Re:[tips] Should we be objective?

[Allen Esterson]

In the article in Time cited by Michael Britt,
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/
James Poniewozik writes: "You can have subjective beliefs—because we 
all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."

Of course (as I'm sure Poniewozik would acknowledge) it isn't quite 
that simple.  Assuming the individual is genuinely striving to 
encompass "objective evidence" within his or her view of events, 
there's the little matter of selection and interpretation. Since 
everyone agrees that we can't be entirely objective (or even neutral), 
as we all harbour our own preconceptions, the question is how do we set 
about trying to "aspire to being objective (i.e., try to be sensitive 
to our biases)" (Jim Clark)

Jim suggests that we should
>follow well-developed principles for identifying, reducing,
>minimizing, and perhaps eliminating bias (i.e., the
>repertoire of scientific tools generically referred to
>as research methods)."

One principle that I regard as indispensable (though my impression is 
that relatively few people abide by it) is that we should *actively* 
seek out informed critical examinations of views or contentions we are 
inclined to endorse (often because it chimes with our own current 
viewpoint).

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6737
or send a blank email to 
leave-6737-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re:[tips] Subject: Feud's musical tastes.

[Allen Esterson]

Michael Sylvester asked:
>Does anyone know what type of music Freud enjoyed?

He was almost entirely unmusical.

"The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils."
– William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org

---

From:   michael sylvester 
Subject:Feud's musical tastes.
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:20:42 -0200
Does anyone know what type of music Freud enjoyed?
Strauss waltzes? I understand that Skinner loved
the Rolling Stones.

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6736
or send a blank email to 
leave-6736-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Christopher D. Green]

Mike Palij wrote:
> Shameless self-promoter! :-) 

Why, thank you! And while we're on the subject of me :-), this interview 
came out today: 
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=23&editionID=195&ArticleID=1769

> In the meantime, for those who've given up their subscriptions to the 
> American Scientist, here's a review of the Daston & Galison book that 
> provides, I think, a reasonable (dare I say "objective") view as well 
> as some of its limitations; see: 
> http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-to-be-objective

I agree. This is a fine review of the book. You can find an interview 
with Lorraine Daston about objectivity here: 
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2009/01/02/how-to-think-about-science-part-1---24-listen/#episode2
 


Best,
Chris
-- 

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

 

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

==


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6731
or send a blank email to 
leave-6731-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Mike Palij]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:49:11 -0800, Christopher D. Green wrote:
>Indeed, we should be objective, but we should also read Daston & 
>Galison's book about the history of the term, and how its meaning has 
>shifted over the decades from the mid-19th century until now (so that we 
>don't get too self-righteous about the matter).  
> http://www.amazon.com/Objectivity-Lorraine-Daston/dp/1890951781 
>
>(And then, we could read my article about how some of E. B. Titchener's 
>work is more explicable if seen through the lens of Daston & Galison's 
>history of objectivity, forthcoming in the December issue of the history 
>of science journal, /Isis/) :-)

Shameless self-promoter! :-)  In the meantime, for those who've given
up their subscriptions to the American Scientist, here's a review of
the Daston & Galison book that provides, I think, a reasonable (dare
I say "objective") view as well as some of its limitations; see:
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-to-be-objective

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







---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6729
or send a blank email to 
leave-6729-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Paul C Bernhardt]

Even if imperfectly objective, shouldn't it be our goal? Better to have it as a 
goal actively sought in our work, even falling short, than not even trying for 
it because we know we will not be perfect. 

Paul C. Bernhardt
Department of Psychology
Frostburg State University
Frostburg, Maryland



-Original Message-
From: Louis E. Schmier [mailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu]
Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 11:26 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Should we be objective?
 
I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"

Make it a good day

-Louis-


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

On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
revise our beliefs on objective evidence?

Take care
Jim

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

Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM

I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?

I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
relevant to us:

"...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
"objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
"neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
[Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."

Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?

Michael

Poniewozik article:
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp


Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com
http://www.thepsychfiles.com
Twitter: mbritt




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718

or send a blank email to
leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=6719
or send a blank email to 
leave-6719-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=6720
or send a blank email to 
leave-6720-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6728
or send a blank email to 
leave-6728-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<>

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Christopher D. Green]

Indeed, we should be objective, but we should also read Daston & 
Galison's book about the history of the term, and how its meaning has 
shifted over the decades from the mid-19th century until now (so that we 
don't get too self-righteous about the matter).  
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivity-Lorraine-Daston/dp/1890951781

(And then, we could read my article about how some of E. B. Titchener's 
work is more explicable if seen through the lens of Daston & Galison's 
history of objectivity, forthcoming in the December issue of the history 
of science journal, /Isis/) :-)

Chris
-- 

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

 

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

==


Jim Clark wrote:
> Hi
>
> We can be more or less objective.  Moreover, we are more likely to be 
> objective if we aspire to being objective (i.e., try to be sensitive to our 
> biases) and if we follow well-developed principles for identifying, reducing, 
> minimizing, and perhaps eliminating bias (i.e., the repertoire of scientific 
> tools generically referred to as research methods).
>
> Take care
> Jim
>
>
>
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
>
>   
 "Louis E. Schmier"  24-Nov-10 10:26 AM >>>
 
> I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"
>
> Make it a good day
>
> -Louis-
>
>
> Louis Schmier  
> http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org 
> Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com 
> Valdosta State University
> Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\   /\  /\ /\
>  /\
> (O)  229-333-5947/^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   /   \  
> /   \
> (C)  229-630-0821   / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ /\/  /  \ 
>/\  \
>  //\/\/ /\
> \__/__/_/\_\/\_/__\  \
>/\"If you want to climb 
> mountains,\ /\
>_ /  \don't practice on mole 
> hills" - /   \_
>
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
> evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
> wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
> revise our beliefs on objective evidence?
>
> Take care
> Jim
>
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
>
> Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM
>
> I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
> books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
> it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
> parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
> aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?
>
> I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
> don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
> an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
> supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
> relevant to us:
>
> "...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
> "objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
> "neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
> having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
> [Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
> evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
> you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
> do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."
>
> Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?
>
> Michael
>
> Poniewozik article:
> http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp
>  
>
>
> Michael Britt
> michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com 
> http://www.thepsychfiles.com 
> Twitter: mbritt
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718
>  
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=6719
>  
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-6719-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.ed

re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Mike Palij]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:04:07 -0800, Michael Britt wrote:
>I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting books.  
>As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that it will be 
>clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding parenting (which 
>are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But aren't I supposed to 
>be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?   

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what you're talking about.  What
exactly do mean by the term "objective"?  Consistent with the facts?
Neutral with respect to "framing"?  Before people start trying to reply
to Britt's request, wouldn't it be a good idea to understand what he is
saying?

>I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I don't 
>know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across an 
>article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the 
>supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is 
>relevant to us: 
>
>"...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call 
>"objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like "neutrality" 
>(often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean having no opinion, 
>taking no side or expressing no point of view. [Objectivity] means seeking, 
>acknowledging and interpreting objective evidence, even when it conflicts with 
>your preconceptions or with what you wish to be true. You can have subjective 
>beliefs—because we all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."
>
>Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?  

First, demonstrate that what journalists do, that is, produce news stories,
have acceptable reliability and validity.  To what extent do independent
observers of an event agree on what happened and to what extent do
the observations made correspond to the actual event (one can start with
sports and whether referees make correct calls or not and why instant
replay is critical in some situations). At best, what journalists do is 
naturalistic 
observation -- I assume that one doesn't have to review their research 
methods texts to remember the problems associated with the sort of research?

Second, journalists do not conduct empirical tests or experiments about
their beliefs or what they report -- they probably could but few have the
skills to do so (moreover, they often are concerned with specific events 
that occurred under specific conditions; they are not interested in making
a generalization from a sample to a population, rather they are usually just
concerned with the sample).  The issues of "objectivity" in context, is seems
to me, to be limited to (a) is their story factually correct and (b) framing 
(which means that the presentation is positive, negative, or neutral in tone).

Third, for scientists the issue is not "objectivity", however that is defined,
but (a) can one make reliable and valid observations, (b) conduct appropriate 
analysis of the observations to determine whether variables are associated 
or not, and (c) coming up with a theory that explains why such variables 
are related.  Since theory building goes beyond the data at hand and 
may depend on certain social, cultural, historical, and other factors (which
post-modernism are/were fond of dwelling on) one can ask whether a
theory is truly "objective" in the sense that it is consistent with the facts.
For example, reliable and valid observation may be made, relationships
detected, and then explained, say, by the action of demons or supernatural
forces.  An appropriate demon theory might be developed that is consistent
with observations and sociocultural beliefs but would not make sense in 
other sociocultural conditions (and though pandemonium pattern recognition 
programs may make use of "demons", it would be proper to ask one what 
one means by the word "demon" and a metaphorical sense is preferable 
to a literal one; see for example:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E17lR8OcnqgC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=pandemonium+perceptrons+demons&source=bl&ots=3bKzC16MVb&sig=6UVaFHzfcaZZjpDRR1WrQyz9sSg&hl=en&ei=g1rtTKKjDYaLswbP8rSdDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pandemonium%20perceptrons%20demons&f=false
or
http://tinyurl.com/pandemoniumdemons )

Are your talking about framing effects or factualness or the culture laden basis
of theories or something else?

To summarize, what you talking about, Willis?
(For illumination on this last point, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%27rent_Strokes )

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


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6726
or send a blank email to 
leave-6726-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Michael Britt]

A few more thoughts.  If I understand the Time journalist/blogger James 
Poniewozik correctly then being:

Objective - is to present the facts but no conclusions regarding them

Neutral - is to a) present the facts, b) to provide your conclusion regarding 
those facts and c) to remain open to a new conclusion if/when new facts become 
available

While an:

Opinion - is to present your conclusion without having many facts/research to 
support it

Agenda - is to interpret all the facts and research you come across (or choose 
to look at) with a particular pre-determined point of view 

So it sounds like "neutral" is the approach we would like to take (since, as 
Poniewozik said in this article, "...someone who simply processes information 
yet is unable or unwilling ever to draw conclusions from it would not be 
considered very useful."), but we should acknowledge that as human beings we do 
have our built-in fallacies and cognitive biases which make this difficult.

Just trying to get this straight in my own head I guess.

 
Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com
http://www.thepsychfiles.com
Twitter: mbritt



On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Jim Clark wrote:

> Hi
> 
> We can be more or less objective.  Moreover, we are more likely to be 
> objective if we aspire to being objective (i.e., try to be sensitive to our 
> biases) and if we follow well-developed principles for identifying, reducing, 
> minimizing, and perhaps eliminating bias (i.e., the repertoire of scientific 
> tools generically referred to as research methods).
> 
> Take care
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
> 
 "Louis E. Schmier"  24-Nov-10 10:26 AM >>>
> I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"
> 
> Make it a good day
> 
> -Louis-
> 
> 
> Louis Schmier  
> http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org 
> Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com 
> Valdosta State University
> Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\   /\  /\ /\
>  /\
> (O)  229-333-5947/^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   /   \  
> /   \
> (C)  229-630-0821   / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ /\/  /  \ 
>/\  \
> //\/\/ /\
> \__/__/_/\_\/\_/__\  \
>   /\"If you want to climb 
> mountains,\ /\
>   _ /  \don't practice on mole 
> hills" - /   \_
> 
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
> evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
> wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
> revise our beliefs on objective evidence?
> 
> Take care
> Jim
> 
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
> 
> Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM
> 
> I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
> books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
> it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
> parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
> aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?
> 
> I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
> don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
> an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
> supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
> relevant to us:
> 
> "...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
> "objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
> "neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
> having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
> [Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
> evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
> you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
> do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."
> 
> Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?
> 
> Michael
> 
> Poniewozik article:
> http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp
>  
> 
> 
> Michael Britt
> michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com 
> http://www.thepsychfiles.com 
> Twitter: mbritt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718
>  
> 
> or send a blank email to
> leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips 

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Jim Clark]

Hi

We can be more or less objective.  Moreover, we are more likely to be objective 
if we aspire to being objective (i.e., try to be sensitive to our biases) and 
if we follow well-developed principles for identifying, reducing, minimizing, 
and perhaps eliminating bias (i.e., the repertoire of scientific tools 
generically referred to as research methods).

Take care
Jim



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

>>> "Louis E. Schmier"  24-Nov-10 10:26 AM >>>
I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"

Make it a good day

-Louis-


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

On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
revise our beliefs on objective evidence?

Take care
Jim

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

Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM

I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?

I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
relevant to us:

"...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
"objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
"neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
[Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."

Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?

Michael

Poniewozik article:
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp
 


Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com 
http://www.thepsychfiles.com 
Twitter: mbritt




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718
 

or send a blank email to
leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=6719
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-6719-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6720
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-6720-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6724
or send a blank email to 
leave-6724-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Michael Britt]

I think we definitely should revise our beliefs based on objective evidence, 
but it's hard to do and we often don't know when we're not being "objective" 
(or neutral).  For example, I saw a few days ago that there is a new article in 
the Journal of Educational Psychology entitled, "Does Discovery-Based 
Instruction Enhance Learning?".  I took a quick look at the abstract and the 
results of the study appear to not (fully) support discovery learning.I'm a 
big fan of discovery learning.  I haven't read the article and if not for this 
post I probably wouldn't ever have read it.  I decided to download the article 
and read it (couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance I guess).

Or perhaps I'm a victim of the "Scientific Impotence Excuse" (Munro, G.D. 
(2010).  The scientific impotence excuse: discounting belief-threatening 
scientific abstracts.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 579-600.


Michael


Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com
http://www.thepsychfiles.com
Twitter: mbritt



On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
> evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
> wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
> revise our beliefs on objective evidence?
> 
> Take care
> Jim
> 
> James M. Clark
> Professor of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 204-774-4134 Fax
> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
> 
 Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM
 
> I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
> books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
> it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
> parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
> aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?   
> 
> I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
> don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
> an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
> supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
> relevant to us: 
> 
> "...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
> "objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
> "neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
> having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
> [Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
> evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
> you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
> do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."
> 
> Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?  
> 
> Michael
> 
> Poniewozik article:
> http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp
> 
> 
> Michael Britt
> michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com 
> http://www.thepsychfiles.com 
> Twitter: mbritt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718
> 
> or send a blank email to
> leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69&n=T&l=tips&o=6719
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-6719-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6722
or send a blank email to 
leave-6722-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] I Am Shocked! SHOCKED!!! Part 374

[Allen Esterson]

I forgot to add to my previous post that UK students from less well off 
families receive maintenance grants from the Government:

At the same time, the Government has proposed to increase maintenance 
grants to £3,250 each year from £2,900 for poorer students whose family 
income fall below £25,000 per year.

A partial grant would be offered to students with family income up to 
£42,000 and there would be higher maintenance grants for students in 
London.

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/39276

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org


Re: [tips] I Am Shocked! SHOCKED!!! Part 374

Allen Esterson
Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:02:34 -0800

Mike Palij linked to an amusing spoof article on the upcoming increase
of university fees in the UK:
>Stunning research results are provided from across the
>pond which should cause U.S. and Canadian instructors to
>ponder the effect of cuts to education, especially college
> education.  For the full details, see:
http://newsthump.com/2010/09/22/rich-students-have-more-money-than-poor-students-finds-survey/

 From the spoof: “It never occurred to be that not having the required
amount of cash to cover an increase in fees would leave me in a
situation where I couldn’t afford it.”

To reiterate a point of information I made in a recent TIPS post,
students in the UK do not pay University fees upfront out of their own
(or their parents') pocket. They receive a students' loan (at low
interest), which will be increased to allow for the increase in fees
they will have to face. (No one knows yet by how much the different
universities will be increasing their fees. This is left for them to
decide.)

That's not to say that students from a poorer background may not be put
off by the notion of an increase in their future debt burden – though
the last time there was an increase in fees there was no diminution in
the number of school students applying for university places. This time
there may be a different story, but we'll have to wait and see.

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6721
or send a blank email to 
leave-6721-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Louis E. Schmier]

I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"

Make it a good day

-Louis-


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

On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
revise our beliefs on objective evidence?

Take care
Jim

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

Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM

I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?

I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
relevant to us:

"...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
"objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
"neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
[Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."

Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?

Michael

Poniewozik article:
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp


Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com
http://www.thepsychfiles.com
Twitter: mbritt




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718

or send a blank email to
leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=6719
or send a blank email to 
leave-6719-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6720
or send a blank email to 
leave-6720-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Should we be objective?

[Jim Clark]

Hi

Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
wish to be true."  Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
revise our beliefs on objective evidence?

Take care
Jim

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

>>> Michael Britt  24-Nov-10 10:03 AM
>>>
I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting
books.  As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that
it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding
parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But
aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"?   

I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I
don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across
an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the
supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is
relevant to us: 

"...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call
"objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like
"neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean
having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view.
[Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what
you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all
do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."

Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?  

Michael

Poniewozik article:
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp


Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com 
http://www.thepsychfiles.com 
Twitter: mbritt




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718

or send a blank email to
leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6719
or send a blank email to 
leave-6719-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Should we be objective?

[Michael Britt]

I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting books.  As I 
edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that it will be clear to 
the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding parenting (which are clearly 
more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian").  But aren't I supposed to be, as a 
psychology instructor "objective"?   

I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I don't know 
if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across an article in 
Time magazine by James Poniewozik.  He's talking about the supposed objectivity 
of journalists, but I think what he has to say is relevant to us: 

"...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call 
"objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like "neutrality" 
(often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean having no opinion, 
taking no side or expressing no point of view. [Objectivity] means seeking, 
acknowledging and interpreting objective evidence, even when it conflicts with 
your preconceptions or with what you wish to be true. You can have subjective 
beliefs—because we all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."

Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"?  

Michael

Poniewozik article: 
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp

Michael Britt
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com
http://www.thepsychfiles.com
Twitter: mbritt




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6718
or send a blank email to 
leave-6718-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Fwd: Random Thought: A Lilly Conversation

[Louis E. Schmier]

The Lilly conference was over.  I was overwhelmed by fulfilling happiness mixed 
with a tinge of sadness.  As I put my stuff into the rented car, getting ready 
for a short jaunt to the Dayton airport, a young man approached me, and the 
Lilly mystique shone once again in all it's glory and began to work its magic.  
"Mind if I ask you a question?"

"Sure."

"I noticed that a lot of you hugged and said 'Love you' as you left.  I don't 
get it.  We never do that at our English conferences.  We're so 'professional.' 
 At best, if we even say goodbyes, we merely shake hands.  After all, we're 
just colleagues.  Why do you do that?  I don't understand.  But I want to.  I 
really want to.  This conference seems so different."

I smiled and initially gave him a quick answer.  "It's Lilly!!"  Then, I went 
on. "A lot of us don't just talk about teaching or academics in general.  Lilly 
is more than about methods and techniques.  This is a place where you can help 
someone be happy, help them improve their life both professionally and 
personally, help them find a purpose to live for, help them guide themselves 
through the rough water of a storm, help them find a meaning in their lives.  
This is a place where a lot of us do more listening than talking.  What I mean 
by that is what Greg Wentzel said during a schmoozing conversation, 'There is 
love.'   That says it all.  For me and many others, Lilly it's a very special 
place,  I hug with my hellos because I'm happy to be here and hug with my 'love 
you' because I'm sad to leave.  These good people are not my colleagues.  These 
are my friends; they're my family.  Some of them I won't see for another year, 
but I'll talk and listen, share with and be shared with, throughout the year.  
This is my first of two yearly Thanksgivings where I am grateful and give 
thanks for having these people call me "friend."  Come here a few times and 
you'll feel that gratitude; it'll get under your skin, and seep into your soul; 
 and, then, you'll live it."  That's why I go to Lilly each year.  It's a place 
of authenticity and sincerity, of renewal and growth, of helping and being 
helped.  Sure, it's a time and place to get and keep both the open mind and 
heart of a learner on the Mondays after the weekend of the conference.  And, 
boy, did I learn this time.  I'm going to experiment with incorporating 
something new in my classes:  clickers.  That's what Lilly does to you.  I came 
here as an "anti-clickerer," heard a plenary on it by Derek Bruff, got a flash 
of an idea a day later, bounced it off over lunch just now with him, and now 
I'm going home to work on it with my IT people for my Spring semester classes."

He looked at me.  "But you're a real old timer.  What keeps you going?"

I wasn't sure how to take that "real old timer stuff," especially the "real."  
Smiling, I answered, "This is a place where you're constantly reminded that 
being a teacher, or just a plain ole human being, is like being an athlete 
keeping yourself in mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual shape.  The 
science of teaching means a mind, body, spirit meld, an organic unity of 
physiology, the brain, with psychology, the emotion, with sociology, the 
connection.  I've studied teaching for the last twenty years.  If I've learned 
anything, it's that if you truly love teaching, if you want to do it for a long 
time, if you don't want to burn out, it takes constant unlearning and learning, 
and constant deconditioning and  conditioning of the spirit, of the attitude, 
and of the mind.  I guess it's something of academic yoga that makes you 
emotionally and mentally flexible, that allows you to accept change, that urges 
you to grow, that gets to the attitude of always asking 'now, what's next?  
What's over the hill?  Where's the next mountain?'  It's about transforming 
challenge from an obstacle to an opportunity so you can achieve the fullest 
potential.  It's about reinventing yourself from time to time, time after time; 
it's about growing and changing."

"How do you know anything will work, for example, the clickers?"

"I don't.  But, after nearly dying from a cerebral hemorrahage, I've learned 
there are no guarantees.  You don't stay trim by being a couch potato.  You 
just have to take chances if you don't want to become mentally and emotionally 
flabby.  Nothing worth doing doesn't involve risk.  I mean, if it's easy, if 
there's no element of 'danger,' if there no possibility of it falling flat on 
it's face, you already know how to do it and you're heading for the 
straitjacketing rut of safe routine.  Personally, I feel so much better and it 
feel so much more meaningful if I overcome something new and risky than if I 
just keep on doing something 'old hat' and 'safe.'  You have to have a 'seeking 
spirit' to be and stay alive; you have to have a sense that you can never get 
to the end of teaching; you have to realize and accept it's an eternal journey. 
 I know a lot about t

Re: [tips] Exercises: Triangular Theory of Love/Attachment Theory

[michael sylvester]

Check out Rick Allgeier's  Human Sexuality.Rick and I were classmates
at Gannon University in Erie,Pennsylvania.
Michael



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6716
or send a blank email to 
leave-6716-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Feud's musical tastes.

[michael sylvester]

Does anyone know what type of music Freud enjoyed?
Strauss waltzes? I understand that Skinner loved
the Rolling Stones.

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6715
or send a blank email to 
leave-6715-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] texter and gamer, Facebook addict and YouTube potato

[michael sylvester]

  - Original Message - 
  From: Annette Taylor 
  To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
  Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:54 PM
  Subject: RE: [tips] texter and gamer, Facebook ad

  I did grow up in Chicago (emphasis on "in" as in smack dab in the middle, and 
not the suburbs), and again, did cultural events by default--getting out of 
doing something else when bored so went to the Art Institute or the downtown 
library (now gone), or Lincoln Park zoo, or the theater, etc. The good thing 
was that those experiences have stayed with me even though I might not have 
appreciated them at the time or gotten as much out of them as I could 
have/should have. I wonder if the ready availability of electronics would have 
changed that.

  Annette

  Were you in Chicago when Polish immigrants and their descendants launched 
vicious attacks
  against Martin Luther King and civil rights 
  marchers in Cicero?
  Michael "omnicentric"Sylvester,PhD
  Daytona Beach,Florida


--
  From: drnanjo [drna...@aol.com]
  Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:31 AM
  To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
  Subject: Re: [tips] texter and gamer, Facebook addict and YouTube potato






I can appreciate the concern that there may be a lot of young people
who are incapable of reading a complete novel or be as focused on tasks
as some adults like but it ignores the kids who are into the Harry Potter
books, the Narnia books, and many other book series.  How are these
kids able to read such thick and complex books if all they can attend to
are tweets and text messages?


  Indeed I wonder too if we simply over-estimate the number of young people in 
the legendary "olden days" who enjoyed (or did) read complete novels and seek 
out higher-level intellectual/cultural experiences.

  It reminds me of the same fixation on "kids were better back then" or "it was 
better back then" that forgets that "back then" (as recently as the second 
quarter of the 20th C children still died much more frequently than they do now 
of easily treated or prevented [vaccination] diseases.)

  Or that psychologists at that time wrote the same articles about comic books 
destroying the intellects and moral character of youth that they now write 
about video games and tweeting and Facebook.

  for the record I am not objective about Facebook - I have an FB page and I 
love it. Admittedly I spend a lot of time there.

  But I think this is the same old same old back again for more rumination. The 
good old days simply weren't. They never were.

  Nancy Melucci
  Long Beach City College


  -Original Message-
  From: Mike Palij 
  To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
  Cc: Mike Palij 
  Sent: Sun, Nov 21, 2010 8:20 am
  Subject: re: [tips] texter and gamer, Facebook addict and YouTube potato


On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:27:38 -0800, Annette Taylor wrote:
>This link was posted on the pod list today so some of you have 
>probably seen it; but for those of you for whom it is new, it 
>supports what we have probably all seen in the last decade: 
>the hypnotic? addictive? lure of the internet for our students 
>when they should be studying.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Michael Smith mode on:
I was going to read it but it was too long.  Does anyone have a
tweeter version of the article?
Michael Smith mode off.

A quote provided in the NY Times news summary email is this:

|"Their brains are rewarded not for staying on task but for jumping 
|to the next thing. The worry is we're raising a generation of kids in 
|front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently."
|MICHAEL RICH,  executive director of the Center on Media 
|and Child Health, on how digital technology affects children.

Now, I may be wrong or I misunderstand my pop neuroscience but
isn't Rich's concern unfounded?  True, students and young people
may find it more reinforcing and/or interesting to engage in various
digital media -- especially short form -- but if we believe in the 
plasticity of the human brain throughout the lifespan, isn't the brain
being continually rewired (neurologist Richard Restak, of author of
"Receptors", "The Brain", and "The New Brain", says in the latter
that the brain is so plastic that parts of it are different after a lecture
relative to its state before a lecture)?  If experience continually rewires
the brain, shouldn't the concern be with behavioral and environmental
control to make sure that certain skills are developed and maintained,
like reading novels in book form?  If "Vishal" can only read 43 pages
of Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" in two months (the article is unclear
whether he was reading it in paper form or ebook format), might this
be more about more poor contingency control (i.e., lack of reinforcing 
book reading) than a rewired brain that is incapable of handling novel 
length na

Re:[tips] I Am Shocked! SHOCKED!!! Part 374

[Allen Esterson]

Mike Palij linked to an amusing spoof article on the upcoming increase 
of university fees in the UK:
>Stunning research results are provided from across the
>pond which should cause U.S. and Canadian instructors to
>ponder the effect of cuts to education, especially college
> education.  For the full details, see:
http://newsthump.com/2010/09/22/rich-students-have-more-money-than-poor-students-finds-survey/

 From the spoof: “It never occurred to be that not having the required 
amount of cash to cover an increase in fees would leave me in a 
situation where I couldn’t afford it.”

To reiterate a point of information I made in a recent TIPS post, 
students in the UK do not pay University fees upfront out of their own 
(or their parents') pocket. They receive a students' loan (at low 
interest), which will be increased to allow for the increase in fees 
they will have to face. (No one knows yet by how much the different 
universities will be increasing their fees. This is left for them to 
decide.)

That's not to say that students from a poorer background may not be put 
off by the notion of an increase in their future debt burden – though 
the last time there was an increase in fees there was no diminution in 
the number of school students applying for university places. This time 
there may be a different story, but we'll have to wait and see.

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org

--


From:   Mike Palij 
Subject:I Am Shocked! SHOCKED!!! Part 374
Date:   Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:42:45 -0500
Stunning research results are provided from across the pond which
should cause U.S. and Canadian instructors to ponder the effect of
cuts to education, especially college education.  For the full details,
see:
http://newsthump.com/2010/09/22/rich-students-have-more-money-than-poor-students-finds-survey/

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

P.S.  The website also carries articles on science which can be found
here:
http://newsthump.com/category/science/
Of particular relevant to critical thinking activities, see the last 
article
on chiropracters.

P.P.S.  For those you haven't had their morning coffee or provigil hit,
I am told that Newsthump is something like The Onion but for people of
the British persuasion. If you are not of the British persuasion, do not
be surprised if you don't get the "attitude" behind the articles. ;-)




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6713
or send a blank email to 
leave-6713-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Exercises: Triangular Theory of Love/Attachment Theory

[Helweg-Larsen, Marie]

I'm teaching Psychology of Human Sexuality and I'm having trouble finding good 
in-class activities for Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love. It seems so 
descriptive - perhaps someone has an activity where you have to categorize 
other people's (or their own) love patterns. There is of course tons of 
research on Attachment Theory. Does anyone have an activity for that?
I've looked all the normal places (crow, social psychology.org, etc.) but not 
turned up anything. And I don't have my normal library of books and teaching 
manual to consult [sad face].
Marie


Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Danish Institute for Study Abroad (DIS), +45 2065 1360 
Dickinson College (on leave 2010/2011)
http://users.dickinson.edu/~helwegm/index.html


-Original Message-
From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 21:43
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance


Mike S. et al.

I've lived in northern new england twice, and long enough, to have leaned the 
language (e.g. "'yup, nope' and other Vermont conversations"), so I really 
don't mind the concise or pithy or even abbreviated in surface structure, 
especially as I frequently catch emails on the fly and send notes on a 
Blackberry with that tiny little keyboard. Not that I don't appreciate the 
longer, more academic posts, I do. As far as references, I would rather use 
PsychArticles for tracking down detailed information and quotes and finely 
honed logic on those small number of topics that I am interested in and can 
devote serious time to. I find that TIPs is at its best for quick tips and 
pointing people in the direction of more information ... but, as they say, 
bandwidth is inexpensive.

==
John W. Kulig, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Director, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
==

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Smith" 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 12:20:04 PM
Subject: Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance

In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade
through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve"
Allen said " I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts.
First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv"

First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all.
Of course, if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's
response as being a legitimate interpretation.
Of course it isn't, and he knows it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much).

An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement presumes the
person is interested in the subject.
Then to find out what the author is saying, the reader must read all
the verbiage.

If Allen and Mike P really believe that it's news to people that they
don't have to read what they don't want to..well what can you say.

Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for professionals
(academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt
with adequately in a few concise sentence..."

This is clearly wrong.
There is no subject no matter how complex that cannot benefit from concision.
It also excludes most of the posts here since almost nothing discussed
here is "complex".

In addition, no one suggested that the response:
not be well thought out
must be limited to a few sentences.
not include references

The actual point was:

Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary and so are quotes.

Including these actually detracts from the essential points.
That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)."

--Mike

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=6624
or send a blank email to 
leave-6624-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: helw...@dickinson.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a4468797f&n=T&l=tips&o=6703
or send a blank email to 
leave-6703-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6712
or send a blank email to 
leave-6712-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu