From Henry the VI: "First thing we do, let's kill the lawyers." Won't give the context as that takes all the fun out of it. Joan [email protected]
Pollak, Edward wrote: > I can't believe I'm responding to a Sylvestrian note but here goes: > > PORTER: 'Faith sir, we were carousing till the second cock: and drink, sir, > is a great provoker of three things. > MACDUFF: What three things does drink especially provoke? > PORTER: Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine. > Macbeth, II, iii > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. > Department of Psychology > West Chester University of Pennsylvania > West Chester, PA 19383 > http://home.comcast.net/~epollak > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and > herpetoculturist...... in approximate order of importance. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:02 AM > To: tips digest recipients > Subject: tips digest: April 22, 2009 > > > TIPS Digest for Wednesday, April 22, 2009. > > 1. Re: info: pigeons or rats > 2. My favorite Shakespeare quote > 3. Re: info: pigeons or rats > 4. Re: My favorite Shakespeare quote > 5. Re: My favorite Shakespeare quote > 6. Re: info: pigeons or rats > 7. Re: info: pigeons or rats > 8. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 9. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 10. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 11. Schools for research in -uality > 12. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 13. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 14. Mental set example > 15. Re: Schools for research in -uality > 16. Re: Schools for research in -uality > 17. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 18. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 19. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 20. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 21. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 22. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 23. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 24. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 25. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 26. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 27. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 28. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > 29. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 30. RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > 31. Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: info: pigeons or rats > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:00:31 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 1 > > > > I remember having to dust the pigeons for mites--put them in a paper bag > with Sevin powder, shake it around a little, and hold my breath. It's no > wonder I developed asthma. > > Carol > > Hey: just imagine if you had develeloped Shake and Bake pigeon line of > food you would have been a millionaire by now. > Michael Sylvester,PhD > Daytona Beach,Florida > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: My favorite Shakespeare quote > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:17:16 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 2 > > In honor of Shakespeare's birthday or something like that, the mayor of > Chicago has asked everyone to honor Shakespeare by quoting him in their > public interactions.Maybe tipsters may want to fill us in on some quotes. > Here is mine: > > ET TU BRUTE (not sure of the punctuation after that:! or ?) > > and do not forget to show its relevance to psychology as required by Bill. > > Michael Sylvester,PhD > Daytona Beach,Florida > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: info: pigeons or rats > From: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:30:55 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 3 > > On 21 Apr 2009 at 17:24, Ken Steele wrote: > > >> I have had a few rats that have produced very high response >> rates. In one case, the rat was grabbing the bar with its teeth >> and shaking the bar like it had caught a prey. >> > > Of course if you want _really_ high rates, you have to selectively > reinforce for them (progressively targeting shorter inter-response > times). > > I've heard that you can get a pigeon to peck fast enough that way to melt > its beak, undoubtedly an exaggeration, and fortunately, because the PETA > people would be rather put out if it were true. > > Ken also said, in another post: > > >> Many people who work with rats for a long time develop various >> kinds of allergic reactions to the rats. >> > > Doesn't have to be long. And it can be rabbits too. I offer myself as a > prime example of a victim of both. Arriving in graduate school I was > assigned a desk...a few feet from a rack of cages full of rats. Not > having been warned about this nasty consequence, and never having > experienced an allergy before, it took me a long time to catch on. In the > meantime I wondered why my nose was always running, my itchy eyes bulged > out from rubbing them, I had coughing fits, and my lungs gurgled when I > breathed. Finally, one day after running out of the lab feeling I was > either having a heart attack or suffocating, it dawned on me. > > I dealt with it mostly by taking anti-histamines, which only partially > worked and left me feeling spaced-out. Protective clothing and a mask > were hot and uncomfortable, and I don't even want to talk about sneezing > into your mask while doing stereotaxic surgery. Looking back, I'd have to > say it was a dangerous thing to do, and I'd advise anyone with a similar > problem nowadays to switch to human research. > > But when I get the allergy question from doctors, I enjoy telling them, > yes, to rats. This puzzles 'em. > > Stephen > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > > Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of > psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: My favorite Shakespeare quote > From: "Maxwell Gwynn" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:31:25 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 4 > > > Here is a Shakespeare quote/passage relevant to social influence topics: > > Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? > Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. > Hamlet:: Methinks it is like a weasel. > Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. > Hamlet: Or like a whale? > Polonius: Very like a whale. > > -Max Gwynn > > > Maxwell Gwynn, PhD > Psychology Department > Wilfrid Laurier University > 519-884-0710 ext 3854 > [email protected] > >>>> [email protected]> 4/21/2009 2:17 AM >> >>>> > > In honor of Shakespeare's birthday or something like that, the mayor of > Chicago has asked everyone to honor Shakespeare by quoting him in their > public interactions.Maybe tipsters may want to fill us in on some quotes. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: My favorite Shakespeare quote > From: Jim Dougan <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:11:41 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 5 > > "A devil, born devil, on whose nature nurture can never stick" > > Prospero, referring to Caliban; The Tempest, Act IV, Scene I, lines 211-212 > > > > If not the first certainly one of the first uses of "nature" in > opposition to "nurture." > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: info: pigeons or rats > From: Ken Steele <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:08:05 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 6 > > [email protected] wrote: > >> Of course if you want _really_ high rates, you have to selectively >> reinforce for them (progressively targeting shorter inter-response >> times). >> >> I've heard that you can get a pigeon to peck fast enough that way to melt >> its beak, undoubtedly an exaggeration, and fortunately, because the PETA >> people would be rather put out if it were true. >> >> > > Melting beaks sounds like an urban legend but I lost one pigeon > from a study using VR schedules. The bird was pecking so fast > and hard that it split its beak. > > The bird was fine after a few weeks of R & R. > > Ken > > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. >> Professor of Psychology, Emeritus >> Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] >> 2600 College St. >> Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 >> Canada >> >> Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of >> psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [email protected] > Professor and Assistant Chairperson > Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: info: pigeons or rats > From: Paul Brandon <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:49:37 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 7 > > Which is not difficult. > A fixed ratio contingency selectively reinforcers high rates (the > faster the subject responds, the sooner it gets reinforced), so > that's where we usually see high rates. > It's also easy to more specifically shape rates -- requiring (as > Stephen said) shorter and shorter inter-response times for > reinforcement. > I had students doing this in cases where they had trouble building > high ratios with rats. Usually had them reinforce first two > responses with less than a one second IRT, then three.... when they > got up to five they almost always had a high overall rate, with the > usual topographic shift, > And back when I was investigating the effects of ethanol on behavior > I shaped rats on a reaction time task; requiring successively short > latencies after a stimulus presentation for reinforcement. > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > >> On 21 Apr 2009 at 17:24, Ken Steele wrote: >> >> >>> I have had a few rats that have produced very high response >>> rates. In one case, the rat was grabbing the bar with its teeth >>> and shaking the bar like it had caught a prey. >>> > > I've also observed this -- a classic case of an existing genetically > determined behavior being co-opted by reinforcement contingencies and > becoming an operant. > > I also found it typical on ratio schedules for rats to put one paw > above the lever and one below it and flutter the lever faster than a > simple gravity return. Again, the effect of the ratio contingency; > not explicit shaping. > > The weirdest lever pressing topography I ever had was a rat who > learned to press a lever by sitting on it! > > >> Of course if you want _really_ high rates, you have to selectively >> reinforce for them (progressively targeting shorter inter-response >> times). >> >> I've heard that you can get a pigeon to peck fast enough that way >> to melt >> its beak, undoubtedly an exaggeration, and fortunately, because the >> PETA >> people would be rather put out if it were true. >> >> Ken also said, in another post: >> >> >>> Many people who work with rats for a long time develop various >>> kinds of allergic reactions to the rats. >>> >> Doesn't have to be long. And it can be rabbits too. I offer myself >> as a >> prime example of a victim of both. Arriving in graduate school I was >> assigned a desk...a few feet from a rack of cages full of rats. Not >> having been warned about this nasty consequence, and never having >> experienced an allergy before, it took me a long time to catch on. >> In the >> meantime I wondered why my nose was always running, my itchy eyes >> bulged >> out from rubbing them, I had coughing fits, and my lungs gurgled >> when I >> breathed. Finally, one day after running out of the lab feeling I was >> either having a heart attack or suffocating, it dawned on me. >> >> I dealt with it mostly by taking anti-histamines, which only partially >> worked and left me feeling spaced-out. Protective clothing and a mask >> were hot and uncomfortable, and I don't even want to talk about >> sneezing >> into your mask while doing stereotaxic surgery. Looking back, I'd >> have to >> say it was a dangerous thing to do, and I'd advise anyone with a >> similar >> problem nowadays to switch to human research. >> >> But when I get the allergy question from doctors, I enjoy telling >> them, >> yes, to rats. This puzzles 'em. >> > > Paul Brandon > Emeritus Professor of Psychology > Minnesota State University, Mankato > [email protected] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:31:03 -0600 > X-Message-Number: 8 > > I personally have no problem with psych students who want to be clinicians > not being interested in the "science of psychology". > > I always find it funny that the science types are sooo concerned that > everyone should take science very seriously. > Are the authors EQUALLY concerned about the state and training of the > empirical psychologists' human empathy and social interaction skills? I bet > not. > > And if what the authors are saying is true, how come there arnt oodles of > positions available for empirical psychologists? :) > > --Mike > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: RE: Relevance of science to psych work? > From: Rick Froman <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:42:42 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 9 > > There is no accounting for interest and I am sure those interested in > clinical and counseling work will not be as excited about research as those > who are interested in learning about people and why they act the way they do. > However, interested or not, understanding of the science of psychology is an > important prerequisite to being a psychological clinician. As to Mike's > equivalency: Research psychologists do not need training in human empathy and > social interaction to do their jobs. Clinical and counseling psychologists > need to use empirical research to inform their practice or they are no more > than entrepreneurs selling snake oil. If your practice is not based on > empirically-based methods, I think you shouldn't call yourself a > psychologist. There are a number of names you can use for yourself that would > not imply that there is an empirical basis to favor your techniques over > anyone else's. > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman, Chair > Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 > x7295 > [email protected] > http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman > > Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives > thought to his steps." > > From: Michael Smith [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:31 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] Relevance of science to psych work? > > I personally have no problem with psych students who want to be clinicians > not being interested in the "science of psychology". > > I always find it funny that the science types are sooo concerned that > everyone should take science very seriously. > Are the authors EQUALLY concerned about the state and training of the > empirical psychologists' human empathy and social interaction skills? I bet > not. > > And if what the authors are saying is true, how come there arnt oodles of > positions available for empirical psychologists? :) > > --Mike > > --- > > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > From: "Gerald Peterson" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:47:52 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 10 > > Thanks Mike, I don't agree with your view entirely, but my point also was > that the authors are forgetting that many psychologists are not > scientifically oriented and that the field is divided (after all such > dispositions are supposedly stable personality traits). While I feel that > clinical and social workers DO need to know and use the findings of > psychological science, like you, I do not feel they need to be scientists but > might better pursue training as an applied professional outside of the > confines of academic or science-based psychology. But then, I am just > exploring ideas and thought the authors should have been more innovative in > their suggestions. Gary > > >>>> Michael Smith <[email protected]> 4/22/2009 12:31 PM >>> >>>> > > > I personally have no problem with psych students who want to be clinicians > not being interested in the "science of psychology". > I always find it funny that the science types are sooo concerned that > everyone should take science very seriously. > Are the authors EQUALLY concerned about the state and training of the > empirical psychologists' human empathy and social interaction skills? I bet > not. > And if what the authors are saying is true, how come there arnt oodles of > positions available for empirical psychologists? :) > --Mike > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Schools for research in -uality > From: Beth Benoit <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:01:31 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 11 > > I entitled the subject for this post (and the word below) because I didn't > want it to get dumped into everybody's spam bin. > I have a student in my Human __uality course who's interested in grad. > school for research in that area. I've tried to help her find some schools, > and have had some luck (Widener seems to be at the top of the heap), but > wonder if anyone else has any recommendations. > > Beth Benoit > Granite State College > Plymouth State University > New Hampshire > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Relevance of science to psych work? > From: "Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D." <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:06:22 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 12 > > Michael Smith wrote: > >> I personally have no problem with psych students who want to be >> clinicians not being interested in the "science of psychology". >> >> I always find it funny that the science types are sooo concerned that >> everyone should take science very seriously. >> Are the authors EQUALLY concerned about the state and training of the >> empirical psychologists' human empathy and social interaction skills? >> I bet not. >> >> And if what the authors are saying is true, how come there arnt oodles >> of positions available for empirical psychologists? :) >> >> > > Dear Colleagues, > > By way of an analogy, I'm not really concerned whether medical > researchers have a great deal of empathy or social interaction skills. > These are skills I do value in my doctor. Nonetheless, I very much want > my physician/surgeon to be grounded in the science of medicine. I would > similarly hope that medical students also care about science. > > Clinical work is more than social interaction and empathy. If that was > all that was required, we would just need a few good friends. Clinical > work should be grounded in empirically valid and culturally appropriate > practice. This represents many challenges, in part, as we are still > learning so much particularly in relation to biological and > multicultural influences. Nonetheless, the APA Ethics Code 2.04 Bases > for Scientific and Professional Judgments is quite > clear--"Psychologists' work is based upon established scientific and > professional knowledge of the discipline." For students to not care > about the science of psychology suggests that they do not understand > psychology or the skills/knowledge needed related to clinical practice. > > In terms of science-related psychology positions, there are many > positions within business, government, law, industry, NASA, etc. The > /Monitor/ has had several articles highlighting science careers outside > of academia (e.g., see http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/careers.html > and http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb01/careerpath.html ). The APA Science > Directorate has an interesting page illustrating several career options > - http://www.apa.org/science/nonacad_careers.html . > > Best wishes, > > Linda > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
