Science and the Human Psyche. Was Re: Tagliness on Skeptics( I think)
ZenRaptor
Hi Leslie,
I lost the original thread but I remember your critique and
question. First of all, yes, "science" does not make claims the way a
person does, by uttering a verbal statement in the affirmative. I don't
think I said that. In any case, I apoligize for not using more precise
language.
What I meant, was that there are those who try to evoke the
scientific literature and the body of psyche research when they make
claims about knowing what makes people tick. Sure, this is probably
feasible when you are giving descriptions of cognition, memory, and
behavior. But it is harder to do if you are trying to make claims about
emotions, and motivation. It is particularly difficult(if not
impossible), when you are attempting to make claims about
psychodynamic(unconscious) processes or spiritial meaning.
I don't think I was refering to any particular historical
figure(although I think Skinner made some statements--have to look it
up.) Rather, I was referring to contemporaries, who beyond exluding
anything other than "scientific" models when describing human
psychology, rigidly adhere to deterministic cause and effect
explanations of how the mind works.
As far as James quote, I am glad it served some purpose. Although,
I never envisioned it having the use you say it did. I will state
again, that my use of James quote was more in a philosophical context to
show the response he gave to religious reactionaries. Some skeptics
don't just innocently look for "truth" in error.
I did find someone's(I can't remember who--maybe John Price) post
regarding the importance of one brain funcion over another extremely
humorous. Its easy to see how a part of the brain that is involved in a
cognitive function might have much more importance than one involved in
emotional intuition(although some individuals in Neuropychological
Assessement might say they are both crucial in the overall integration
of personality.) But, putting aside bias created by a distrust of
"religious intuition" when we watch too many bad preachers on tv,
emotional intuition is important in guiding the decisions we make.
Sorry about the late response to the post. I got swamped by
schoolwork and couln't find time to respond quickly
Daniel
"Psychotherapy is about a relationship, not a conversation."
D.C.
Nancy Alvarado
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, ZenRaptor wrote:
>
> What I meant, was that there are those who try to evoke the
> scientific literature and the body of psyche research when they make
> claims about knowing what makes people tick. Sure, this is probably
> feasible when you are giving descriptions of cognition, memory, and
> behavior. But it is harder to do if you are trying to make claims about
> emotions, and motivation. It is particularly difficult(if not
and later wrote:
> I did find someone's(I can't remember who--maybe John Price) post
> regarding the importance of one brain funcion over another extremely
> humorous. Its easy to see how a part of the brain that is involved in a
> cognitive function might have much more importance than one involved in
> emotional intuition(although some individuals in Neuropychological
> Assessement might say they are both crucial in the overall integration
> of personality.) But, putting aside bias created by a distrust of
> "religious intuition" when we watch too many bad preachers on tv,
> emotional intuition is important in guiding the decisions we make.
These comments were made in the context of another thread, but seem to me
to represent a common view -- that reason or cognition are opposite to,
separate from, or different than emotion. This author seems to believe
that emotion or "emotional intuition" cannot be studied using a scientific
approach.
Among scientific psychologists there is a renewed interest in studying
emotion and motivation. Further, one important approach to this study
views emotion and emotional intuition as inseparable from cognition. Some
such researchers believe emotion results from appraisals, which are
themselves cognitions (e.g., Lazarus). Some researchers believe that
emotion is a form of information that is used specifically for making
decisions and choosing actions (e.g., Clore et al.). Other researchers
have been demonstrating that few cognitions (memories, judgments, social
cognitions) take place unaffected by emotion (see Niedenthal & Kitayama's
The Heart's Eye or Sven-Ake Christiansen's Handbook of Emotion & Memory).
Emotion not only can be, but is regularly studied using scientific
methods. The journals "Motivation and Emotion" and "Cognition and Emotion"
both contain articles demonstrating this. The "Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology" regularly includes studies of the impact of emotion on
social processes, attitudes and group behavior.
Emotion is a mental process, just as vision, memory, and problem-solving
are mental processes. The interrelationships between emotion and
physiological response or between emotion and other thought may be
complex, but they are being studied scientifically.
Nancy
Tim McNamara
The central challenge to the scientific study of emotion (or any other
mental process) is the essential privacy of those processes. Thoughts,
emotions, apperceptions, etc. are not externally or directly observable.
Research to date has largely had to rely on either inference or
self-reporting, both techniques which introduce large margins of error.
PET scanning has provided some insight into localized brain functioning
for certain tasks (usually complex tasks such as playing music, reading,
etc), but the results are still open to a great deal of interpretation.
Scientific research, being what it is, will no doubt continue to address
this issue, pushing the technology farther and farther until someday the
brain can be mapped in its bio-electro-chemical completeness. We will
eventually posess a complete, scientific understanding of the functioning
of the human mind and probably be able to definitively redress the
problems of the mind; at the same time we will lose the last bastion of
essential privacy because no part of us will be unknowable. This is truly
a two-edged sword; not only will such knowledge allow us to cure mental
illnesses but it will also allow us to control the minds of others. It
will give us absolute power over the mind, which of course also opens the
door to absolute corruption.
Science has always had the ability to progress faster than the social
controls over the employment of scientific discoveries. Such controls
tend to be either lacking or reactionary and may create problems as large
as those created by the discoveries themselves.
Can emotion be studied scientifically? Yes, someday. The current state
of the science of psychological research is as yet crude and unreliable
(at least compared to other fields of scientific endeavor such as
chemistry, engineering, computer science and some aspects of medicine).
Someday this will not be true- perhaps EEGs will become sophisticated
enough to actually interpret brain activity into content, for example,
including emotional content. *Should* emotion be studied scientifically?
It is a moot point, because it *will* be. We should be prepared to deal
with the ramifications of that research.
Just my musings, perhaps worth 2 cents and perhaps not.
Tim
--
You who choose to lead must follow,
but if you fall you will fall alone.
-Robert Hunter
Nancy Alvarado
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Tim McNamara wrote:
> essential privacy because no part of us will be unknowable. This is truly
> a two-edged sword; not only will such knowledge allow us to cure mental
> illnesses but it will also allow us to control the minds of others. It
> will give us absolute power over the mind, which of course also opens the
> door to absolute corruption.
I'm not sure this is necessarily so. Because something can be known does
not imply it can be controlled. This was the error the behaviorists made.
Studying how an earthquake occurs does not enable us to prevent it -- same
with the weather and other complex systems. If someone evil wishes to
control the behavior of others, there are much simpler ways than through
trying to control the mind. In order to control the mind someone would
need to already have control over everything that influences it -- in
other words someone would already have control over so much that
controlling the mind would be gratuitous.
Illnesses might be cured because they result from simpler causes than does
the whole of human mental functioning. But knowing how to affect something
does not mean we will be permitted to do it. For example, we already
understand the impact of certain types of child-rearing practices on child
development yet are not able to intervene systematically in the lives of
children due to limitations placed on such intervention by our society
(including both customs and laws). From medicine we know a lot more about
how to kill people as well as how to cure them -- yet we do not have an
increase in murder as a result of that knowledge. Killing people is not
the goal of medicine, nor does medicine remove the societal and personal
restraints against murder. Similarly psychology may teach us how people
function mentally, but controlling them with this knowledge is not the
goal of understanding, nor does such control become permissible in our
society simply because we understand more about the mind.
Also, all mental processes are essentially private, not just emotional
ones. Inferring the action of the mind from behavior, self-report, or
technology such as brain imaging does nothing to diminish the quality of
that personal experience. For example, by understanding what one does in
order to produce language, we do not diminish the beauty of literature nor
eliminate the necessity of words in our everyday lives.
Nancy
Rolf Marvin B|e Lindgren
[Nancy Alvarado]
| Emotion not only can be, but is regularly studied using scientific
| methods. The journals "Motivation and Emotion" and "Cognition and Emotion"
| both contain articles demonstrating this. The "Journal of Personality and
| Social Psychology" regularly includes studies of the impact of emotion on
| social processes, attitudes and group behavior.
wether «emotions» can be studied scientifically or not depends
(obviously) on what one means by emotions, and how far one is willing to
go.
I for one would like to study such things as motivation, how emotions
arise, the importance of emotions in creating contingences of
reinforcements, self-report of states of emotions, the relation between
emotions and the unconscious, etc. there's a lot of interesting work
left to be done.
but I think the people who believe emotions cannot be studied
scientifically perhaps aren't satisfied unless a science of emotions can
tell _me_ what it's like to be Nancy Alvarado. and I don't think
that'll be possible for a while yet.
--
Rolf Lindgren, not a Ph.D | "The opinions expressed above are
Sofienberggt. 13b | not necessarily those of anyone"
N-0551 OSLO | ro...@ask.uio.no
Cognitee
Dear Tim,
Emotions are among the easier phenomenon to study. They ARE often
expressed !! Paul Ekman has done subtle emotion discrimanation studies
and studies of emotional expression for years. His techniques are largely
observational (ethological) and are VERY successful.
The "difficulties" here (as usual) are largely fictional or figments of
peoples' imaginations.
In article <timmcn-0202...@dialup-255.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
(Tim McNamara) wrote:
> The central challenge to the scientific study of emotion (or any other
> mental process) is the essential privacy of those processes. Thoughts,
> emotions, apperceptions, etc. are not externally or directly observable.
> Research to date has largely had to rely on either inference or
> self-reporting, both techniques which introduce large margins of error.
> PET scanning has provided some insight into localized brain functioning
> for certain tasks (usually complex tasks such as playing music, reading,
> etc), but the results are still open to a great deal of interpretation.
>
> Scientific research, being what it is, will no doubt continue to address
> this issue, pushing the technology farther and farther until someday the
> brain can be mapped in its bio-electro-chemical completeness. We will
> eventually posess a complete, scientific understanding of the functioning
> of the human mind and probably be able to definitively redress the
> problems of the mind; at the same time we will lose the last bastion of
> essential privacy because no part of us will be unknowable. This is truly
> a two-edged sword; not only will such knowledge allow us to cure mental
> illnesses but it will also allow us to control the minds of others. It
> will give us absolute power over the mind, which of course also opens the
> door to absolute corruption.
>
Nancy Alvarado
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> Dear Tim,
> Emotions are among the easier phenomenon to study. They ARE often
> expressed !! Paul Ekman has done subtle emotion discrimanation studies
> and studies of emotional expression for years. His techniques are largely
> observational (ethological) and are VERY successful.
> The "difficulties" here (as usual) are largely fictional or figments of
> peoples' imaginations.
The difficulties occur because observational studies of emotion-related
facial expression do not correspond in a straightforward manner to other
measures, including self-report and physiological measures (heart-rate,
blood pressure, galvanic skin response). There are extreme individual
differences in facial expressivity, self-reported response to the same
stimulus, and physiological response to that stimulus. Plenty of people
show response on one of these measures while not showing or reporting
response on the other(s). This lack of correspondence is a problem because
no particular type of measurement has privileged status as a "gold
standard" for measuring emotion.
Paul Ekman would be among the first to admit that facial expression is not
such a "gold standard" (these may be his words -- don't remember) -- he is
well aware of the limitations of facial expression as a direct read-out of
emotional response. His theorizing about display rules (social and
cultural expectations for expression of emotion) and deception are an
approach to understanding why people vary so widely in facial behavior.
Nancy
Cognitee
DAH, Nancy,
People misunderstand their own emotions and falsely report (on
subjective self-reports). That's the trouble. This is unless they are
being purposefully deceptive (or are habitually so). MUCH OF THE RELIABLE
MEASURABLE BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES ARE SUBTLE AND NOT
FAKEABLE.
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970204...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Hi, Daniel...
I see that one of your points has been taken up elsewhere in the
thread on studying emotion.
You never know what you can start in this newsgroup with just one
casual observation or comment! <s>
Where are you going to school, btw? (You mentioned being swamped with
schoolwork)
ZenRaptor <kwisatz_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Hi Leslie,
>
<snip>
>
> What I meant, was that there are those who try to evoke the
>scientific literature and the body of psyche research when they make
>claims about knowing what makes people tick. Sure, this is probably
>feasible when you are giving descriptions of cognition, memory, and
>behavior. But it is harder to do if you are trying to make claims about
>emotions, and motivation. It is particularly difficult(if not
>impossible), when you are attempting to make claims about
>psychodynamic(unconscious) processes or spiritial meaning.
>
<rest snipped>
Leslie
---
(Today's sigfile is in honor Dr. Price, who has patiently been
trying to help me deal with multitudinous 'puter problems):
"All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a
reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. "
- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
John Clark
In article <xx571479-050...@cnc04771.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <xx57...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>DAH, Nancy,
> People misunderstand their own emotions and falsely report (on
>subjective self-reports). That's the trouble. This is unless they are
>being purposefully deceptive (or are habitually so). MUCH OF THE RELIABLE
Many cultures support the masking of emotions, or giving missleading ques.
Of course perhaps you use an E-meter... a well known piece of equipment
used by a widely spread group of students of science.
Nancy Alvarado
Yes, but Brad, that doesn't explain why the facial expressions and
physiological measurements are frequently not in accord.
Nancy
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> DAH, Nancy,
> People misunderstand their own emotions and falsely report (on
> subjective self-reports). That's the trouble. This is unless they are
> being purposefully deceptive (or are habitually so). MUCH OF THE RELIABLE
ZenRaptor
Junior Undergrad student at UCLA.
"And then I met you... and then The Fog Lifted"
Suicidal person suffering from MPD and Psychogenic Fugue states to a
person she fell in love with. ---- From some bad Bruce Willis
movie(except for the last ten minutes which were amazing.) where he
plays a Psychologist.
Cognitee
P.S. While one can fake EMOTIONS, it is then THAT emotion that is faked
(and displayed). It is reliably identified to be what it is.
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970206...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Cognitee
Some facial responses ALONE appear to be reliably associated with emotion
when one of the BASIC emotions IS EXPRESSED. This is not fakeable.
Cognitee
P.P.S. Nancy,
Ekman, doing work on the theory of S. Tomkins, even finds that when one
fakes an expression of an emotion THAT tends to create other aspects of
the whole emotional experience (including, to some extent the psysiology
of THAT emotion). There is, in short, some evidence for a facial feedback
theory of how we come to experience emotions. We may IN PART (or at
times) experience an emotion after it is expressed.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
ZenRaptor <kwisatz_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Junior Undergrad student at UCLA.
Another left-coaster, eh? I'm so sorry <g>. What was it Frank Lloyd
Wright said -- that if you turned the world on its side, everything
loose would fall out in LA? <G>
>
>
>
>
>
>"And then I met you... and then The Fog Lifted"
>
>Suicidal person suffering from MPD and Psychogenic Fugue states to a
>person she fell in love with. ---- From some bad Bruce Willis
>movie(except for the last ten minutes which were amazing.) where he
>plays a Psychologist.
<groaning> Don't we have enough trouble already, Daniel? <g>
Leslie
---
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents."
-- Nathaniel Borenstein
Nancy Alvarado
Yes, some facial expressions signify a certain specific basic emotion when
that expression is present, but the emotion can also occur without the
expression being present, or when some other expression is present.
These basic facial expressions can be voluntarily posed (i.e., faked) by
some people (not all people) but there are subtle differences between the
posed expressions and the sponaneous ones. The subtle differences can be
detected by some subjects (not all) during judgment studies. However, the
literature seems to be saying that even though they can detect the
differences, most people do not attend to such sutble distinctions during
day-to-day activities, when there is a lot more going on and they must
respond to and reason with interpretations of facial expressions for other
purposes.
This is complex stuff.
Nancy
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> Some facial responses ALONE appear to be reliably associated with emotion
> when one of the BASIC emotions IS EXPRESSED. This is not fakeable.
>
> In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970206...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> P.P.S. Nancy,
> Ekman, doing work on the theory of S. Tomkins, even finds that when one
> fakes an expression of an emotion THAT tends to create other aspects of
> the whole emotional experience (including, to some extent the psysiology
> of THAT emotion). There is, in short, some evidence for a facial feedback
> theory of how we come to experience emotions. We may IN PART (or at
> times) experience an emotion after it is expressed.
I have no argument that faces are related to emotion. I am questioning how
reliably they are related to emotion. The results Ekman and others (Izard,
Zajonc) have found are not consistent. This means that facial expression
cannot be used as a direct read-out of emotion except for a subset of
people.
Nancy
ZenRaptor
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Junior Undergrad student at UCLA.
>
> Another left-coaster, eh? I'm so sorry <g>. What was it Frank Lloyd
> Wright said -- that if you turned the world on its side, everything
> loose would fall out in LA?
You and Mr Loyd are misinformed, I am from south of the border so for
me,it is a North South thing. :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"And then I met you... and then The Fog Lifted"
> >
> >Suicidal person suffering from MPD and Psychogenic Fugue states to a
> >person she fell in love with. ---- From some bad Bruce Willis
> >movie(except for the last ten minutes which were amazing.) where he
> >plays a Psychologist.
>
> <groaning> Don't we have enough trouble already, Daniel? <g>
> Leslie
Yes "we" do.
> ---
> "The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
> is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
> We cause accidents."
> -- Nathaniel Borenstein
Daniel
"Its not easy in the real world, they expect results."
----Dan Akroyd in "Ghostbusters"
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Cognitee wrote:
>
> DAH, Nancy,
> People misunderstand their own emotions and falsely report (on
> subjective self-reports). That's the trouble. This is unless they are
> being purposefully deceptive (or are habitually so). MUCH OF THE RELIABLE
> MEASURABLE BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES ARE SUBTLE AND NOT
> FAKEABLE.
What do you know about people, Bradnee? If you actually
understood people, you wouldn't be posting your insulting,
obb-base, crud on this usenet group.
I learn a lot from the posts of people like Nancy, and it
is only an annoying distraction to have to wade through
your hostile responses.
Go away.
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
Likely things can get cleared up if we look more at the ontogeny of the
emotions and their development, and thereby at the same time come to
understand the *adaptive* eliciting circumstances (and the type of
adaptive responses facilitated). It is far from a hopelessly complex
research endeavor if done well.
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970208...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Yes, some facial expressions signify a certain specific basic emotion when
> that expression is present, but the emotion can also occur without the
> expression being present, or when some other expression is present.
>
> These basic facial expressions can be voluntarily posed (i.e., faked) by
> some people (not all people) but there are subtle differences between the
> posed expressions and the sponaneous ones. The subtle differences can be
> detected by some subjects (not all) during judgment studies. However, the
> literature seems to be saying that even though they can detect the
> differences, most people do not attend to such sutble distinctions during
> day-to-day activities, when there is a lot more going on and they must
> respond to and reason with interpretations of facial expressions for other
> purposes.
>
> This is complex stuff.
>
> Nancy
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>
> > Some facial responses ALONE appear to be reliably associated with emotion
> > when one of the BASIC emotions IS EXPRESSED. This is not fakeable.
> >
> > In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970206...@isr.harvard.edu>,
> > Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but Brad, that doesn't explain why the facial expressions and
> > > physiological measurements are frequently not in accord.
> > >
> > > Nancy
> > >
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> > >
> > > > DAH, Nancy,
> > > > People misunderstand their own emotions and falsely report (on
> > > > subjective self-reports). That's the trouble. This is unless they are
> > > > being purposefully deceptive (or are habitually so). MUCH OF THE
RELIABLE
> > > > MEASURABLE BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES ARE SUBTLE AND NOT
> > > > FAKEABLE.
> > > >
> > > >
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Nancy,
> Likely things can get cleared up if we look more at the ontogeny of the
> emotions and their development, and thereby at the same time come to
> understand the *adaptive* eliciting circumstances (and the type of
> adaptive responses facilitated). It is far from a hopelessly complex
> research endeavor if done well.
>
Emotions cannot have an 'ontogeny.' Only an organism can have an
ontogeny. Verbal gymnastics don't make a good
argument.
Nor can 'circumstances' be 'adaptive.' How can a
circumstance, which does not have behavior, show adaptation?
I am not able to understand what you mean by saying that something that
is done well is therefore either geographically distant from some
unidentified research project, or is very dissimilar to that project.
It would help if you were to write more clearly, with less verbage.
Thanks.
Mark D. Morin
> Cognitee wrote:
Dan,
He is writing as someone who might know a little bit about ethology and
developmental psychology--don't fault him for using language peculiar to
those specialties. It appears to me that Brad is *trying* to make a
worthwhile contribution--could we reinforce that rather than punish it?
Is a mother's breast adaptive to an infant's survival? Is a warm and
safe environment adaptive to survival? That is to say *facilitates*
survival. Behavior does not exist in a vacume--the environments we
exist in can facilitate or inhibit certain behaviors.
While it is true that only an organism can have an ontogeny, emotions
can and do have a source. So he did not use the *correct* word, give
him a break. Can you honestly say you didn't understand where he was
coming from? And where are you getting this "geographicly distant"
business. I don't see it in the post you are responding to.
Again, lets reinforce the positive.
Thanks
Mark
Tim McNamara
>So he did not use the *correct* word, give
>him a break. Can you honestly say you didn't understand where he was
>coming from?
Brad routinely posts as if he is an expert. Part of expertise is to use
appropriate and accurate language. Brad often does not do this in his
arguments (perhaps he is so intent on making his points that he doesn't
proofread his arguments) and it tends to undermine his message
significantly.
BTW, "ontogeny" and "adaptive" are hardly terms exclusive to ethology and
developmental psychology. "Ontogenty" comes from biology, as a matter of
fact, and before that from philosophy (e.g., the ontological argument for
the existence of God). And only only organisms can be truly said to
adapt, either as individuals or as species. The environment can *be*
adapted, e.g. modified, by an organism.
These are actually pretty significant usage problems, especially for
someone who poses as an expert in developmental psychology and ethology.
Now, back to the thread.... ;)
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
The word ontogeny is FREQUENTLY used to refer to the unfolding of
capacities. Just another example: Cognitive development is often
addressed w/r to the its ontogeny. Only idiots that believe that all that
is innate is present at birth tend to make statements like yours (YOUR
view defys the modern view that real and decent behavioral scientists have
of the joint roles of innately based developments and that which is
acquired). (By the way, did you grow your beard at birth?).
Circumstances can have adaptational potential in the sense of
*affordances* (although this is another major scientific concept in
behavioral science you may know nothing of). (I will admit, though, in
the context in which I used the adjective adaptive with circumstances, I
could well have left it off.) The problem is seemingly more your
ignorance of behavioral science, than it is any "verbal gymnastics" on my
part.
Get real. Get really educated in behavioral science, hack.
In article <32FE3A...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Tim M.
I have no word usage problem with regard to my use of "ontogeny". I am
one of the world's foremost human developmental ethologists. Virtually,
NO ONE has written more here than me (and my stuff *IS* publically
available). I would not take Dan Rogers's word for anything w/r to hard
or good behavioral science. He appears to be the typical "therapy" hack.
And, he is an a**h*** like you too.
In article <timmcn-1002...@dialup-105.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
If you actually understood people, you wouldn't be posting your insulting,
BETTER. I think you are the poorly educated IDIOT, Dan. Go away, hack.
In article <32FD65...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
> >
> > DAH, Nancy,
> > People misunderstand their own emotions and falsely report (on
> > subjective self-reports). That's the trouble. This is unless they are
> > being purposefully deceptive (or are habitually so). MUCH OF THE RELIABLE
> > MEASURABLE BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES ARE SUBTLE AND NOT
> > FAKEABLE.
>
>
Tim McNamara
In article <xx571479-100...@cnc04768.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>Dear Tim M.
> I have no word usage problem with regard to my use of "ontogeny". I am
>one of the world's foremost human developmental ethologists. Virtually,
>NO ONE has written more here than me (and my stuff *IS* publically
>available). I would not take Dan Rogers's word for anything w/r to hard
>or good behavioral science. He appears to be the typical "therapy" hack.
>And, he is an a**h*** like you too.
And you're so humble, too. How can you stand yourself? "One of the
world's foremost human developmental ethologists?" Puh-leeeze! Your
ability to demonstrate this claim is underwhelming.
Tim
--
The wheel is turning and you can't slow it down-
you can't let go and you can't hold on.
You can't go back and you can't stand still
and if the thunder don't get you then the lightning will!
-Robert Hunter
Cognitee
Better proofread version:
Dear Dan Rogers,
The word ontogeny is FREQUENTLY used to refer to the unfolding of
capacities. Just another example: Cognitive development is often
addressed w/r to its ontogeny. Only idiots who believe that all which
is innate is present at birth tend to make statements like yours. (YOUR
view defies the modern view real and decent behavioral scientists have
of the joint roles of innately based developments and that which is
acquired.) (By the way, did you grow your beard at birth?).
Circumstances can have adaptational potential in the sense of
*affordances* (although this is another major scientific concept in
behavioral science you may know nothing of). (I will admit, though, in
the context in which I used the adjective "adaptive" in referring to
circumstances, I
could well have left it off.) The problem is seemingly more your
ignorance of behavioral science, than it is any "verbal gymnastics" on my
part.
Get real. Get really educated in behavioral science, hack.
In article <32FE3A...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
Cognitee
Better proofread version:
Dear Dan Rogers,
The word "ontogeny" is FREQUENTLY used to refer to the unfolding
of capacities. Just another example: Cognitive development is often
addressed w/r to its ontogeny. Only idiots, who believe that all which
is innate is present at birth, tend to make statements like yours. (YOUR
Cognitee
So wrong you are, bucko:
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Thanks.
>
> Dan,
>
> He is writing as someone who might know a little bit about ethology and
> developmental psychology--don't fault him for using language peculiar to
> those specialties. It appears to me that Brad is *trying* to make a
> worthwhile contribution--could we reinforce that rather than punish it?
>
> Is a mother's breast adaptive to an infant's survival? Is a warm and
> safe environment adaptive to survival? That is to say *facilitates*
> survival. Behavior does not exist in a vacume--the environments we
> exist in can facilitate or inhibit certain behaviors.
>
> While it is true that only an organism can have an ontogeny, emotions
> him a break. Can you honestly say you didn't understand where he was
> business. I don't see it in the post you are responding to.
>
> Again, lets reinforce the positive.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
Yes, I can honestly say that I did not understand what Bradnee was
attempting to say. However, I did note his insulting, crude responses
in last night's download. Concentrating on his one, semi-civil
response misses a lot. So, to say that I should 'reinforce the positive'
just doesn't fly. There's a place for reinforcement, there is also
a place for punishment - long, continued punishment.
Bradnee has a long, long history on this and other usenet groups,
insulting, harassing, etc., many, many people. Most of us have
learned, as you will, that trying to be nice to him gets nowhere.
Brad the P simply has to be excluded from polite discussion.
John Clark
In article <timmcn-1002...@dialup-262.minn.net>,
Tim McNamara <tim...@minn.net> wrote:
>In article <xx571479-100...@cnc04768.concentric.net>,
>xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>
>>Dear Tim M.
>> I have no word usage problem with regard to my use of "ontogeny". I am
>>one of the world's foremost human developmental ethologists. Virtually,
>
Incognito theogoeny....
>world's foremost human developmental ethologists?" Puh-leeeze! Your
Well you can't fault him if 'formost' means volumous posting here...
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
The word "ontogeny" is FREQUENTLY used to refer to the unfolding of
capacities. Just another example: Cognitive development is often
is innate is present at birth tend to make statements like yours. (YOUR
view defies the modern view, that real and decent behavioral scientists
have, of the joint roles of innately based developments and that which is
acquired). (By the way, did you grow your beard at birth?).
*affordances* (although this is another major scientific concept in
behavioral science you may know nothing of). (I will admit, though, in
"circumstances", I could well have left it off.) The problem is
"verbal gymnastics" on my part.
Get real. Get really educated in behavioral science, hack.
In article <32FD65...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
Cognitee
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Better proofread version:
>
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> The word "ontogeny" is FREQUENTLY used to refer to the unfolding(snip)
Wow!! Must have hit a raw nerve, huh, Bradnee?!! You posted this reply
3 times in a row. Spastic, angry response, eh?
But also incorrect, as usual.
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
I affiliate myself with the 7th best psychology research institution in
the U.S. Language like mine is used there (at this institute for child
development). I have been a friend of this institute for child
development for over a decade now and am well-regarded there.
Now, what do you know? I do know what I have heard frequently from the
best child development professors in the world !!
One who believes there is ontogeny but not of each of the basic
capacities (during development), could just as well believe that only the
body ages and their is no aging effect on mental capacities. So foolish
and ignorant is this view. This seems to be your view, Dan. Do you
really believe that all that is innate in humans (and related to mental
life) is present at birth? This view has been DEAD for over 20 years
now. Well, noone said that a "therapist" has to be well educated in
psychology NOR that this is even common !!!
In article <33016C...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
The last person who tried to give me continuous "punishment" ended up
promulgating lies about me in a desparate attempt to assassinate my
character in any possible way. Unfortunately she latched onto lies
someone said about me (AND FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE EXISTS BECAUSE THEY WERE
ABSOLUTE LIES) and she promulgated them maliciously. ** She is VERY lucky
I don't sue her for liable or slander.** This is what happens when you
want to punish someone and have no legitimate basis. You, yourself Dan,
have been know to take to what appeared to be threats. Just give this
crap up, will you Dan?
In article <32FFD9...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Dan,
I'll see if I can't get a quote from a great and recognized ethology
text (maybe one by Eibl-Eibesfeldt) and show you to be the ignorant and
falsely pretentious fool that you are. (MAYBE THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM:
"Therapists" often get used to false authoritativeness and power abuses,
especially when they are also used to pretending to be doing "therapy,"
when they should be doing counseling, and when pretending to be acting in
accord with science when actually they are wildly speculating. They also
run into many people who just roll over. WELL, *I AM NOT ONE OF THEM*. )
In article <33016C...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
Every significant behavior pattern that shows development is seen to
show a species-specific unfolding with development, or an ontogeny.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt has a chapter on this in his classic text, Ethology: The
Biology of Behavior, second edition, called "The Ontogeny of Behavior
Patterns" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1995). (The later edition, i.e.
the third edition, of this magnificent text is in German only.) In his
text on HUMAN ETHOLOGY (and with that title) (1989), he even addresses the
ontogeny of moral behavior and moral reasoning (which depend on and
parallel the ontogeny of cognition). INDEED, as I have said ALL
significant types of behavior patterns show an ontogeny. There is surely
an ontogeny of emotional expression (and emotional processing generally).
Everyone who know development and ethology knows this.
Now, Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny", what
the H*** are you saying. Anything? NOPE !!!
Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
In article <32FE3A...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
Cognitee
Oh yah, Dan Rogers, EAT IT !!!!:
Dear Dan Rogers,
Every significant behavior pattern that shows development is seen to
show a species-specific unfolding with development, or an ontogeny.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt has a chapter on this in his classic text, Ethology: The
Biology of Behavior, second edition, called "The Ontogeny of Behavior
Patterns" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1995). (The later edition, i.e.
the third edition, of this magnificent text is in German only.) In his
text on HUMAN ETHOLOGY (and with that title) (1989), he even addresses the
ontogeny of moral behavior and moral reasoning (which depend on and
parallel the ontogeny of cognition). INDEED, as I have said ALL
significant types of behavior patterns show an ontogeny. There is surely
an ontogeny of emotional expression (and emotional processing generally).
Everyone who knows development and ethology knows this.
Now, Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny", what
the H*** are you saying. Anything? NOPE !!!
Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
In article <33016C...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers:
Is the following (below) good enough, or do you want me to quote an
essay ON EMOTIONS IN PARTICULAR ???? !!!!!!! I surely could. PLEASE LET
ME KNOW.
ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH NOW TO ADMIT YOUR **IGNORANCE** ?? Why don't you
see the inside of a library sometime: Try a search on it and save me the
trouble. Use the keywords "ontogeny" and "emotion." PLEASE READ THE NOTE
BELOW (IT IS NOT A MERE COPY OF ONE APPEARING ELSEWHERE.)
Dear Dan Rogers,
Every significant behavior pattern that shows development is seen to
show a species-specific unfolding with development, or an ontogeny.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt has a chapter on this in his classic text, Ethology: The
Biology of Behavior, second edition, called "The Ontogeny of Behavior
Patterns" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1995). (The later edition, i.e.
the third edition, of this magnificent text is in German only.) In his
text on HUMAN ETHOLOGY (and with that title) (1989), he even addresses the
ontogeny of moral behavior and moral reasoning (which depend on and
parallel the ontogeny of cognition). INDEED, as I have said ALL
significant types of behavior patterns show an ontogeny. There is surely
an ontogeny of emotional expression (and emotional processing generally).
Everyone who know development and ethology knows this.
Now, Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny" what
the H*** are you saying? Isn't it true you are MISTAKENLY saying, in
effect, that this is a term used for organisms and not behaviors ?? THIS
VIEW (***YOUR VIEW**) CERTAINLY DOES NOT JIVE WITH THE CHAPTER TITLES IN
THE CLASSIC ETHOLOGY TEXTS. !!! Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
In article <xx571479-120...@cnc047123.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Dear Dan,
> I'll see if I can't get a quote from a great and recognized ethology
> text (maybe one by Eibl-Eibesfeldt) and show you to be the ignorant and
> falsely pretentious fool that you are. (MAYBE THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM:
> "Therapists" often get used to false authoritativeness and power abuses,
> especially when they are also used to pretending to be doing "therapy,"
> when they should be doing counseling, and when pretending to be acting in
> accord with science when actually they are wildly speculating. They also
> run into many people who just roll over. WELL, *I AM NOT ONE OF THEM*. )
>
Cognitee
Now, Dan Rogers, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny"
effect, that this is a term used for organisms and not behaviors ?? THIS
VIEW (***YOUR VIEW**) CERTAINLY DOES NOT JIVE WITH THE CHAPTER TITLES IN
THE CLASSIC ETHOLOGY TEXTS. !!! Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
In article <xx571479-120...@cnc04789.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> Every significant behavior pattern that shows development is seen to
> show a species-specific unfolding with development, or an ontogeny.
> Eibl-Eibesfeldt has a chapter on this in his classic text, Ethology: The
> Biology of Behavior, second edition, called "The Ontogeny of Behavior
> Patterns" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1995). (The later edition, i.e.
> the third edition, of this magnificent text is in German only.) In his
> text on HUMAN ETHOLOGY (and with that title) (1989), he even addresses the
> ontogeny of moral behavior and moral reasoning (which depend on and
> parallel the ontogeny of cognition). INDEED, as I have said ALL
> significant types of behavior patterns show an ontogeny. There is surely
> an ontogeny of emotional expression (and emotional processing generally).
> Everyone who know development and ethology knows this.
> Now, Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny", what
> the H*** are you saying. Anything? NOPE !!!
> Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
>
> In article <32FE3A...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
> <dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
I would submit that the thing that needs to be punished most is
pretending to know something that you don't and falsely and wrongly making
a statement meant to sound authoritative pushing a falsehood !!! (Can you
guess what I am talking about ???) I shall show you no mercy. It is bad
enough you parade around your meaningless credentials and/or you license
!! Academically, they mean very little indeed. Many therapists know
relatively little behavioral science (compared to others with any sort of
graduate degrees in the area). People must come to know this and
recognize the "therapists" for what they are, since the "hacks" will not
sanction themselves. They make the more "imaginative" chiropractors look
like good. Well, I say if it walks like a ..., ..., .... !
In article <32FFD9...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
OBVIOUSLY, Dan Rogers **YOU** need some punishment,
It is **YOU** that is incorrect, as is not uncommon. Anti-social
behaviors, like pretending to knowledge one does not have (and other
deceptive practices and power abuses), has been hypothesized to be related
to pretending one is a scientist OR operating in accord with science, when
one is not. And, surely more "therapists" do more of the latter than just
about any other group of NON-scientists. Just to remind you of YOUR error
and lack of knowledge where you proclaim to have some:
Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny" what the
H*** are you saying? Isn't it true you are MISTAKENLY saying, in effect,
that this is a term used for organisms and not behaviors ?? THIS VIEW
(***YOUR VIEW**) CERTAINLY DOES NOT JIVE WITH THE CHAPTER TITLES IN THE
CLASSIC ETHOLOGY TEXTS. !!! Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
In article <33016C...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
The last person who tried to give me continuous "punishment" ended up
promulgating lies about me in a desparate attempt to assassinate my
character in any possible way. Unfortunately she latched onto lies
someone said about me (AND FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE EXISTS BECAUSE THEY WERE
ABSOLUTE LIES) and she promulgated them maliciously. ** She is VERY lucky
want to punish someone and have no legitimate basis. You, yourself Dan,
have been know to take to what appeared to be threats. Just give this
crap up, will you Dan?
In article <32FFD9...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Sorry, the publication date of the second edition of Ethology is 1975.
The third edition came out in the '90s.
In article <xx571479-120...@cnc04789.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> Every significant behavior pattern that shows development is seen to
> show a species-specific unfolding with development, or an ontogeny.
> Eibl-Eibesfeldt has a chapter on this in his classic text, Ethology: The
> Biology of Behavior, second edition, called "The Ontogeny of Behavior
> Patterns" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1995). (The later edition, i.e.
> the third edition, of this magnificent text is in German only.) In his
> text on HUMAN ETHOLOGY (and with that title) (1989), he even addresses the
> ontogeny of moral behavior and moral reasoning (which depend on and
> parallel the ontogeny of cognition). INDEED, as I have said ALL
> significant types of behavior patterns show an ontogeny. There is surely
> an ontogeny of emotional expression (and emotional processing generally).
> Everyone who know development and ethology knows this.
> Now, Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny", what
> the H*** are you saying. Anything? NOPE !!!
> Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
>
> In article <32FE3A...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
Well, I think I have enough to show you as ignorant on the matter of
the use of the term "ontogeny" and specifically w/r to emotional
development. It is a long standing ignorance too, since the article I
cite was written in 1978. It was written by an *acknowledged expert* in
the field of the *PSYCHOLOGY* of emotions. Hopefully, this will teach
you a lesson: NOT to pretend to knowledge you do not have, *especially*
after you have been corrected (that is lying). You are a pretentious liar
and have shown academic dishonesty, in my view. Tim M., **YOU** should be
listening too, for I suspect you fell in behind Dan only because of
presumptions and biases against me (and not on any reasonable basis) !!!
Here it is, the title of a article by Carroll E. Izard: "On the
ontogenesis of emotions and emotion-cognition relationships in infancy"
pp. 389-413 in The Development of Affect, ed. by Lewis and Rosenblum
(N.Y.: Plenum Press). This man is the author of the authoriative text,
The Psychology of Emotions and has studied them for decades. I could find
other citations and quote essays using the phrase the "ontogeny of emotion
...", but YOUR SHAME IS APPARENT !! Have a good day. This is what I see
as at least the 4th case of intellectual (scientific) dihonesty I have
pointed up in this newsgroup so far. This does not count the conceptual
problems I have corrected. Each time the academic (and scientific)
dishonesty has been committed by Ph.D.s or Psy.D.s. It is a disgrace and
I believe it stems from habitual abuses of power.
Cognitee
Here is where Dan Rogers stands by his "authoritative position"
shamelessly miosleading people.:
In article <33016C...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
> >
> > Better proofread version:
> >
> > Dear Dan Rogers,
> > The word "ontogeny" is FREQUENTLY used to refer to the unfolding(snip)
>
> Wow!! Must have hit a raw nerve, huh, Bradnee?!! You posted this reply
> 3 times in a row. Spastic, angry response, eh?
>
> But also incorrect, as usual.
My response to this **refusal to admit** that *at least* he *does not
know* (even after I corrected him) was given above. In case you missed
it:
Dear Dan Rogers,
Well, I think I have enough to show you as ignorant on the matter of
the use of the term "ontogeny" and specifically w/r to emotional
development. It is a long standing ignorance too, since the article I
cite was written in 1978. It was written by an *acknowledged expert* in
the field of the *PSYCHOLOGY* of emotions. Hopefully, this will teach
you a lesson: NOT to pretend to knowledge you do not have, *especially*
after you have been corrected. You are a pretentious liar and have shown
Nancy Alvarado
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> I affiliate myself with the 7th best psychology research institution in
> the U.S. Language like mine is used there (at this institute for child
You may affiliate yourself with them, but people there tell me they do not
consider you to be affiliated with their institution.
Nancy
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
Like which people would these be ???
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.97021...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Tim McNamara
Brad, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Tim
--
Just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.
-Robert Hunter
Nancy Alvarado
Brad, if you have any affiliation whatsoever with the University of
Minnesota at Minneapolis please state explicitly what it is or drop the
claim you have been making.
You are not a student, not an employee, and certainly not a faculty member
there. This can be checked by anyone who calls their personnel office or
their registrar, as someone there has done. It doesn't matter who told me,
except that you are apparently annoying someone who is affiliated with
that institution. Misrepresenting academic affiliation is a serious matter
in academia. You use the odd wording "affiliate myself" but your intention
to mislead others into thinking you have some connection with a major
university is clear.
Nancy
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Since you have no true academic affiliation at all, bradnee, you don't
understand: it is not for Nancy (who IS known and respected at a good
adademic institution) to prove who they are who do not accept you as one
of their own. On the contrary, it is for you to prove your affiliation.
Just what is your official affiliation with any major institution? And
just what organization recognizes you as a major player in the field of
'developmental ethology?'
Tell you what: answer these questions, directly and factually:
1. Name of the adademic institution, department, and administrator with
which you are presently affiliated.
2. The formal academic title of your affiliation.
3. Date of your beginning this affiliation, and the portion of full-
time equivalent your position was awarded by the department.
4. The name of an organization (one that belongs to the Learned
Societies) and your office, that recognizes you as a major thinker and
investigator, and one published (in a reputable journal) statement to
that effect.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Oh, this is just great. Good show of adherence to internet standards!
10 out of 11 posts in this (hanging by a) thread are Bradnee responding
to Bradnee.
Shows all the support and international acclaim you have. Yourself.
And yourself. And yourself.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
You don't read very well, you don't quote very well. You are not
responding to what I said. As usual, you pick some word, run with
it in without understanding, and then rant that only you have the
truth.
What a crock!
You can't even read what I wrote, much less the books you claim.
When you get one, even one publication in an APA, refereed journal,
then I'll admit you know something about anything. Or, I'll let you
off the hook. Science of Scientific American citations will do.
Or a high school reading course credit would help. You really should
read before you respond.
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Dan Rogers:
> Is the following (below) good enough, or do you want me to quote an
> essay ON EMOTIONS IN PARTICULAR ???? !!!!!!! I surely could. PLEASE LET
> ME KNOW.
> ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH NOW TO ADMIT YOUR **IGNORANCE** ?? Why don't you
> see the inside of a library sometime: Try a search on it and save me the
> trouble. Use the keywords "ontogeny" and "emotion." PLEASE READ THE NOTE
> BELOW (IT IS NOT A MERE COPY OF ONE APPEARING ELSEWHERE.)
>
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> Every significant behavior pattern that shows development is seen to
> show a species-specific unfolding with development, or an ontogeny.
> Eibl-Eibesfeldt has a chapter on this in his classic text, Ethology: The
> Biology of Behavior, second edition, called "The Ontogeny of Behavior
> Patterns" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1995). (The later edition, i.e.
> the third edition, of this magnificent text is in German only.) In his
> text on HUMAN ETHOLOGY (and with that title) (1989), he even addresses the
> ontogeny of moral behavior and moral reasoning (which depend on and
> parallel the ontogeny of cognition). INDEED, as I have said ALL
> significant types of behavior patterns show an ontogeny. There is surely
> an ontogeny of emotional expression (and emotional processing generally).
> Everyone who know development and ethology knows this.
> Now, Dan, when you say "Only an organism can have an ontogeny" what
> the H*** are you saying? Isn't it true you are MISTAKENLY saying, in
> effect, that this is a term used for organisms and not behaviors ?? THIS
> VIEW (***YOUR VIEW**) CERTAINLY DOES NOT JIVE WITH THE CHAPTER TITLES IN
> THE CLASSIC ETHOLOGY TEXTS. !!! Tell us, now, is ignorance bliss ???
>
> In article <xx571479-120...@cnc047123.concentric.net>,
> xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> > Dear Dan,
> > I'll see if I can't get a quote from a great and recognized ethology
> > text (maybe one by Eibl-Eibesfeldt) and show you to be the ignorant and
> > falsely pretentious fool that you are. (MAYBE THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM:
> > "Therapists" often get used to false authoritativeness and power abuses,
> > especially when they are also used to pretending to be doing "therapy,"
> > when they should be doing counseling, and when pretending to be acting in
> > accord with science when actually they are wildly speculating. They also
> > run into many people who just roll over. WELL, *I AM NOT ONE OF THEM*. )
> >
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I have said nothing misleading or untrue. I believe I am held in high
regard by more than a handful of top psychology reasearch professors at
the U of MN. I don't know, maybe some jealous student is disgruntled !!
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970213...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Brad, if you have any affiliation whatsoever with the University of
> Minnesota at Minneapolis please state explicitly what it is or drop the
> claim you have been making.
>
> You are not a student, not an employee, and certainly not a faculty member
> there. This can be checked by anyone who calls their personnel office or
> their registrar, as someone there has done. It doesn't matter who told me,
> except that you are apparently annoying someone who is affiliated with
> that institution. Misrepresenting academic affiliation is a serious matter
> in academia. You use the odd wording "affiliate myself" but your intention
> to mislead others into thinking you have some connection with a major
> university is clear.
>
> Nancy
>
Peter
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970213...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> writes
>Brad, if you have any affiliation whatsoever with the University of
>Minnesota at Minneapolis please state explicitly what it is or drop the
>claim you have been making.
>
>You are not a student, not an employee, and certainly not a faculty member
>there. This can be checked by anyone who calls their personnel office or
>their registrar, as someone there has done. It doesn't matter who told me,
>except that you are apparently annoying someone who is affiliated with
>that institution. Misrepresenting academic affiliation is a serious matter
>in academia. You use the odd wording "affiliate myself" but your intention
>to mislead others into thinking you have some connection with a major
>university is clear.
Nancy, hello. I'm kicking myself for not following up some pointers
kindly provided to me in private by someone else.
I don't have any personal objections to Bradley. I do object to the
volume of his postings, the authoritative status he boasts to, and some
of his abusive behaviours.
Today I noticed that another new subscriber has been pulled in. It's an
example of how someone can be taken as credible in news.
--
Peter
Cognitee
Dear Tim McNamara,
It is all justified. I suggest you know what YOU are talking about in
the future before PRETENDING you do and accusing someone of "serious"
misuse of language. It is unethical for a scientist to behave that way.
In article <timmcn-1302...@dialup-207.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
I do not expect the APA will ever publish my well-founded views or
concerns. This means nothing. If I submitted my essays to them and they
did not publish them, it would only be further proof of their bias (which
is not needed; I can, AND *will*, present PLENTY MORE evidence SOON). I
don't care about publishing with them; I don't need to. Many do not
respect the APA and among them are MANY leaders in the psychology research
field. You know damn well this is correct. I find the whole exercize of
trying to publish with APA unnecessary in any case.
I have read some on the ontogeny of emotions, though certainly not the
whole sample of journal articles I cited. The POINT IS, you accused me
of *misuse of language* FALSELY, unethically pretending to have knowledge
you DON'T. The titles I cited *themselves* PROVE this. You have
seriously violated science ethics AND have demonstrated serious ignorance
of the major construct, ontogeny (and its applicability in the field).
You can try to pretend that you did not say what you did, but you did.
In article <3303CC...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
I need to prove NO affiliation at all. The evidence and principles and
my reasoning from that provides all I need. BUT, let me just tell you
that virtually EVERY week I am invited to a meeting at the U of MN with
major thinkers in the psychology research field. I believe this
constitutes some kind of affiliation. I am a know and respected person at
the U of MN. This is more than YOU need to know for any purposes here.
So, bug off, Dan.
On the matter of who recognizes me as a major figure in cognitive
developmental human ethology. Well, I can tell you that my papers have
always been well-received and often published by the International Society
for Human Ethology. There are not that many "organizations" otherwise in
this new area. Anyone who knows human ethology (as some kind of major
concentration) likely knows of me. I have published a review of the most
authoritative text in the area of Human Ethology, plus a basic and
important learning paper. I have done foundation theoretical (conceptual)
work in cognitive developmental human ethology. Methodological issues I
have raised have been uniquely recognized and a paper here was published
(IN A REFEREED JOURNAL).
In article <3303CE...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> wrote:
> Since you have no true academic affiliation at all, bradnee, you don't
> understand: it is not for Nancy (who IS known and respected at a good
> adademic institution) to prove who they are who do not accept you as one
> of their own. On the contrary, it is for you to prove your affiliation.
>
> Just what is your official affiliation with any major institution? And
> just what organization recognizes you as a major player in the field of
> 'developmental ethology?'
>
> Tell you what: answer these questions, directly and factually:
>
> 1. Name of the adademic institution, department, and administrator with
> which you are presently affiliated.
> 2. The formal academic title of your affiliation.
> 3. Date of your beginning this affiliation, and the portion of full-
> time equivalent your position was awarded by the department.
> 4. The name of an organization (one that belongs to the Learned
> Societies) and your office, that recognizes you as a major thinker and
> investigator, and one published (in a reputable journal) statement to
> that effect.
>
>
Taw etal
We read this newsgroup and only very rarely post on it. I was disgusted
by the response of the individual you referred to as Bradnee. I have
never seen any benefits of resorting insults and petty complaints such as
I read in his responses. May I compliment you on your restraint in not
lowering yourself to his level and trying to keep the discussion as one
showing that we can all be adults and exchange our ideas and
agree/disagree in a manner which shows respect for ourselves and for
others?
ananda for taw etal
Cognitee
Dear Dan,
I have been held in high esteem by the Inter. Society for Human
Ethology. You will get no personal further information from me because of
the thugs in this newsgroup. In fact, I wish I had remained anonymous and
recommend anonymity to all critical thinkers here.
The answer to #4 (below) FOR **YOU** shall soon be "none" (if it is not
already), if you don't start behaviong !!
Cognitee
Dear ananda,
Who didn't lower themselves? They alwyas do and usally first. Such is
the irrationality and desparation of many "therapists."
In article <19970214203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Nancy Alvarado
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> Dear Nancy,
> I have said nothing misleading or untrue. I believe I am held in high
> regard by more than a handful of top psychology reasearch professors at
> the U of MN. I don't know, maybe some jealous student is disgruntled !!
Just because someone there has heard of you doesn't mean you are
affiliated with them. "Affiliated" means you have some official
connection, such as an appointment or a job. People who have worked hard
to earn positions in such places do become disgruntled when others claim
the same positions without doing the work. Even a grad student has earned
admission by doing well in classes and passing tests (U. of MN is a very
competitive school), and faculty have done a great deal more to earn a
place at a top university.
Because findings in highly technical subjects are not readily evaluated by
people without extensive training, belief rests on things like affiliation
and accreditation. To claim these without deserving them can harm members
of the public who might put unjustified faith in your statements.
Nancy
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
You say: "Because findings in highly technical subjects are not
readily evaluated by people without extensive training, belief rests on
does not hold much in the area of psychology know as
counseling/"therapy". Many reasonably educated persons (possibly even
someone with a B.A.) could be a good and well-versed critic in some areas
and on some issues here. AND one can quite easily display all the
evidence. principles, and reasoning involved for MANY arguments here.
**When you can, an argument can be evaluated on that basis.**
Still: I do affilate myself with good researchers and have for more
than a decade.
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970214...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Cognitee
Yes, Dear Mark Moore,
It seems the stoggy have turned the discussion to credentials again,
needlessly. Again they have managed to deflect us from issues we are
capable of discussing WITH THE EVIDENCE AND PRINCIPLES AND REASONING
CLEARLY PROVIDED, AND *THAT* GIVING US ALL WE NEED !!!!!
In article <5e32og$v...@camel0.mindspring.com>, wmm...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I guess I took a wrong turn here or something. When did the topic of
> this thread change from the scientific study of emotion via facial
> expression? I was very interested in the exchange re: Ekman's
> research but it seems the topic went out into left field. Maybe it's
> time to change the title of this thread?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Mark Moore, Ph.D.
Cognitee
P.S. It is no doubt true that a number of U of MN professors hold me in as
high regard as their best students (I have been their student at times too
-- continuing my education WELL beyond the masters level by about 40 grad.
hours). A new program person might be jealous of the respect I have.
Cognitee
Oh regarding my P.S., Nancy,
Let me indicate *AGAIN* what I am mainly addressing AND, as Mark Moore
proposed, let's start a new thread title with this. Here is the part of
what you said, I was AGAIN ADDRESSING. You said (quoted from the post of
yours, quoted below):
" Because findings in highly technical subjects are not readily evaluated
by people without extensive training, belief rests on things like
Dear Nancy,
You say: "Because findings in highly technical subjects are not
readily evaluated by people without extensive training, belief rests on
things like affiliation and accreditation." (end quote) Well, this often
does not hold much in the area of psychology know as
counseling/"therapy". Many reasonably educated persons (possibly even
someone with a B.A.) could be a good and well-versed critic in some areas
and on some issues here. AND one can quite easily display all the
evidence. principles, and reasoning involved for MANY arguments here.
**When you can, an argument can be evaluated on that basis.**
AND
P.S. Nancy,
In this newsgroup, credentials have more often been a license for
pretentiousness and strongly biased positions (NOT well supported OR not
supported at all with citations OR *WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT DOES EXIST*).
Only more rarely here have those with higher degrees (or with licenses in
the field) displayed more clear knowledge, convincingly based on evidence
and principles, and/or presented clear reasoning. In fact, those with the
highest degrees have done ALL of the following "defending" the "therapy"
field: Pretended to know something and claiming falsehoods (e.g. recently
with Dan Rogers); pretending evidence that does not exist does (e.g.
saying that later well controlled studies investigating some matter exist
WHEN they do NOT); grossly mischaraterizing OR falsely characterizing some
existing data (e.g. saying some particular journal articles and their
findings support something THAT IT TURNS OUT THEY CLEARLY DO NOT --
sometimes the artiles CITED did not even address the issue and, if
anything, supported the opposite view) ; grossly mischaracterizing the
nature of evidence on questions in the field (e.g. the nature of the DSM ;
the relability of diagnosis; the science-practitioner status of
"therapists"). Some of these same individuals have engaged in libel or
slander. Some have promulagted false statements against another based on
NO evidence (because there was none); at least one mental health
professional even did this intentionally. Some of these individuals have
done abusive things on the internet leading to harassment. One licensed
mental health professional repeated told complete lies about me. A
student in training to be a "therapist" mailed bombed me repeatedly and
threatened and harasssed me. This is how I have found several of the
credentially people here in this newsgroup, in response to me (and I am
sure this is not a complete list).
Well, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Cognitee
Tim McNamara
In article <xx571479-140...@cnc04778.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>Dear Tim McNamara,
> It is all justified. I suggest you know what YOU are talking about in
>the future before PRETENDING you do and accusing someone of "serious"
>misuse of language. It is unethical for a scientist to behave that way.
I don't pretend to be a scientist, Brad. I understand the scientific
method and I apply it to my work, but I do not do research, I do not do
double blind studies, I do not pretend to be an all-purpose expert on
psychology. I try to help my clients as much as I can, working to keep
them out of hospitals, out of unnecessary mechanical and chemical
restraints and maintain the best quality of life they can. I worshipped
at the altar of Scientism for years, saw something of the limitations of
its philosophy and moved on to greener pastures.
As for ethics, it is encumbent on all psychologists to correct public
misinformation about psychology. You present many.
To go back to your previous statements, the use of the word "ontogeny" in
the statement "the ontogeny of human emotion" is a technically inaccurate
use of the word. It doesn't matter who is using it. "Ontogeny" means
"the course of development of an individual organism" (1985. _The
American Heritage Dictionary_. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. p.
869). The development of any human's specific attributes is a *subset* of
the organism's ontogenetic process. You err in using a categorical term
(ontogeny) for a specific subset component of the category (emotional
development).
Tim
--
You who choose to lead must follow,
but if you fall you will fall alone.
-Robert Hunter
Tim McNamara
> On the matter of who recognizes me as a major figure in cognitive
>developmental human ethology. Well, I can tell you that my papers have
>always been well-received and often published by the International Society
>for Human Ethology. There are not that many "organizations" otherwise in
>this new area. Anyone who knows human ethology (as some kind of major
>concentration) likely knows of me. I have published a review of the most
>authoritative text in the area of Human Ethology, plus a basic and
>important learning paper. I have done foundation theoretical (conceptual)
>work in cognitive developmental human ethology. Methodological issues I
>have raised have been uniquely recognized and a paper here was published
>(IN A REFEREED JOURNAL).
Fine. Where? Instead of playing games, I challenge you to "put up or
shut up." List the journals, volume, issue, pages of your published
works. If you fail to do so then you damn yourself out of your own mouth.
Tim
--
Going where the wind don't blow so strange,
maybe off on some high cold mountain range.
-Robert Hunter
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> promulgating lies about me in a desparate attempt to assassinate my
> character in any possible way. Unfortunately she latched onto lies
> someone said about me (AND FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE EXISTS BECAUSE THEY WERE
> ABSOLUTE LIES) and she promulgated them maliciously. ** She is VERY lucky
> I don't sue her for libel or slander.** This is what happens when you
> want to punish someone and have no legitimate basis. You, yourself Dan,
> have been know to take to what appeared to be threats. Just give this
> crap up, will you Dan?
Nobody, at least not I, has threatened to punish you. You may deserve
it, but in my view, having to live with your unmet dreams and inability
to get past your envy, is punishment enough.
As for the 'absolute lies' to which you refer: your attempts to deny
the lies you probably speak of, were pitiful and transparent at best.
You have been shown at various times to have been vulgar, sexist, and so
on.
If you are going to suffer, at least do it quietly. Go away. You
certainly don't warrant any further responses from me. You are the
best reason I have found for a kill file in a newsreader.
Mark Moore
Mark Moore
Well, let me ask this --
Is anyone here familiar with Ekman's facial coding (can't think of the
specific name of the instrument) and its validity? A fellow
psychologist, a psychiatrist, and myself are at the "brainstorming"
stage of looking at facial recognition and expression, alyxithymia,
and social interaction in our patient population. My statement below
was made because (a) I found this to be an informative thread and (b)
the thread had great promise for learning new information. I am
familiar with some of Ekman's writings and research but I am
unfamiliar with use and validity of his facial coding instrument
(again, can't think of the name -- lists for about $350.00). As I
learn more about it, I'll be glad to pass on information here.
Feedback is welcomed. If it turns into a pissing contest, well ....
Thanks.
Mark Moore, Ph.D.
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>Yes, Dear Mark Moore,
> It seems the stoggy have turned the discussion to credentials again,
>needlessly. Again they have managed to deflect us from issues we are
>capable of discussing WITH THE EVIDENCE AND PRINCIPLES AND REASONING
>CLEARLY PROVIDED, AND *THAT* GIVING US ALL WE NEED !!!!!
>In article <5e32og$v...@camel0.mindspring.com>, wmm...@mindspring.com wrote:
Cognitee
Dear Tim M. (and finally I, myself, ask: who and what the heck are *YOU*
anyway ???)
The citations YOU REQUEST have been ALREADY been given IN THE NEWSGROUP
for all of these things you supposedly have "interest" in. This
"credentials" issue is a reoccuring DISTRACTOR -- to keep from having to
address critical issues in the field, which NEVER get further addressed
after my initial treatment, likely because my arguments are often
incontrovertible and based on the best evidence, principles, and clear
reasoning. Some of the questions I have raised are UNANSWERED questions,
yet bring up very important issues and questions that gravely need to be
addressed BY RESEARCH; it is obvious to me that those in the field simply
want to leave some of these questions unanswered (even though, to a great
extent, the discovery of the areas where major improvements in client
treatment are especially needed depend on doing the research I propose).
I shall not repeat all the citation details again and again (knock your
insincere self out with an Alta Vista search). I personally think you are
just looking for ammunition with which to attack my reputation or "status"
-- a highly questionable purpose (and something that has been done
repeatedly here, in the damned newsgroup -- as you may well know).
Some of the published works I refer to explicitly (in my post) have
been in the Human Ethology Newsletter (publication of the International
Society for Human Ethology): there I reviewed Eibl-Eibesfeldt's major
text, Human Ethology (<-- DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD PUBLISH JUST ANY REVIEW
OF THE *SOCIETY PRESIDENT'S* MAJOR TEXT? I DON'T THINK SO, IT WAS A GOOD,
THOROUGH, WELL-JUSTIFIED REVIEW OF A MAJOR TEXT, BY A COLLEAGUE THEY HAD
COME TO KNOW). On another occassion I published an important learning
paper in the newsleter (which got me much international correspondence).
You will have to look to Ethology and Sociobiology (1987) for another
writing I specificly mentioned: there you will find a major essay,
published as a special "letter to the editor", one of very few special
ones ever published (they DO NOT normally publish letters to the editor
AND THIS IS SIMPLY HOW THEY CHOOSE TO PUBLISH MY ESSAY). This major
essay outines methodlogical concerns -- heralded by the major editors, and
subsequently by other top people in the field, as citing important
issues. For my other major theoretical papers NOT specifically noted
**AGAIN** (which include some very long theoretical papers laying some of
the foundation for cognitive developmental human ethology), I shall will
refer you to Alta Vista. Do not address this "issue" of my publications
again, unless you are interested in the subject matter involved. My
"status" has been addressed again and again in this newsgroup. Go to...,
bucko
I will not address this issue of publications for the purpose of
reviewing my "status" AGAIN for any one of you tired, evasive, pretentious
"status-minded" pretenders. (Bring it up again and I shall do an Alta
Vista search myself and re-run past posts.) You have your Ph.D.s, often
clearly of little value (and Psy.D.s, often with clearly LESS value), and
you have your special status with licenses (which unfortunately have next
to nothing to do with quality, but only with political power). (Too bad
you can't convince the HMOs OR many of the rest of us you are worth much.
Ironically, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO IF YOU LISTENED TO ME AND COULD TAKE THE
RISK TO DO SOME OF THE RESEARCH YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID. THIS RESEARCH, YOU
CONTINUE TO AVOID, ALSO RESULTS IN AVOIDING OF THE DISCOVERY OF BETTER
CARE FOR CLIENTS).
Now can we return to the issues and discussions we were having? Or,
can't you hack the presense of a critical thinker on the real issues
!!!???
In article <timmcn-1402...@dialup-230.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
Cognitee
Dear Tim,
I have choosen to address this post under the heading "Credentials and
Discussions in this newsgroup"? You shall find all the discussion I shall
give of this "credentials" matter, AS YOU FRAME IT, there.
By the way are you a "therapist", a student, just pest and pretender
to knowledge, or what ???
Cognitee
P.S. Tim,
You may be the only one by now that does not see I hav proven my point !!
In article <timmcn-1402...@dialup-230.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
(Tim McNamara) wrote:
> In article <xx571479-140...@cnc04778.concentric.net>,
> xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>
Cognitee
Dear Tim M.,
I have amply shown (through listing the journal titles of many
respected individuals in the field) that my use of ontogeny is correct.
What, did you miss that post ??? Are you, for instance, going to tell
Carroll Izard, world FAMOUS EMOTION RESEARCHER, *AND* THE EDITORS OF
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT TITLING AN ARTICLE "The ontogeny and
significance of infant's facial expressions in the first 9 months" IS AN
ERROR. That the dictionary does not *seem to* show full appreciation for
the nuances of the professional usage is not my problem. There simply are
other professional usages of the word and have been for decades. (Might I
suggest you find a better dictionary.) I present absolutely NO
MISINFORMATION whatsoever. YOU DO. And on what basis? Just because you
believe or like Dan ??
In fact Dan Rogers's limited usage of the word "ontogeny" shows a grave
conceptual problem and a lack of appreciation for a major construct in the
field of developmental psychology and psychology as a whole. I, BY THE
WAY, CONSIDER YOU TO BE A MORON AT THIS POINT.
Cognitee
Dear Tim,
Small correction: the journal article title I cited (in my last post)
ends with the words "... in the first 9 months of life" , not "in the
first 9 months" (indeed, this is a small correction). This journal
article and *several others* through the last couple of decades (some
others cited in the other post I referred to before) show the correct
professional usage. (If experts in the field and the leading editors do
not decide it IN A MAJOR WAY, who does ?)
The main thing I would like to elaborate on here is the consequences of
seeing ontogeny as of the organism, but not of the parts. This is
basically like saying that there is no uniformity in the maturationally
controlled aspects of the development of significant behavioral systems.
Believing such, you would be believing (like the very old-time
behaviorists of days now long-past) that all is learned. At the same
time, you are believing that all that is behavioral *and* at the same time
an innate aspect is present fully (and in specie-specific final form) at
birth. NO ONE who knows psycholgy at all well today believes this. The
ontogenetic type of theory is the clear leader in the field of
developmental psychology and the ontogeny or perception, higher
cognitions, and emotions is FREQUENTLY DISCUSSED AND HAS BEEN FOR
DECADES. IN SHORT ***AGAIN***, I am clearly right.
Anyone not knowing all this is simply grossly ignorant of basic
psychology. They have not kept up in a meaningful way on the course of
the nature/nuture debate. This indeed would be a serious problem. It
would be like a doctor not knowing of the relationships of several basic
diseases (when such is known or outlined and has been over many years).
In article <xx571479-150...@cnc04752.concentric.net>,
BrandonT
Cognitee wrote:
...This "credentials" issue is a reoccuring DISTRACTOR -- to keep from
having to address critical issues in the field, which NEVER get further
addressed...
I ask:
I seem to be getting in on the middle of something but please do me the
kindness of re-asserting a claim or two and I will happily address what
you say - one way or the other.
Brandon
Peter
In article <timmcn-1402...@dialup-230.minn.net>, Tim McNamara
<tim...@minn.net> writes
<snip>
>Fine. Where? Instead of playing games, I challenge you to "put up or
>shut up." List the journals, volume, issue, pages of your published
>works. If you fail to do so then you damn yourself out of your own mouth.
Precisely.
--
Peter
Nancy Alvarado
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> On the matter of who recognizes me as a major figure in cognitive
> developmental human ethology. Well, I can tell you that my papers have
> always been well-received and often published by the International Society
> for Human Ethology. There are not that many "organizations" otherwise in
Are you saying that you presented a paper or poster at a conference of
this organization? If so, please supply the year and title of your
presentation so that we can confirm it with them. When you say "published"
are you referring to proceedings? If so, please again supply the year and
title so that I can look for your work.
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado
The U. of Minnesotta shows that a Brad Jesness was enrolled as an
undergrad there last year but shows no record of you as a grad student
there. If you have attended extension classes or brief CE programs that
would not appear in their records. And would not be considered the kind of
important work you claim in your latest post.
I doubt that any professor there would consider you as qualified as their
best students. These people train Ph.D. candidates, people who are engaged
in scientific research. You have not done this kind of work, so they would
have no basis for making such a comparison. They may be nice to you if you
attend their weekly departmental colloquium (at many universities this is
open to the public), but that doesn't mean they would write a letter of
recommendation on your behalf testifying to their high opinion of you as
an ethologist.
Evaluation and recommendation is used in academia as the way to determine
whether someone should be admitted to a program or to official affiliation
with a university, hired, advanced to tenure, given a grant, and so on.
They frequently involve making a comparison, such as "this person is as
good as the top 2% of the students I have previously taught" or "this
person is among the top researchers studying this topic in the USA or
internationally." Professors are careful what they write in their letters
of recommendation, and careful about what they say about candidates.
Claiming that someone famous would give such a recommendation is not a
trivial exaggeration, given its importance in academia -- which Brad is
well aware of. I don't think any of these people would write such a letter
for you saying that you are as highly regarded as their best students.
If anyone is jealous of you, it is because you have so much free time to
play on the internet.
Nancy
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> P.S. It is no doubt true that a number of U of MN professors hold me in as
> high regard as their best students (I have been their student at times too
> -- continuing my education WELL beyond the masters level by about 40 grad.
> hours). A new program person might be jealous of the respect I have.
>
> In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970214...@isr.harvard.edu>,
> Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> >
Nancy Alvarado
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Mark Moore wrote:
> Well, let me ask this --
> Is anyone here familiar with Ekman's facial coding (can't think of the
> specific name of the instrument) and its validity? A fellow
> psychologist, a psychiatrist, and myself are at the "brainstorming"
> stage of looking at facial recognition and expression, alyxithymia,
> and social interaction in our patient population. My statement below
I think you are referring to the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). It is
a way of measuring/recording all facial activity, not just that related to
emotion. I'm not sure what you mean by validity in this context. It simply
catalogs the muscle groups related to movement of the face (including head
and eye movements) and teaches people how to identify when such groups
move, duration of movement and intensity. Reliability is related to the
level of experience and training of the observers and also depends on the
complexity of the movement and the quality of the videotape. If you go
ahead with your study, you should get a photographer involved in setting
up your camera and lighting to get the best quality video you can.
Placement of lights (or arrange of chairs) so that you can get enough
shadow to see wrinkles is helpful because these are displaced with
movement. This is a bit different than normal professional lighting that
removes shadow.
The coding method (using observation) has been compared to EMG I think.
EMG can pick up more subtle movements of specific muscle groups than FACS
can, but then again you can't place electrodes all over the face. If you
can limit your interest to a specific area of facial movement, such as
brow or mouth area, it would probably be better to use EMG since there is
less training involved and more people available who know how to use it.
FACS is a less theory based, more objective system than some of the
alternative observational systems (such as Izard's system which codes
emotion directly). Simple systems involving classification of positive or
negative emotionality, or that do sampling at intervals also produce lower
reliability and potentially incongruent information to what is obtained
using the full coding for the full duration of a video segment.
> familiar with some of Ekman's writings and research but I am
> unfamiliar with use and validity of his facial coding instrument
> (again, can't think of the name -- lists for about $350.00). As I
The technique is widely used in emotion research and in social psychology
where facial movement is used as a dependent variable. In Europe it is
even more widely used to study all kinds of facial activity, including
production of speech or grimaces made when experiencing pain.
The system used to be sold through Consulting Psychologists Press but is
now being handled by Ekman's lab at the University of California, San
Francisco. It is expensive. It includes training videos, numerous still
photos illustrating the various movements and the codes that would be used
to catalog them, and a couple of training manuals (with references to the
literature validating the system and a description of how it was
developed) and extensive instructions about how to use the system. It
takes several months of diligent effort (10+ hrs per week) to learn to use
the system and is best learned as part of a group where people can compare
notes and give each other feedback. Once learned, you can become certified
by taking a test that involves coding a standardized video of facial
activity and obtaining an acceptable level of agreement with previously
trained coders.
When people use the method in a study, behavior is coded by more than one
person and reliability is compared by having both coders evaluate the same
samples of behavior and quantitatively comparing their agreement
(typically about 25% of the total data coded is done by both coders for
calculating reliability).
Coding all of the movement in a face is extremely time consuming, about
one hour coding time for each minute of videotape. If you know what you
are interested in, you can decide ahead of time to code only certain types
of movement and can set up a subset of the full coding system. This makes
it go faster. I believe Ekman maintains a list of the people who are
certified in using this system, so you may be able to hire someone to do
the coding.
As a shortcut, people sometimes try to train students to code certain
types of facial activity. It is much harder to get good reliability using
this approach and the results are vulnerable to criticism when you try to
publish. I've only seen it work well with smiling, which is a pretty easy
behavior to recognize. But even smiles can get complex if you start trying
to differentiate between felt smiles and false smiles.
If you are going to use this with an abnormal population, you should also
set up a control group or do a within-subjects design. There are huge
individual differences in the amount and type of facial activity people
display. Also, there is a lot less facial activity than people think.
Depending on how you are eliciting response, you may need pretty large
samples (e.g., 80-100 subjects) or long video segments to get enough
behavior to show significant differences.
Ekman has done some work at on facial activity and body language among
people with mental disorders (depression, schizophrenia), published a
while back. Also, there is a literature on facial activity in people with
autism, certain types of brain injuries, etc. that might be helpful for
methods.
Nancy
Mark Moore
Nancy,
Thank you very much for the very informative post below. As stated
below, a couple of us are at the very beginnings of putting our heads
together to look at facial expression and recognition, alyxithymia,
and social interaction in our patient population. I was not aware
that the FACS was that extensive and your information and suggestions
were indeed welcome. Look forward to bouncing a few ideas off you in
the future.
Thanks again.
Mark Moore, Ph.D.
Taw etal
No disrespect intended here but is English your original language? I did
not understand what you asked.
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I will no further address the issue of credentials with individuals who
seek only to demean me in the lamest and most futile ways (this newsgroup
has been through this several times -- just do an Alta Vista search !!).
I will not further address my publications with individuals who have no
apparent interest in the topics of my publications AND who are not in the
position to be able to judge my standing. I have shown myself to be one
of the best educated people in this newsgroup already (and more than
once). This should suffice. BUT, in fact, the evidence, principles, and
reasoning presented HAS SUFFICED. What do you seek to do: keep only
highly educated people from presenting evidence and reasoning? If this is
the case there would be no one here. The really "big timers" are NEVER
here (or haven't you noticed?).
By the way, Nancy: Who and "what" the heck are you? Are you a
beginning graduate student OR WHAT ?? Is "Harvard" supposed to say it
all. Some idiotic undergrads. are at Harvard too.
P.S. Very few have had their credentials as well verified as I have, by
several individuals in this newsgroup. It has been shown I have a masters
and have been a college instructor. Some of my publications have been
located and attested to. Who knows, many of the rest of you may be fakers
or frauds.
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970215...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I shall again address your post in the thread where it belongs:
I will no further address the issue of credentials with individuals who
seek only to demean me in the lamest and most futile ways (this newsgroup
has been through this several times -- just do an Alta Vista search !!).
I will not further address my publications with individuals who have no
apparent interest in the topics of my publications AND who are not in the
position to be able to judge my standing. I have shown myself to be one
of the best educated people in this newsgroup already (and more than
once). This should suffice. BUT, in fact, the evidence, principles, and
reasoning presented HAS SUFFICED. What do you seek to do: keep only
highly educated people from presenting evidence and reasoning? If this is
the case there would be no one here. The really "big timers" are NEVER
here (or haven't you noticed?).
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970215...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Cognitee
Dear Brandon:
See Post 1 of 2 and Post 2 of 2 of" "Ans. to FAQs": Information and
Precautions for Psychotherapy Consumers." That thread should still be
readable, since it was just posted a day or two ago.
In article <19970215103...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bran...@aol.com (BrandonT) wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
>
> ...This "credentials" issue is a reoccuring DISTRACTOR -- to keep from
> having to address critical issues in the field, which NEVER get further
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
YOU ARE A SKINKING LIAR !!! I have never taken anything but graduate
courses at the U of MN (5000 or above -- I have that proof). I do not
know what "records" you are looking at or hearing about, but because I
have never been in a program at the U of MN, my continuing education may
be listed incorrectly -- it *was* ALL GRADUATE credit, the couse numbers
on my trnascripts prove it.
I suggest you stop with what appear to be libelous claims. I will
remind you that I also have a masters degree from the Univ. of Iowa and 20
grad. sem. hours beyond that at the Univ. of S. Dakota.
I will go on to say that there are NEVER more than a handful of people
here with higher credentials and no one that knows more in certain areas
than I do. No one cares about your concerns with my "credentials"; they
are more than adequate. MOST IMPORTANTLY: On top of that, most often the
evidence, principles, and reasoning cited by me would suffice no matter
who I was (the full arguments and the basis for them was given). I would
not want you to discourage that active participation of any here with good
eviednce and knowledge.
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970215...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>
> > P.S. It is no doubt true that a number of U of MN professors hold me in as
> > high regard as their best students (I have been their student at times too
> > -- continuing my education WELL beyond the masters level by about 40 grad.
> > hours). A new program person might be jealous of the respect I have.
> >
> > In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970214...@isr.harvard.edu>,
> > Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> > >
Cognitee
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I have done graduate research work with a professor at the U of MN.
His name is Len Breslow, he has now left. Possibly I should post his
recommendation of me. In it he sdtates that my work is as good ans any
graduate student he has ever had.
On the overall matter, I have more to say to you: I will give you 24
hours to affirm that all my coursework at the U of MN has been 5000 level
or above (and THUS counts as graduate credit, though only some of it
toward any program work I might ever do). If you do not affirm this, I
shall both file all possible complaints agaisnt you and sue you for
slander. I expect to see an apology today. -- brad jesness, M.A.,
counseling and psychology instructor
.In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.970215...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Cognitee
Daer Nancy,
I have a recommendation from a U of MN professor saying the RESEARCH
work done (and I did the WORK FOR HIM) and my thinking is as good as any
graduate student he has ever had. I wonder what would compensate me for
the lies you tell. You are guilty of malicious slander (legally
speaking). PERHAPS I SHOULD POST THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PROFESSOR
IN FULL (but I do not think this is how he meant me to us eit -- IT WAS A
RECOMMENDATION FOR ANY JOBS OR ACACEMIC PROGRAMS I MIGHT ENTER).
YOU ARE MORE THAN A LITTLE MISTAKEN NOW. Possibly, some graduate
student you know, who has been aroung the U of MN for less than 4 years
may not know my 10 year history with the U of MN. Your assertions, given
such possible ignorance, are unethical.
I will both sue you and file complaints unless all that I have asserted
is at least admitted as possibly true. I do demand you recognize the
graduate credit work I have done. OR I SHALL FILE COMPLAINTS. You got
yourself in a pickle now. You've got ONE day to make things right.
Cognitee
Dear Nancy,
I do not have my most recent transcript, but as of 1993 (and from 1986
to 1993), these were courses I had taken:
CPSY 5990 Directed Research
CPSY 5970 Directed Study
EPSY 5656 Ed. Needs of Emo. Disturbed Children
I once audited a course (for no credit).
I took 2 courses in the summer of 1995 which were for graduate credit.
NOW ****DAMN YOU**** I DEMAND AN APOLOGY !!!!
Cognitee
DEAR NANCY,
I THINK EVERYONE WOULD NOW WANT A FULL ACCOUNTING OF WHO AND WHAT **YOU
ARE**. I have my masters; I have my 20 grad. sem hours at U S.D.; I have
much continuing education (AT A GRADUATE LEVEL) at the U of MN. What you
got, dear one ???
P.S. Also: How would you suggest one assess my standing in the new field
of human ethology beyond the type of information I have provided?
Cognitee
Cognitee
The following post (quoted below) is slanderous and false. I am open to
all recommendations of where complaints may be filed against this Nancy.
(You exposed a nerve and pricked it, Nancy. Congrats, I guess. But
clearly this does not make you right. In fact you are in legal trouble.)
Cognitee
Isn't this NANCY **POINTESSLESS**, needlessly, and UNDUELY "status
minded." And, this way in the incorrect forum !! Does she want only
professors here?? Well, virtually NO professors are **ever** here.
Stay around a while and you shall see. THIS IS A NEWSGROUP, NANCY
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It us a often a hostile s***-hole (though it seems
like an appropriate "home" for you).
We all await to hear much more about your standing, Nancy. I'd say
that with you we have a conceited grad. a** with the "cob getting further
up her butt" every day. What an obnoxious exclusionary pretentious
person this Nancy seeks to be. Or, is she just mad that I blew yet
another Ph.D. here out of the water -- that much she knows. I CAN AT
TIMES SHOW THE MORE [SUPPOSEDLY] "highly credentialled" people here to be
seriously wrong (and even unethical at times -- at least 4 times now).
Give it time, Nancy, the way you are acting you may be next !! The last
person who took after me could be prosecuted for slander still. You may
be unless you make things right.
In article <xx571479-150...@cnc04731.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Dear Nancy,
> YOU ARE A SKINKING LIAR !!! I have never taken anything but graduate
> courses at the U of MN (5000 or above -- I have that proof). I do not
> know what "records" you are looking at or hearing about, but because I
> have never been in a program at the U of MN, my continuing education may
> be listed incorrectly -- it *was* ALL GRADUATE credit, the couse numbers
> on my trnascripts prove it.
> I suggest you stop with what appear to be libelous claims. I will
> remind you that I also have a masters degree from the Univ. of Iowa and 20
> grad. sem. hours beyond that at the Univ. of S. Dakota.
> I will go on to say that there are NEVER more than a handful of people
> here with higher credentials and no one that knows more in certain areas
> than I do. No one cares about your concerns with my "credentials"; they
> are more than adequate. MOST IMPORTANTLY: On top of that, most often the
> evidence, principles, and reasoning cited by me would suffice no matter
> who I was (the full arguments and the basis for them was given). I would
> not want you to discourage that active participation of any here with good
> eviednce and knowledge.
>
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Nancy Alvarado wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>
> > developmental human ethology. Well, I can tell you that my papers have
> > always been well-received and often published by the International Society
> > for Human Ethology. There are not that many "organizations" otherwise in
>
> Are you saying that you presented a paper or poster at a conference of
> this organization? If so, please supply the year and title of your
> presentation so that we can confirm it with them. When you say "published"
> are you referring to proceedings? If so, please again supply the year and
> title so that I can look for your work.
>
> Nancy
Naturally, Bradnee uses an 'Alta Vista' listing as a publication. Or,
a letter to the editor of one minor publication, then he'll claim that
it was an unusually important letter, with lots of impact, etc.
What a drudge.
People like you do real research. People like Tim and Peter and lots of
others engage in meaningful discussion in this usenet group. I get so
sick of Bradnee the Pustalant's ravings.
I can hardly wait for the next phase in Brad the P's cycle: he starts
harassing a few of you with obnoxious emails.
Sigh!! I guess it's getting time for a mass reaction, with complaints to
Brad's ISP.