On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 21:20:58 -0800 Gary Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, I saw this in the paper also. Is there something new about
> this? I thought this was one of the standard explanations--quite a few
> years old. Perhaps some S&P folks can enlighten us as to what's new about
> this? Is it really considered the most efficient explanation? Gary
> Peterson
>
>
This sounds like a standard answer to me. I would be interested
in hearing whether there is a new twist.
Ken
----------------------
Kenneth M. Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Associate Professor
Dept. of Psychology
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
