Re: [tips] The "Zombie" Scientific Literature And Its Effects on Science

[Mike Palij]

On Mon, 02 May 2016 11:36:09 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:

To sort this all out I think you need to distinguish among various
potential meanings of "unconscious".


With all due respect, I think such an activity is pointless. In the
context of Freudian theory, although such distinctions *might*
turn out to be useful, I don't think anyone takes Freudian theory
seriously as a modern cognitive theory (though perhaps some
with a hermeneutic bent such as Larry Marks might beg to differ).
For Marks' perspective on Freud in relation to Fechner, see:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en==t_JskTNCkNYC=fnd=PA23=%22Was+Fechner+an+eminent+psychologist%3F%22=HnZzhAIOhV=gfanhe2QEhBSHEynyvV8hww0-SM#v=onepage=%22Was%20Fechner%20an%20eminent%20psychologist%3F%22=false
or
Marks, L. E. (2013). Freud and Fechner, desire and energy,
hermeneutics and psychophysics. In Geissler, Link, and Townsend
(Eds). Cognition, Information Processing, and Psychophysics:
Basic Issues.  (pp23-42) Psychology Press.

But Marks make clear that the connection between Freud and
Fechner is at level of Fechner's "inner psychophysics", most of
the writings on which have not been translated into English.
The key point is that level of consciousness play less of role
then other Fechnerian ideas.

For more on Fechner and Freud, see:
Ellenberger, H. F. (1956). Fechner and Freud. Bulletin of the
Menninger Clinic, 20(4), 201.

Scheerer, E. (1987). The unknown Fechner. Psychological
Research, 49(4), 197-202.
The Scheerer article reviews the "inner psychophysics" and
this issue also has an English translation of Fechner's writing
on the topic; see:
Fechner, G. T. (1987). Outline of a new principle of mathematical
psychology (1851). Psychological research, 49(4), 203-207.

[snip]

I am no Herbart expert, to be sure, but my understanding is that
the portion of the apperceptive mass not currently in consciousness
was thought to be, in Freud's terms, preconscious. It could normally
be retrieved easily if needed.


I think it is a mistake to try to recast Herbartian theory into
Freudian terms because, IMHO, the latter has little if no validity.
I think that there are a number of aspects about Herbart's theory
that represent severe limitations on its usefulness (e.g., it is
heavily metaphysical, Herbart did no empirical work to derive
or test his theory) but it does represent a first attempt to describe
the "mind-soul" in mathematical terms (though Fechner would
disagree and go about his own way).  Useful references for
Herbart's theory as it might apply today follow:

Boudewijnse, G. J. A., Murray, D. J., & Bandomir, C. A. (1999).
Herbart's mathematical psychology. History of Psychology, 2(3), 163.

Boudewijnse, G. J. A., Murray, D. J., & Bandomir, C. A. (2001).
The fate of Herbart's mathematical psychology. History of psychology,
4(2), 107.

Murray, D. J., & Bandomir, C. A. (2001). Fechner's Inner Psychophysics
Viewed from both a Herbartian and a Fechnerian Perspective. na.
Access at:
http://psychologie.biphaps.uni-leipzig.de/fechner/generalinfo/PDFs/DMurray.pdf


As for Fechner, if he used the iceberg metaphor, I think he
used it for psychophysical situations in which the stimulus had
simply not reached perceptual threshold. That is, it is simply
not conscious; it is not unconscious in the sense of being
retrievable to consciousness.


I think that Scheerer's work (cited above) on Fechner shows
that there is still much to learn about his theories (e.g., the
"inner psychophysics" that related sensation to brain activity).
and statements about the operation of consciousness and the
unconscious may be premature, given that English speakers
know only of the English translation of the Elements and not of
the numerous other papers that are still untranslated.


I'll be interested to hear your responses to this.


I suspect that you might actually be less interested than you let on. 
;-)

I think that the iceberg metaphor of consciousness is a weak
metaphor that focuses on a superficial aspect of its functioning
(i.e., only a small amount of our stored knowledge is available
to awareness at any one time).  In discussions with the "Iceberg
Hunters" we mentioned that an iceberg is a pretty dumb metaphor
to use if one is using referring to a dynamic cognitive-affective
system.  So, in some respects, the question becomes trivial:
who was the first one to make the lousy metaphor that the mind
is like an iceberg?  Deeper questions about consciousness take
us into a dangerous terrain because we still don't really know
how to talk about consciousness (I remember reading in agony
at Sir John Eccles' attempt to distinguish between consciousness1,
consciousness2, consciousness3.; that way lies madness).

Getting back to the original issue of "Zombie" scientific literature,
the iceberg metaphor seems to be a clear example in psychology
and the field would benefit from removing its from usage outside of
placing it into historical context.

-Mike Palij
New York University

[tips] Eighteenth Annual Mid-Atlantic Teaching of Psychology Conference – Call for Programs

[Diane L Finley]

Eighteenth Annual Mid-Atlantic Teaching of Psychology Conference – Call for 
Programs

The Prince George’s Community College Department of Psychology and Argosy 
University are sponsoring the 18th Annual Mid-Atlantic Teachers of Psychology 
(MATOP) conference on the teaching of psychology on October 21, 2016 at PGCC 
outside of Washington DC.  The mission of the MATOP conference is to bring 
together  teachers of psychology from universities, two and four-year colleges 
and high schools, who wish to enhance their teaching of psychology and expand 
their teaching skills through, workshops, lectures, and participant idea 
exchanges on successful teaching strategies and techniques.  In addition, MATOP 
fosters the development of valuable teacher networks that further strengthens 
the continued support of good teaching and professional fellowship. 
Registration is $75.00 before October 8. On-site registration is $90.00 Early 
registration (by September 1, 2016) is $50.00. Registration for presenters is 
$25.00.  Registration for graduate students is $25.00 early registration; $30 
before October 8, and $45.00 on-site, $20 for presenters. Please send proof of 
student status.

This year's conference will focus on Reaching Our Students: Old Ways? New Ways?
Keynote Address
Dr. Ali Mattu of Columbia University will take on using social media outlets to 
communicate with our students. Dr. Mattu is a clinical psychologist 
specializing in anxiety disorders. He serves on APA's Council of 
Representatives. He is the host of ThePsychShow on YouTube and the science 
fiction psychologist at BrainKnowsBetter.com

Call for Submissions
Please submit your ideas, classroom tested methods, innovative courses, and 
research on teaching and learning psychology.  All proposals regarding the 
teaching of psychology are encouraged and will be considered.  From past 
conference participants and psychology faculty in general, we are looking for 
various content and technique topics which are appropriate for an undergraduate 
psychology course.  We welcome proposals for oral presentations, panel 
discussions and hands-on-workshops.

The 2016 conference will also feature two 40 minute roundtable/participant idea 
exchange sessions. Submissions for leading a Roundtable Discussion are also 
welcome. Please be sure to label the submission as a Roundtable.
All submissions should relate to the teaching of psychology.  Each proposal 
should be typed (double-spaced) and include the following: a.) whether it is 
being submitted as a presentation, panel discussion, hands-on–workshop, or 
participant idea exchange, b) the title, c) the presenter(s) name(s), 
institution(s) and email and mailing addresses and telephone number, d) a 
summary of presentation in no more than 250 words.  Presenters will be notified 
promptly regarding acceptance. The deadline for submitting individual proposals 
is June 1, 2016.  Notice will be sent to all submissions by June 20, 2016. 
Roundtable topic submissions will be accepted, pending space, until October 1, 
2016.
Proposals may be submitted by mail, fax, or email (preferred method) to Dr. 
Diane Finley, Coordinator, MATOP Conference:
Prince George’s Community College
Department of Psychology
301 Largo Road
Largo, MD 20774
Fax: 301-808-0418
Email:  dfinley@pgcc.edu  
(this is the preferred method of submission. Please put MATOP Submission in the 
subject line.) If you have difficulty attaching a file, use 
dianep...@hotmail.com





Diane L. Finley, PhD.
finle...@pgcc.edu
Professor, Department of Psychology
Adjunct Coordinator, PSY/SOC/HUS Dept.
Certified Consultant, Association for Applied Sport Psychology
National Certified Counselor
Coordinator, MidAtlantic Teaching of Psychology Conference
Master Reviewer & Facilitator, Quality Matters
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended for 
the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). This e-mail 
may contain confidential information and/or information protected by 
intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and 
attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the 
original and any copies of this e-mail and any printouts immediately from your 
system and destroy all copies of it.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=48657
or send a blank email to 
leave-48657-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] The "Zombie" Scientific Literature And Its Effects on Science

[Christopher Green]

I should probably finish by saying that, with reference to Freud, the iceberg 
metaphor attributed to him referred to the repressed form of unconsciousness 
being below the surface of the water. Likewise, for Hall there was an 
unconscious part of the mind that was below the level of consciousness and 
couldn'tbe easily retrieved. If I am correct about this, then Hall seems to 
have first used the iceberg metaphor in the way that it was later used to 
explain Freud's model of the mind (though not by Freud himself). 

Herbert's and Fechner's models of the mind may also have used iceberg 
metaphors, though not in the same sense -- to refer to the same phenomena -- as 
that used by Hall and attributed to Freud.

Best,
Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca

> On May 2, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Mike Palij  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 02 May 2016 08:16:58 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:
>>> I think that the "Freudian Iceberg" falls into this category and
>>> though this has been corrected to some degree, there still
>>> is no single source that points out the problems with this
>>> conception.
>> 
>> I didn't write an article about the Freudian iceberg. However,
>> in an article that I wrote about Stanley Hall's relationship with
>> Ernst Haeckel last year, I did include a paragraph pointing out
>> that the iceberg metaphor for the unconscious mind appeared
>> (perhaps first) in an 1898 article by Hall.
>> 
>> Hall's orignal article was:
>> Hall, G. S. (1898). Some aspects of the early sense of self.
>> American Journal of Psychology, 9, 351-395.
>> 
>> My mention of it appeared in:
>> Green, C. D. (2015). Hall's developmental theory and Haeckel's
>> recapitulationism. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
>> 12, 656-665.
> 
> There are several issues that have to be considered with respect to
> the Freudian iceberg:
> 
> (1) My own experience has been frustrating in tracking down 19th
> century sources and, in some cases, either finding them inaccessible
> or still under copyright (I am continually amazed at what is under
> copyright protection even when it is over 100 years old and no longer
> in print -- who holds the copyright?).  My limitations in reading German
> has also been a problem (AI's promise of language translation is
> still just a dream).  I have my own opinions about the Freudian
> iceberg and I'll briefly review them here.
> 
> (2) I think that there is consensus that Freud never explicitly used the
> iceberg metaphor even though many of the people who have either
> talked about Freud in the popular media (e.g., Freud's obituary in the
> NY Times where the metaphor is presented and implicitly linked to
> Freud) and in psychology textbooks (Ken Steele found images of
> the overall "shape" of the mind in Freud sources dated 1923 and 1933,
> neither of which are icebergs but the image from Healy et al 1930 is
> closer to an iceberg, and Ruch & Zimbardo's Psychology and Life 7th
> has the Healy image but in subsequent editions it becomes an
> iceberg -- Zimbardo claims to have come up with the iceberg idea).
> Subsequent intro psych textbooks "borrowed" this image/concept
> and elaborated upon it while giving bogus references for sources).
> Though intro psych textbooks have cut back using this image in
> describing Freudian theory, it continues to pop up in unexpected
> places (e.g., a recent psychology of language textbook).
> 
> (3) I maintain that during the 19th century the "mind as an  iceberg"
> was a popular metaphor but I have difficulty is getting solid references
> for this.  This is partly due to the access and copyright issues mentioned
> earlier.
> 
> (4) Outside of psychology (and even in psychology) there is the view
> that Freud developed the theoretical construct of the unconscious but
> in point of fact the unconscious had been discussed and argued about
> long before Freud showed up.  Indeed, as we shall see, Freud was
> influenced by these discussions and borrowed from them. G. Stanley
> Hall in his 1912 "Founders of Modern Psychology" describes how
> Fechner's conception of the mind-soul (since he believed in the mind
> as an extension of the soul) was based on the iceberg metaphor.
> Quoting Hall:
> 
> |To Fechner the soul was not unlike an iceberg which
> |is eight-ninths under the water's surface or threshold out
> |in a denser and darker medium, but the tides of which,
> |and not the wind above, determine its course, often in the
> |teeth of a gale. He measured what was above this threshold
> |only in order to draw inferences concerning what
> |was below it, but here this figure limps, for when the top
> |of the iceberg melts off the bottom of it does not go on
> |and down into the pelagic depths, nor does it become a
> |diffusive power.(page 171).
> 
> I do not know where Hall got the idea that Fechner's model
> of 

Re: [tips] The "Zombie" Scientific Literature And Its Effects on Science

[Christopher Green]

To sort this all out I think you need to distinguish among various potential 
meanings of "unconscious". 

First, there is something simply being not conscious like, say, your heart 
beating. 

Second, there is something that is not conscious at the moment, but can be 
easily retrieved, such as the proverbial capital of France. Freud called this 
"preconscious." 

Third, there is something that is potentially conscious but very difficult to 
retrieve into consciousness. Freud thought this phenomenon might be caused by 
things like repression. 

The borderline between the second and third forms of unconsciousness is, of 
course, highly contested. For instance, when is something truly "repressed" (if 
ever) and when is it simply subject to ordinary memory "interference"? 

I am no Herbart expert, to be sure, but my understanding is that the portion of 
the apperceptive mass not currently in consciousness was thought to be, in 
Freud's terms, preconscious. It could normally be retrieved easily if needed. 
As for Fechner, if he used the iceberg metaphor, I think he used it for 
psychophysical situations in which the stimulus had simply not reached 
perceptual threshold. That is, it is simply not conscious; it is not 
unconscious in the sense of being retrievable to consciousness.

I'll be interested to hear your responses to this.

Best,
Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca

> On May 2, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Mike Palij  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 02 May 2016 08:16:58 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:
>>> I think that the "Freudian Iceberg" falls into this category and
>>> though this has been corrected to some degree, there still
>>> is no single source that points out the problems with this
>>> conception.
>> 
>> I didn't write an article about the Freudian iceberg. However,
>> in an article that I wrote about Stanley Hall's relationship with
>> Ernst Haeckel last year, I did include a paragraph pointing out
>> that the iceberg metaphor for the unconscious mind appeared
>> (perhaps first) in an 1898 article by Hall.
>> 
>> Hall's orignal article was:
>> Hall, G. S. (1898). Some aspects of the early sense of self.
>> American Journal of Psychology, 9, 351-395.
>> 
>> My mention of it appeared in:
>> Green, C. D. (2015). Hall's developmental theory and Haeckel's
>> recapitulationism. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
>> 12, 656-665.
> 
> There are several issues that have to be considered with respect to
> the Freudian iceberg:
> 
> (1) My own experience has been frustrating in tracking down 19th
> century sources and, in some cases, either finding them inaccessible
> or still under copyright (I am continually amazed at what is under
> copyright protection even when it is over 100 years old and no longer
> in print -- who holds the copyright?).  My limitations in reading German
> has also been a problem (AI's promise of language translation is
> still just a dream).  I have my own opinions about the Freudian
> iceberg and I'll briefly review them here.
> 
> (2) I think that there is consensus that Freud never explicitly used the
> iceberg metaphor even though many of the people who have either
> talked about Freud in the popular media (e.g., Freud's obituary in the
> NY Times where the metaphor is presented and implicitly linked to
> Freud) and in psychology textbooks (Ken Steele found images of
> the overall "shape" of the mind in Freud sources dated 1923 and 1933,
> neither of which are icebergs but the image from Healy et al 1930 is
> closer to an iceberg, and Ruch & Zimbardo's Psychology and Life 7th
> has the Healy image but in subsequent editions it becomes an
> iceberg -- Zimbardo claims to have come up with the iceberg idea).
> Subsequent intro psych textbooks "borrowed" this image/concept
> and elaborated upon it while giving bogus references for sources).
> Though intro psych textbooks have cut back using this image in
> describing Freudian theory, it continues to pop up in unexpected
> places (e.g., a recent psychology of language textbook).
> 
> (3) I maintain that during the 19th century the "mind as an  iceberg"
> was a popular metaphor but I have difficulty is getting solid references
> for this.  This is partly due to the access and copyright issues mentioned
> earlier.
> 
> (4) Outside of psychology (and even in psychology) there is the view
> that Freud developed the theoretical construct of the unconscious but
> in point of fact the unconscious had been discussed and argued about
> long before Freud showed up.  Indeed, as we shall see, Freud was
> influenced by these discussions and borrowed from them. G. Stanley
> Hall in his 1912 "Founders of Modern Psychology" describes how
> Fechner's conception of the mind-soul (since he believed in the mind
> as an extension of the soul) was based on the iceberg metaphor.
> Quoting Hall:
> 
> 

Re: [tips] The "Zombie" Scientific Literature And Its Effects on Science

[Christopher Green]

On May 2, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:

> I think that the "Freudian Iceberg" falls into this category and
> though this has been corrected to some degree, there still
> is no single source that points out the problems with this
> conception.
> 

I didn’t write an article about the Freudian iceberg. However, in an article 
that I wrote about Stanley Hall’s relationship with Ernst Haeckel last year, I 
did include a paragraph pointing out that the iceberg metaphor for the 
unconscious mind appeared (perhaps first) in an 1898 article by Hall. 

Hall’s orignal article was: 
Hall, G. S. (1898). Some aspects of the early sense of self. American Journal 
of Psychology, 9, 351–395.

My mention of it appeared in: 
Green, C. D. (2015). Hall’s developmental theory and Haeckel’s 
recapitulationism. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 656-665. 

Best,
…..
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773895°, -79.503670°

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
...

Chris


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=48652
or send a blank email to 
leave-48652-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Psychology's problems

[Gerald Peterson]

Ran across this article making the social media pages. Some good points, but 
there are many issues and takes on the replication and methodological issues 
that might be more insightful. I am wondering about any historical analyses 
that are being written?
Also, are tipsters covering these issues in class?
See: https://issuu.com/thepsychologist/docs/psy0516shop/c/spjbzw2


 
G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D
Psychology@SVSU


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=48651
or send a blank email to 
leave-48651-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] The "Zombie" Scientific Literature And Its Effects on Science

[Mike Palij]

The Scientist website has an article that focuses
on the problem of "zombie" scientific literature, that is,
articles that do NOT represent fraud or misconduct but
contain errors -- often very important ones -- that are
not being handled correctly (e.g., retraction, links to
corrections, post-publication reviews, etc.).  You can
read it here:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45868/title/The-Zombie-Literature/_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016_source=hs_email_medium=email_content=29139068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8k1gouELk4_XikuZRftXSRB8MiqXwG_xq5-Bj45TO9yrKWgJVv7L4GCEib9qsekXFByloj20ASd1OIi-WMgMcM-Ki2gQ&_hsmi=29139068

One particular situation involves Svante Pääbo who as a
graduate student extracted human DNA from a 2,400 year
old Egyptian mummy (a child).  His successful extraction
and analysis of the DNA helped to spur the development
of the field of ancient DNA analysis -- you couldn't have
the Jurassic Park movies without this development.

There is only one problem with Paabo's research:  the
DNA he analyzed was not from a mummified child but
was from a present day human whose cells had contaminated
the sample being analyzed.

Ooops!

So, how does one deal with a situation like this, that is,
given its role as a "foundational" paper for the field, do
you retract it?  Paabo mentioned the error in passing
in a later paper but there are no other indications that the
research is not what it seems.  Do we need new models
to connect scientific literature to critical evaluation mechanism
that are being set up (the article review a few of these)
or should we just let it be?

I think that the "Freudian Iceberg" falls into this category and
though this has been corrected to some degree, there still
is no single source that points out the problems with this
conception.

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


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=48649
or send a blank email to 
leave-48649-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu