Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
The passage is actually, when you pull on it, it gets longer, and the comparison was to Hooke's Law, not explicitly to Newton. It does appear in Cohen's The Earth is Round (p.05)” (p. 1001, first column), but Cohen was actually quoting a 1969 American Psychologist article by John Tukey. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Cohen1.pdf Best, Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote: I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- Original Message On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:28:21 -0800, Christopher Green wrote: Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=33624 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33624-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33639 or send a blank email to leave-33639-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 05:56:22 -0800, Christopher Green wrote: The passage is actually, when you pull on it, it gets longer, and the comparison was to Hooke's Law, not explicitly to Newton. It does appear in Cohen's The Earth is Round (p.05) (p. 1001, first column), but Cohen was actually quoting a 1969 American Psychologist article by John Tukey. This is my third attempt at a response but the previous ones just went on too long and probably would not be of interest to most people so a couple of points: (1) In my opinion, Feynman takes cheap shots at easy targets in psychology. I know of no instance when he used psychological research in psychophysics, psychoacoustics, mathematical modeling of behavior/learning/cognition/etc, and similar areas. As far as I know, Feynman was not a scholar of psychology, so his familiarity with it will tend to be shallow and superficial. He probably did not know that there was a Society for Mathematical Psychology and Journal of Mathematical Psychology. He was probably unaware of NYU's Lloyd Kaufman's work with the physicist Sam Williamson on using magnetic imaging of brain/cognitive function (before fMRI and other neuroimaging techniques became popular). He was probably unaware that Geoff Iverson, a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Adelaide came to NYU to work with Jean-Claude Falmagne on issues in psychophysics and measurement theory, and obtained a PhD in experimental psychology at NYU (a condition I refer to as multiple dissertation disorder) -- both Geoff and Jean-Claude are now at the University of California-Irvine in their Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences; see: http://www.imbs.uci.edu/imbs_faculty For background on Jean-Claude, see his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Falmagne I doubt that Feynman knew of any of the sophisticated mathematical psychologists so I think that one should be cautious in taking what he has to say about psychology too seriously. (2) When George Sperling was at NYU (he's now at UC-Irvine), there was a probably apocryphal story that he said in reference to NYU's psychology department: They don't do science below the 8th floor (NYU's psychology building is ten stories tall and the experimental/physiological had occupied the 8-10th floor in the last third of the 20th century; circa 1990 the physiological psychologists migrated to NYU's Center for Neural Science which have some of NYU's current crop of math psychologists as co-faculty; social, clinical, and community psychology occupied the floors below the 8th). Now, George was a math psychologist who seemed disdained the rest of psychology (it is rumored that his parents were both psychoanalysts and he learned his disdain early but this too may be apocryphal) and when I audited a graduate course he taught while I was pre-doc fellow at NYU one year, I was completely lost in most of what he covered, especially linear operator theory (for an example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_%28mathematics%29#Linear_operators ). I didn't feel too badly about not understanding because (a) I was just a visiting fellow, and (b) none of the other graduate students seem to understand it either (another possibly apocryphal story is that George said in a faculty meeting that the students in this class had to be the dumbest students he ever taught). One has to wonder what a conversation between Feynman and George Sperling or Jean-Claude Falmagne or Geoff Iverson or Roger Shepard or Robyn Dawes or other mathematical psychologists would be like. Would he dismiss them as well because, well, they're psychologists? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu P.S. Jack Cohen's office was on the 5th floor and I believe that he was unaffiliated, that is, did not below to any particular program area in the psychology department. I believe that he did not have much interaction with the folks on the 8th-10th floor. Graduate students in experimental had to take a year long sequence in math psychology taught by Jean-Claude instead of Jack's year long graduate statistics sequence, at least for the time period 1970-1990. Nonetheless, I have the deepest respect for Jack though in retrospect I think was somewhat weak in some areas (e.g., in understanding of null hypothesis testing; I think most psychologists have a warped understanding of null hypothesis testing, Gerd Gigerenzer notwithstanding, and suggest reading Erich Lehman book on Fisher and Neyman (Egon Pearson actually has a smaller role in the history of statistics); see: http://www.amazon.com/Fisher-Neyman-Creation-Classical-Statistics/dp/1441994998 P.P.S. Jack Cohen got his PhD in clinical psychology at NYU in 1950. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33649 or send a blank email to
[tips] Feynman on Psychology
Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological research. Rick Stevens School of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Louisiana at Monroe On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.comwrote: Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38dn=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33618 or send a blank email to leave-33618-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
Yes, he did appear to be deliberately jabbing Freudian theory, which is understandable, but I can see someone watching this section of the video and concluding from it that because we can't quantify love, psychology is ipso facto not a science. How would we defend psychology to Feynman (if he were still alive of course)? We could have acquainted him with behavioral methods of studying humans, which does allow for quantification, but how would we justify to him that we can study emotions? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Rick Stevens stevens.r...@gmail.com wrote: It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological research. Rick Stevens School of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Louisiana at Monroe On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38dn=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69n=Tl=tipso=33618 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33618-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33620 or send a blank email to leave-33620-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Yes, he did appear to be deliberately jabbing Freudian theory, which is understandable, but I can see someone watching this section of the video and concluding from it that because we can't quantify love, psychology is ipso facto not a science. How would we defend psychology to Feynman (if he were still alive of course)? We could have acquainted him with behavioral methods of studying humans, which does allow for quantification, but how would we justify to him that we can study emotions? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Rick Stevens stevens.r...@gmail.com wrote: It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological research. Rick Stevens School of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Louisiana at Monroe On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38dn=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69n=Tl=tipso=33618 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33618-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=33620 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33620-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here:
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- Original Message On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:28:21 -0800, Christopher Green wrote: Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33624 or send a blank email to leave-33624-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology - ERROR IN COMMENT
I had a momentary psychotic break with reality and left *NOT* in one of the sentences I wrote. Below is the corrected text. Apologies to Chris and anyone else. On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:43:34 -0800, Mike Palij wrote: I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm *NOT* challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33627 or send a blank email to leave-33627-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
Hi Just to pick up on a few points in this thread. Of course we know as psychologists that few concepts have nice, tidy definitions (i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions) and that prototypical models of concepts like science (and dog and chair and ...) are the norm. But that doesn't mean we cannot distinguish science from non-science or pseudoscience, just as we generally do not go around sitting on dogs and taking chairs for walks, or at least not until our later years. Feynman's allusion to love is misguided since many concepts studied now by scientists in very precise ways were once only vaguely defined ... think temperature. Were the early researchers studying temperature, crudely defined (that feels hotter than it did before we ...), not doing science? I think psychology (or at least certain areas within psychology) does fairly well on certain aspects of science, notably with respect to testing hypotheses against observation, with careful attention to threats to the validity of our observations and inferences. I think we do less well in many areas with respect to specifying mechanistic models for our hypotheses and theoretical models. As we grow better at this aspect of science, psychology will become better able to see similarities and differences between macro-theories and in the process more of a unified discipline. And just to be clear, mechanistic models can be in terms of psychological constructs, not necessarily brain processes, although it should be somewhat clear that they might ultimately be realized in a biological system. Take care Jim Jim Clark Professor Chair of Psychology U Winnipeg Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax From: Christopher Green [chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: January-28-14 4:28 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Yes, he did appear to be deliberately jabbing Freudian theory, which is understandable, but I can see someone watching this section of the video and concluding from it that because we can't quantify love, psychology is ipso facto not a science. How would we defend psychology to Feynman (if he were still alive of course)? We could have acquainted him with behavioral methods of studying humans, which does allow for quantification, but how would we justify to him that we can study emotions? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Rick Stevens stevens.r...@gmail.commailto:stevens.r...@gmail.com wrote: It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology - ERROR IN COMMENT
It was in one of his late articles. In American Psychologist, I think. Might it have been in The Earth is Round, p.05”? I'll have to check. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote: I had a momentary psychotic break with reality and left *NOT* in one of the sentences I wrote. Below is the corrected text. Apologies to Chris and anyone else. On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:43:34 -0800, Mike Palij wrote: I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm *NOT* challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=33627 or send a blank email to leave-33627-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33632 or send a blank email to leave-33632-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
