01, Dave Myers wrote:

>This is, indeed, a very stimulating critique of religion.  Enough so that,
>some
>time after reading it, I penned a response, which, coincidentally, was just
>distributed electronically today by the University of Chicago's Public
>Religion
>project (see below).  The gist is that, yes, religion has been associated with
>some pretty awful things in human history ("piety is the mask," William James
>once said).  But across individuals, religiosity (as indexed by such things as
>participation in faith communities or self-rated importance of religion)
>correlates with intentional altruism.  While the correlations between faith
>and
>altruism/happiness/health seem pretty well established, the causal
>explanations
>of the correlations are open for debate and research.  And it remains to be
>seen whether the proposed faith-based interventions will pay social dividends.

The problem with much of this data is that it's based on self-report.
It's not unlikely that people who report behaving religiously also report
being more altruistic.  However, these reports are seldom validated.

There was an interesting study published recently which sought to assess
'religiosity' with some control for self-report variables by asking people
simply to list everything that they had done in the past week.
'Going to church' showed up a lot less frequently than it did when people
were specifically asked how frequently they attended.

I'd tend to agree with Voltaire that religious people are safer to be
around (unless they're on a crusade), but the evidence is weak.

Things like comparing Provo to Seattle gloss over a lot of demographic
differences.
And finally, the volume of social services delivered publically is an order
of magnitude greater than that delivered privately.
If one is to ask "who helps others the most", the answer may be that "we
all do".

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

Re: darwinian slip and a thought - psych-free

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:21 AM -0400 4/11/01, Michael Sylvester wrote:
> re Judaic theology
> what does that have to do with the teaching of psychology?
>
>Michael Sylvester,PhD
>Daytona Beach,Florida

Read the statement at the end of my post on the topic.

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

Re: something to think about

[Paul Brandon]

At 3:31 PM -0600 4/9/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>> 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.

First, does the statement "I'm all for Jesus" imply an equation of God with
Jesus?
If so, it is offensive.

Second, if one believes in an omniscient and omnipotent God then he/she/it
_cannot_ be removed from any place.

Third, as the Supremes have made excruciatingly clear, there is no legal
prohibition against prayer per se in public schools.  The only prohibition
is against prayers sponsored and promulgated by the school.
If children are taught (at home or in church) to pray, there is nothing to
prohibit them from doing so privately.

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

Re: Students as customers

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:40 AM -0400 4/10/01, Roig Miguel wrote:
>Some of you may find the following article of interest:
>C u s t o m e r s & M a r k e t s : The Cuss Words of Academe
>
>By Craig Swenson who is Regional Vice President at the University of Phoenix
>It may be found at:
>http://www.aahe.org/change/so981.htm
>Some quotes from the article
>"The goal of postsecondary educators should be that every one of our
>graduates knows and is able to do what his or her degree implies. Our
>business, then, is learning-not offering courses or covering the material."
>
>"The assumptions upon which a learning culture depends are quite different
>from those for a culture emphasizing teaching. In the former, the student is
>at the center; in the latter, the subject matter. When student learning is
>the focus, the yardstick is not "Did I cover the material?" but "Did they
>learn what they should have?" A student (or employer) expects this. It is
>always the student's responsibility to learn, but the good sense of that
>must be met by teachers who will do everything possible to facilitate it."

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me!
It's the _interaction_ between students and teachers that counts!

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

Re: Why I buy lottery tickets

[Paul Brandon]

At 4:58 PM -0700 4/9/01, Weisskirch, Rob wrote:
>TIPSurvivors,
>
>Yes, lower income, uneducated folk buy lottery tickets.  But, I buy them
>when I know I have a day full of meetings.  I make an extra effort to buy
>one when I know I have those events I have to make an appearance at.  This
>way, as the meeting drones on, I can fantasize about what I would do with my
>lottery winnings.  Very effective coping technique!

Why not just _fantasize_ that you bought the lottery ticket? ;-)

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

Re: Darwinian slip and a thought

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:22 PM -0400 4/6/01, Pollak, Edward wrote:
>Linda wrote
>> While a number of the Mizvot seem to have no logic behind them, the
>> prohibition against the above is speculated as follows - It would be too
>> cruel for the mother to endure having their young killed in front of
>> them (something else you are not to do) and then to have them play a
>> role in their young's death. There are a number of Mitzvot concerning
>> animals which are based in kindness
>>
>Other scholars (including the Rambam (Maimonides) have argued that many of
>the mitzvot were included to keep the People from adopting customs of the
>Canaanites.  Thus, if boiling meat in milk was a pagan custom or part of a
>pagan ritual it would be forbidden.  Similarly, the prohibition against
>rounding the corners of the beard was suggested as a practice of pagan
>priests.  Anthropologists such  as Marvin Harris have given interesting
>explanations of some of the dietary prohibitions.  But many of the mitzvot
>seem to have been designed to keep the People sanctified (sensu "set apart")
>Ed

Or as my favorite Rabbi pointed out:
"Companion" literally means "with bread" -- those with whom you eat.
Dietary laws would have the effect of causing members of the group to eat
together, those promoting group cohesion.

* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Paul Brandon]

I'd rather hoped that someone more knowledgeable in Judaic theology would
deal with this, but here goes:

>  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.

I'm not aware of any such category as "ceremonial laws" in Judaism.
If there is such a thing, it's very minor, and not what's being discussed here.
What Jim Guinee seems to be referring to are Mitzvot -- commandments.
These are statements about how Jews are to conduct themselves in life;
there is nothing 'ceremonial' about them.
There are (I believe) 614 of them in the Torah (the first five books of the
"Old Testament), including the famous first ten (or 13, depending upon how
you slice the salami ;-).  Do Christians not find a justification for
upholding at least those first ten?
The only broad distinction of which I am aware is between obligations to
G_d and obligations to other people.
That is why on the High Holy Days (Rosh HaShona and Yom Kippur) one takes
stock of one's behavior in the past year, and asks forgiveness from those
who one has wronged.
G_d cannot forgive you for an offense (breaking a mitzvot) against another
person -- only that person can do so.

Again, there's nothing 'ceremonial' about not eating milk with meat.
The original statement in the Torah from which it is derived is "Thou shalt
not cook the kid in its mother's milk".  Sounds like a moral statement to
me!
I don't recall the derivation of the other laws of Kashrut ('keeping
kosher'), or of mixing natural fibers in garments (my Bar Mitzvah -- Son of
the Commandments -- was quite a few years ago) but I believe that they are
similar.


Obligatory link to psychology:
These are statements about interpersonal behaviors and their consequences!

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

Re: Quantum mechanics and Einstein

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:37 PM -0500 4/5/01, David G Thomas wrote:
>Paul
>
>I disagree that Einstein hated quantum mechanics.
>In fact, he was one of the original contributors to quantum theory.

Both statements are true (see Sephen Black's quote on the Good Lord
throwing dice).

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

Re: Random thought on John Edwards

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:24 AM -0500 4/5/01, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:36:43 -0500 Paul Brandon
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think that Psychology was ever dominated by _radical_ behaviorism.
>> NeoHullian behaviorism maybe, but that's a very different beast.
>>
>
>Paul:
>
>Will this point ever be understood by even a large minority of
>teaching psychologists?  :-(

One can only hope!
Maybe if we think hard enough  ;-)


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

Re: Quantum mechanics and Einstein

[Paul Brandon]

At 11:12 AM -0400 4/5/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Paul Brandon wrote:
>>
>> Again, this is supposition, not established physical fact.
>>
>> WWES
>>
>> (What would Einstein say)?
>>
>
>He would say: "At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not
>play dice".
>
>-letter to Max Born, 1926
>
>As I recall, Einstein hated quantum theory. It's a good line
>though, so I'd just change it to WWFS.

So he did!
It might be of interest that one of Einstein's earlier 'failures' (the
'cosmological constant') which he rejected as being too much of a fudge
factor, has been resurrected as an explanation for some of the most current
estimates of tyhe mass and rate of expansion of the Universe.
He's looking better every day!

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

Re: Random thought on John Edwards

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:24 AM -0400 4/4/01, Miguel Roig wrote:
>At 01:19 PM 4/3/01 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
>>For the scientist, nothing is impossible; just very improbable.

Jim Clark has addressed these issues nicely.

>
>>BTW:  Skinner coined the term "radical behaviorism" as an extension of
>>radical as in root -- he was attempting to return behaviorism to Watson's
>>root assumptions.
>
>Yes, and one of those assumptions was the rejection of mental events.

This is a complex question.
While Watson (and Skinner) denied the existence of mental events in the
sense of mechanisms that _caused_ behavior, both wrote on the topic of
_thinking_:

"The misconception lies in the fact that a good many psychologists have
misunderstood the behaviorist's position. They insist that he is only
observing the individual movements of the muscles and glands.; that he is
interested in the muscles and glands in exactly the same way the
physiologist is interested in them. This is not the whole statement. *The
behaviorist is interested in integrations and total activities of the
individual.*" (His emphasis.)
Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist (1919), pp.39,40.

"Thinking would comprise then the subvocal use of any language or related
material whatever, such as the implicit repetition of poetry, day dreaming,
rephrasing word processes in logical terms, running over the day's events
verbally, as well as implicit planning for the morrow and the verbal
working out of difficult life situations."

IS THINKING MERELY THE ACTION OF LANGUAGE MECHANISMS[1]?
John B. Watson (1920)
British Journal of Psychology, 11, 87-104.

Skinner was less concerned with the subvocal aspects of thinking; he simply
defined it as a behavior observable only by the person dooing it.

>I certainly would be one of the first to acknowledge the great
>contributions to
>our discipline of the behavioral school.  After all, and in spite of our
>respective disciplines, I think that most of us would classify ourselves as
>methodological behaviorists or, at the very least having been greatly
>influenced by the behaviorist tradition.  However, I think most of us would
>agree that there have been some drawbacks to behaviorism's strong influence on
>our discipline.  For example, could cognitive psychology really have developed
>in a field still dominated by radical behaviorism?  I think not.

I don't think that Psychology was ever dominated by _radical_ behaviorism.
NeoHullian behaviorism maybe, but that's a very different beast.

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

Re: Random thought on John Edwards

[Paul Brandon]

A couple of distinctions that ought to be made:

1)  Predeterminism =/= determinism.
"Determined" is a rather broad category, as the mathematics of nonlinear
dynamics demonstrate.

2)  There is some speculation in physics that time has not been constant.
This is not the same as saying that its direction can be reversed.

At 5:49 AM -0400 4/5/01, Renner, Michael wrote:
>Subject: Re: Random thought on John Edwards
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>"Harry Avis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Re: Clark and Jim
>Concerning the "law" that psi would have to break were it real: if
>precognition exists, it logically implies that the universe is completely
>deterministic. For someone to know that something is going to happen before
>it does happen, that event must be predetermined. 
>
>
>Hi, TIPsters -
>
>I've been following the "John Edwards" thread with interest, marvelling at
>how a list like this one can sometimes rise to its potential. I'd like to
>congratulate everyone on the civil tone and thank the contributors for
>having a real debate instead of a flame war. The rest of learn more and tend
>to keep reading when this happens.
>
>The only comment I'll contribute is in reference to Harry Avis's post
>(above). The notion that precognition relies on predetermination rests on
>the assumption that time is linear. It's a reasonable assumption, and one so
>fundamental in many of us that we never examine it, but an assumption
>nonetheless. The problem is that it's an assumption that most theoretical
>physicists abandoned a long time ago. There are many blueprints for a
>universe, consistent with the data we have about the one we inhabit, that
>don't require this assumption.


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

RE: Random thought on John Edwards

[Paul Brandon]

At 4:47 PM -0400 4/4/01, Rick Adams wrote:

   QM does _question_ the whole concept of causation, 'tho I don't think
that the physicists have agreed on any given interpretation.
   However (and it's a big one), these effects have only been clearly
demonstrated at the submolecular level.  There are a couple of recent
demonstrations that claim to demonstrate entanglement at a higher level,
but there hasn't been sufficient replication for this to be generally
accepted.

>   Quantum Mechanics, the cutting edge of modern physics, provides some
>pretty convincing evidence that cause and effect are NOT linear in nature
>(i.e., that the effect can RESULT in the cause having already occurred in
>a temporally linear sense), that it is totally possible for "knowledge" of
>an event to be shared both at enormous distance instantly and, in fact,
>before it occurs, and that no energy expenditure is necessary for this
>knowledge to be "transmitted." The same science demonstrates that this
>isn't a "deterministic" process, but rather one of perception. It
>_appears_ to be deterministic when, in reality (whatever that is) it is
>totally based on probabilities alone (as is the existence of any form of
>matter).
>
>   One interesting point from quantum mechanics that is very well
>documented
>is the observer's role in changing the result of an experiment. At the
>quantum level, it is impossible to conduct a particle experiment _without_
>influencing the outcome--including experiments which consist solely of
>observation alone. Projected to it's logical conclusions, that could
>easily mean that the reason psi experiments DON'T show greater success is
>because we are observing them in the first place.
>
>   Quantum mechanics argues that anything that can happen will happen, and
>that every time a decision is made two universes come into existence--one
>in which the decision was "yes" and one in which it was "no." Given that
>argument (which has a LOT of solid mathematics behind it to support the
>claim--as well as being totally consistent with centuries of Eastern
>thought, btw), and the famous "Schrodinger's Cat" scenario it inspired, it
>would be pretty hard to demonstrate that psi doesn't exist as the mere act
>of demonstrating that it does not would, itself, create a universe in
>which the demonstration failed and it was demonstrated TO exist.

Again, this is supposition, not established physical fact.

WWES

(What would Einstein say)?

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

Re: Random thought on John Edwards

[Paul Brandon]

At 2:10 PM -0400 4/4/01, Miguel Roig wrote:
>At 12:18 PM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Clark, in response to my reply, wrote:
>
>>You might want to look at some of Stenger's work (his book
>>Physics and Psychics, Quantum Quackery in Skeptical Inquirer).

or on the same topic...
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/laws.html

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

Re: Random thought on John Edwards

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:56 PM -0400 4/3/01, Roig Miguel wrote:
>"for the _radical_ skeptic,  there is no psi involved; that is, psi does not
>exist".
>
>When it comes to psi and skepticism, I like to distinguish between 'regular
>skepticism' (for lack of a better term) and 'radical skepticism'.  A
>distinction analogous to behaviorism and radical behaviorism.  According to
>this distinction, psi is an impossibility for the radical skeptic and any
>existing evidence of psi is due to faulty experimentation, outright fraud,
>etc., etc. and should be abandoned because it does not fit with what we know
>about the world, etc.  To a regular skeptic, psi may or may not have already
>been demonstrated empirically, depending on one's interpretation of the
>evidence, but given psi's rich cultural, religious, and social history, its
>existence is definitely within the realm of possibility.

For the scientist, nothing is impossible; just very improbable.
In this case, either there is no such phenomena as psi, or the existing
laws of physics and biology need a major overhaul.
This is not beyond the realm of possibility, but give what someone referred
to as "weak and unstable evidence" for psi, it is more likely that most
scientists will reject psi.
As a radical behaviorist, I think that your "radical skeptic" is made of straw.
BTW:  Skinner coined the term "radical behaviorism" as an extension of
radical as in root -- he was attempting to return behaviorism to Watson's
root assumptions.

* 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*

multiple-choice questions -- a behavioral view

[Paul Brandon]

There are positive and negative aspects to the use of M-C questions.
Like some list members, I used to view them as an evil necessitated by
large sections.  More recently, I've come to realize that the question is
not so simple.

The behavior sampled by a M-C question is trivial -- it's drawing a small
line or circle at an appropriate location.
Its value is based on our inference about the more active responses
necessary to produce the correct answer.
If rote memorization is sufficient, then the question is not measuring
much, and the reinforcement contingencies of the course will probably
result in students' not learning much.

OTOH, if students must succesfully complete some more complex activity in
order to choose the correct answer then a M-C test can be a valid
assessment of nontrivial capabilities.

A good example would be a mathematics test where a student must solve a
maths problem in order to choose the correct answer.
While the response itself is trivial, we can be reasonably confident that
the student did something more significant in order to arrive at the
correct answer.

As has been noted, writing such questions is also a nontrivial task.

* 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*

NYTimes.com Article: Human Body Recall! Design Problems

[paul . brandon]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]

This is a Creation?


/ advertisement ---\


Nortel Networks building the new, high-performance Internet

Nortel Networks is building the new, high-performance 
Wireless Internet. It combines the speed, capacity and 
reliability of their Optical Internet solutions, with 
the anytime, anywhere mobility of wireless.  
Read more about this new technology.

http://www.nytimes.com/ads/email/nortel/index1.html


\--/

Human Body Recall! Design Problems

PERSONAL HEALTH
By JANE E. BRODY

If people were manufactured products, one might justifiably accuse
their producer of planned obsolescence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/27/health/27BROD.html?ex=986884044&ei=1&en=956fbbd41501fa1f

/-\


Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.

Become a member today! It's free!

http://www.nytimes.com?eta


\-/

HOW TO ADVERTISE
-
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson 
Racer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

Re: Myth continues: New Yorker cartoon

[Paul Brandon]

At 12:02 PM -0500 3/27/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Jeff Ricker wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Jeff:
>> > Do you know if it's [the cartoon is] available online?
>> > thanks
>> > annette
>>
>> Yes, you can find it at:
>>
>>
>>http://www.cartoonbank.com/cartoon_closeup.asp?pf%5Fid=45285&dept%5Fid=1001&mscs
>>sid=0K2LWUDDR6S92M5000GPBQXDM6E6B579
>>
>> I'm thinking that you may have to register on the New Yorker web site
>> before you can get to this page, but I am not sure.
>>
>
>I tried. Actually, you can get into the site without problem and
>it even tells you that you're logged in as jeff.ricker, a rare
>honour. But for those of us who are PowerPoint devotees (now that
>Jeff has outed me), it doesn't help. Using a technique which
>appears to be spreading, and which takes a lot of the fun out of
>surfing the web for PowerPoint material, it won't allow you to
>copy it.

However, you can do a direct screen copy and save it with some loss of
resolution.
Here it is.

 %Water,_Al
 Water,_Al

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

Re: darwinian slip and a thought

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:56 AM -0600 3/27/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that just can't be
>integrated into the classroom.

At least, in _the same_ classroom at the sec ondary school level.

>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.

This, of course, would be objectionable as incompetent _science_ instruction!

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

Re: Darwinian slip and a thought

[Paul Brandon]

And another thought (not particularly original) 
If we are going to present creation myths, why this one?
Shouldn't we give some time to ALL of them, or at least those subscribed to
by a portion of the North American population?

This emphasises the point that the proper place for the study of creation
myths is in comparative religion classes.  There is little enough time in
Biology to cover evolution properly, and science teachers are not
necessarily trained in comparative religion.

At 12:03 PM -0600 3/24/01, Paul Brandon wrote:
>At 5:15 PM -0500 3/23/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote:
>>
>>> Good news.  The Arkansas house voted down the anti-evilution bill this
>>> morning.   
>>
>>
>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>
>* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
>* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
>* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
>*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*


* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

Re: Darwinian slip and a thought

[Paul Brandon]

At 5:15 PM -0500 3/23/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Mike Scoles wrote:
>
>> Good news.  The Arkansas house voted down the anti-evilution bill this
>> morning.   
>
>
>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.

>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.


* PAUL K. BRANDON[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State"  *
*http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*

Re: I was born and raised in New York State.

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:52 AM -0600 3/23/01, Mike Scoles wrote:
>But the pace is too fast there.  Here, it is much slower.  In fact we
>move backwards in time.
>
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/548017.asp?cp1=1#BODY

I think that the term is 'devolution'.
The good news is...
On the same site, there was a vote on the evidence supporting evolution.
The results to date are:

What do you think of the evidence regarding evolutionary theory?
* 28042 responses
The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond doubt.
 56%
The evidence is not sufficient to support the theory.
 28%
Neither of the above.
 16%

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

Re: projector question

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:45 PM -0600 3/21/01, G. Marc Turner wrote:
>One other point that should be made about LCD projectors...
>
>Remember to factor in the cost of replacement bulbs. Some of our old
>projectors had replacement bulbs that cost over $400 a piece. Our new
>projector uses bulbs around $280. This is a good reason to add in a request
>for additional bulbs with the original request for the projector.

And of course take into account the size of your room and projection screen.
The bigger the screen, the more light flux you need for a given intensity.

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

Re: Quick question on learning

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:30 AM -0600 3/20/01, Jean Edwards wrote:
> Good morning all:   A student asked a question regarding the use of
>"invisible" fences. A dog wears a collar that delivers a mild shock
>whenever the dog crosses over the boundary and learns not to cross the
>boundary.  Is this an example of operant or classical conditioning? I
>answered that it was  operant conditioning (positive punishment) because
>the shock follows the  behavior and decreases it. Just wanted to double
>check that my answer is  correct. Thanks to those who take the time to
>reply.   JL Edwards

The correct answer is:   yes.

_Both_ operant and classical (respondent) conditioning are involved.

The initial effect is probably respondent: the pain of the shock elicits
reflexes which then become conditioned responses elicited by stimuli paired
with the shock (e.g., the sight of the fence).

Then, behaviors which avoid the shock are negatively reinforced (turning
away from the fence) and behaviors which result in contact with it are
punished by their consequences.

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

Re: need some collegial advice

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:29 PM -0800 3/19/01, K Jung wrote:
>I have a somewhat uncomfortable situation that has developed over the past
>3 class sessions.  (or maybe I finally noticed it.)  I have a bright male
>student who sits in the front (of course) and I've noticed that during my
>lecture he is winking at me  He doesn't take notes so he is always
>armed and ready so to speak.  I've been completely ignoring him but it
>doesn't seem to have the desired effect. Any suggestions other than
>confronting him?

You're sure it's not just an eyelid tic?

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

Re: how come no final?

[Paul Brandon]

At 10:48 AM -0500 3/19/01, Steven Specht wrote:
>But is it really forgotten (see "savings effect")?

Depends upon how much is 'saved' (see clinical vs. statistical significance).

>Paul Brandon wrote:
>
>> Because it promotes cramming (see spaced vs. massed practice).
>> Material tends to be learned the night before and forgotten the next day.
>>
>> At 8:50 AM -0600 3/19/01, Hatcher, Joe wrote:
>> >Hello all,
>> >   Over the years I have learned the danger of being certain about
>> >anything concerning teaching, but one of the things that I am most certain
>> >of is that the final exam is not only the most important exam of the
>>course,
>> >but is one of the best and most essential learning experiences of the
>> >course.

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

Re: how come no final?

[Paul Brandon]

Because it promotes cramming (see spaced vs. massed practice).
Material tends to be learned the night before and forgotten the next day.

At 8:50 AM -0600 3/19/01, Hatcher, Joe wrote:
>Hello all,
>   Over the years I have learned the danger of being certain about
>anything concerning teaching, but one of the things that I am most certain
>of is that the final exam is not only the most important exam of the course,
>but is one of the best and most essential learning experiences of the
>course.
>   Let me explain.  If we look at exams as simply a means of
>determining how "good" a student someone is, and as a way to decide what
>grade to give them, then once a student has established themselves as "good"
>in a course and has indicated that A is the correct grade, then I would
>agree that there is no need for them to take the final.
>   If, however, we believe, as I do, that exams primarily exist as
>tools for learning, then to pass up the final makes no sense at all (to
>me!).  If you want your students to truly learn what you are teaching, why
>would you pass up an opportunity to review the semester, summarize and
>recall important points and threads of thought, and to reflect one more time
>on how the elements of the course work together to make a coherent whole?
>Isn't the whole idea to have someone remember something *after* the course
>is over?  Wouldn't this be helped by having students confront the course as
>a whole one more time?  It seems to me that a *conclusion* to the course is
>a bookend to the introduction that we do at the beginning.  And, to me, a
>final exam is an important part of that conclusion.  I spend considerable
>time creating a final study sheet that I think reflects the basic ideas of
>the course, and in upper level courses have students give input as to what
>these ideas are.  No, I don't have evidence to support that this helps
>learning; given the low percentage of retained knowledge evidenced by
>another thread a few months ago, I don't have high hopes that learning is
>high.  But to *not* give a final and to *not* require students to reconfront
>the material doesn't seem like it would help either...
>   I'm curious what rationales people use who do not give final exams.
>
>Joe Hatcher
>Ripon College
>Ripon, WI 54971
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> --
>> From:Michael Sylvester
>> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2001 8:06 AM
>> To:  TIPS
>> Subject: exempt from final
>>
>>
>> are there circumstances where you exempt a student from taking the final?
>> I have had one or two cases of very bright students getting A s  in all
>> course work and who undoubtedly will get an A in the course.
>> At my discretion,I have told them that they do not have to take the final.
>> They were to perceive the exemption as a reward for maintaining
>> a hibh degree of intellectual consistency through-out the semester.
>>
>> Michael Sylvester,PhD
>> Daytona Beach,Florida
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


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

Re: A prehensile what?

[Paul Brandon]

At 3:37 PM -0500 3/8/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Gerald Henkel-Johnson wrote:
>
>> I have a unique request.  A fellow instructor in our department is
>> teaching a human sexuality class.  She mentioned she once saw a video
>> which showed an elephant's erect prehensile penis (a quite stunning
>> sight!).
>
>
>A prehensile penis I'll bet it's a stunning sight. Could we
>have more information about this, please? Are you sure she wasn't
>confusing the penis with the trunk? And if it is prehensile,
>what, pray tell, does it apprehend?

Penuts?

>Inquiring minds can't wait to find out.

"Took my gal to the circus
 to see what she could see,
 when she saw what the elephant had
 you know she wouldn't come home with me..."

old blues verse.

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

Re: Nobel 1961

[Paul Brandon]

At 7:59 AM -0400 3/7/01, Charles S. Harris wrote:
>Al Cone wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>> I think we can claim Georg von Bekesy who got the Nobel Prize for
>> Physiology or Medicine in 1961.  He was at Harvard from 1947 to 1966
>
>..where he was in fact a member of the Department of Psychology,
>having come to the U.S. at the invitation of S.S. Stevens.

Where was he when he did the work for which he received the Nobel?

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

Re: five theories of creationism?

[Paul Brandon]

At 8:42 AM -0600 3/7/01, Jim  Guinee wrote:
>> >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?

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.
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.

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

Re: Nobel 1961

[Paul Brandon]

At 2:38 PM -0600 3/6/01, Cone, Al wrote:
>Folks,
>I thing we can claim Georg von Bekesy who got the Nobel Prize for Physiology
>or Medicine in 1961.  He was at Harvard from 1947 to 1966 after which he was
>professor of sensory sciences at the University of Hawaii. On the basis of
>his work in audition I think we can claim him in the pantheon of
>psychologists who have gotten Nobel prizes, e.g.,  Experiments in Hearing
>(1960).
>
>Al Cone, Retired

We _claim_ a lot of people, but I don't think that there has ever been a
Nobel winner whose primary affiliation was with Psychology.

* 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*