harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (01/04/91)
PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue #1
Conference Announcement and Call for Papers: TENNET II
Conference on History of Brain Function, Ft. Myers, Florida
Conference on the Study of Cognition, University of Minnesota
ML91 Final Call for Papers
New Philosophy of Cognitive Science degree at Sussex
Special Issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly
Query: Database Retrieval and Coding Systems for Patient Access
[Editor's Note: This Announcement Section is quite long, perhaps too
long for some mailers. The reason is that we have provisionally
accepted full program announcements. A policy decision must be made as
volume on Psycoloquy increases: Psycoloquy readers, please write to
indicate whether you would prefer brief announcements together with the
poster's email address, from which the full program can be requested,
rather than the full posting on Psycoloquy.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R12040@UQAM
Subject: Conference Announcement and Call for Papers: TENNET II
(NEW) ANNOUNCEMENT (REVISED DATE)
and
CALL FOR PAPERS
TENNET II: Theoretical and Experimental Neuropsychology ---
Neuropsychologie Experimentale et Theorique
May 8-10, 1991, Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Grace soit la Poste canadienne soit la Poste americaine, quelques
annonces de TENNET II avaient etees perdues, peutetre vers de
trente pour cent. Donc, le date limite a soumettre un abstrait
est changee au 25 janvier 1991.
Thanks to either the American or Canadian postal services, about
30 per cent of the announcements for TENNET II were lost.
Therefore we have extended the date for submitting abstracts to
January 25, 1991.
(TENNET organizing committee)
This is a call for papers for the 1991 meeting, TENNET II,
and for symposia proposals for future TENNET meetings. Papers
on all aspects of experimental and theoretical neuropsychology
are welcome. The conference structure again will be (a) refereed
submitted poster presentations and (b) invited or submitted
thematic symposia of 2-3 hour duration. Both symposia and poster
presentations should be concerned with contemporary topics and
issues.
Poster presentations should deal with a well-defined topic
or problem. Submissions are in two parts: (1) a 200-word
abstract in English, which will be published in Brain & Cognition
or Brain & Language, if the paper is accepted by the committee for
presentation at the conference, and (2) a two-page detailed
description of the paper (English or French) to be refereed by
the Program Committee. Please do not exceed the word limits for
the abstract or the page limits for the description.
Symposia submissions may be sent to any member of the Program
Committee, at any time; there's no particular format. Typical
TENNET symposia involve 3 or 4 presentations, in order to allow
sufficient time for discussion. A list of symposia being planned
for the 1991 TENNET II meeting, is appended at the end of this
announcement.
(new) DEADLINE for submission of abstracts: January 25, 1991
Please send eight (8) typewritten copies of your submission to:
Dr. S. J. Segalowitz
Department of Psychology
Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1
E-Mail: psfsid@BROCKU.CA
The pre-registration fee for the conference is $45.00; students
may register for $25.00. For information on registration and hotel
accomodations (reduced hotel rates for students are available)
and to pre-register, please contact:
Dr. Harry A. Whitaker
Departement de psychologie
Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Case postale 8888, Succursale A
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3P8
Telephone: (514) 987-7002
E-mail: R12040@UQAM.BITNET
FAX: (514) 987-7953
Program committee:
Sidney J. Segalowitz, Brock University, Chair
Harry A. Whitaker, UQAM, Local Arrangements
Dennis Molfese, Southern Illinois Univ at Carbondale
Yves Joanette, Universite de Montreal
Alfonso Caramazza, Johns Hopkins University
Christine Chiarello, Syracuse University
Jean-Luc Nespoulous, Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail
Xavier Seron, Universite de Louvain
===============================================================
TENNET II symposia
(1) MEMORY: (organizer: Morris Moscovitch)
(Morris Moscovitch, Daniel Schachter, Larry Jacoby)
(2) NARRATIVE AND DISCOURSE PROCESSES: (organizers: Hiram
Brownell and Yves Joanette)
(3) HANDEDNESS AND THE IMMUNE SYSTEM: (organizers: I. McManus
and M.P. Bryden)
(4) ORTHOGRAPHIC AND PHONOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE LEXICON:
(organizer: Alfonso Caramazza)
(Alfonso Caramazza, Eleanor Saffran, Vicki Fromkin)
(5) ATTENTION DEFICIT SYNDROME AND FRONTAL LOBE DEVELOPMENT:
(organizer: Marcel Kinsbourne)
(Marcel Kinsbourne, Frank Wood, B.A.Shaywitz)
(6) HISTORICAL STUDIES IN NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: (organizers: Andre
Roch Lecours and Harry Whitaker)
------------------------------
From: R12040@UQAM
Subject: Conference on History of Brain Function, Ft. Myers, Florida
FINAL SCHEDULE
COMMEMORATING WORKS BY FRANZ JOSEPH GALL (1791) AND SIGMUND FREUD
(1891): An Historical Conference on Brain Functions
January 2-5, 1991
Ramada Inn on the River
2220 West First Street
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
(813) 332-4888
================================================================
Wednesday, January 2
ON-SITE REGISTRATION & WELCOME 4:30-8:30 pm
Thursday, January 3
ON-SITE REGISTRATION 8:00 am to noon
==============================================================
Thursday, January 3 Morning Session
==============================================================
8:45-9:00: Harry Whitaker: Conference Opening
9:00-9:30: Sam Greenblatt: NEUROHISTORY: A PROPOSAL
9:30-10:00: Frank Wood: WHY FREUDIAN NEUROPSYCHOLOGY IS ESSENTIAL
FOR NEUROSCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IN THE 21st CENTURY
coffee break
10:30-11:00: Ria De Bleser: FREUD ON GRASHEY'S APHASIA: THE
LOCALIZATIONIST VERSUS FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATION OF AMNESIC
APHASIA
11:00-11:30: Gary Woodill & Marie LeNormand: THE CONCEPT OF
APHASIA BEFORE FREUD
11:30-12:00: Victor Henderson: CONDUCTION APHASIA: FREUD VERSUS
THE DIAGRAM-MAKERS
=============================================================
Thursday, January 3 Afternoon Session Chair: Henri Cohen
=============================================================
1:30-2:00: Anne Laubstein: INCONSISTENCIES AND AMBIGUITIES IN
LICHTHEIM's MODEL
2:00-2:30: Pamela Mathews, Loraine Obler & Martin Albert: WERNICKE
AND ALZHEIMER ON THE LANGUAGE DISTURBANCES OF DEMENTIA AND
APHASIA
2:30-3:00: William Wolz & David Roeltgen: COMMENTARY ON ANTON'S
SYNDROME DESCRIBED IN THE 1898 PAPER
coffee break
3:30-4:00: Bernard Patten: EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DISCOVERY OF
L-DOPA
4:00-4:30: Robert Ulrich: EARLY HISTORY OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY,
INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LSD-25
coffee break
5:00-5:30: Mark Rayport and Shirley Ferguson: IS THERE A NEURO-
PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR FREUD'S HYPOTHESIS OF EGO STRUCTURE?
5:30-6:00: Malcolm Macmillan: THE CONTROL OF BEHAVIOR: FROM GALL
TO FREUD VIA PHINEAS GAGE AND THE FRONTAL LOBES
6:00-6:30: Peter Rosenberger: FREUD AND SKINNER: A COMMON
PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE
6:30: Adjourn the first day's meeting
==============================================================
Friday, January 4 Morning Session Chair: Lauren Harris
=============================================================
9:00-9:30: Paul Eling: WORDS AND SENTENCES: APHASIA AND
AKATAPHASIA. EARLY NEUROLINGUISTIC VIEWS FROM STEINTHAL
9:30-10:00: Helmut Hildebrandt: ORGANOLOGY AND MODULARITY: ONE
PICTURE OF THE MIND OR TWO?
coffee break
10:30-11:00: William Watt: NEO-LAMARCKIAN EVOLUTION IN
COGNITIVE SYSTEMS
11:00-11:30: Edson Francozo & Joao de Fernandes Teixeira:
FREUD: APHASIA, THE PROJECT AND COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE
11:30-12:00: Thomas Bever & G. Gergely: NATIVISM AND EMPIRICISM
IN THE EVOLUTION OF DEPTH PSYCHOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS
================================================================
Friday, January 4 Afternoon Session Chair: Helen Kahn
================================================================
1:30-2:00: Tory Hoff: GALL's CONCEPT OF FUNCTION: A REPLY TO
DALLENBACH (1915)
2:00-2:30: Tim van Gelder: GALL, FLOURENS AND THE CONCEPT OF
DISTRIBUTION
coffee break
3:00-3:30: Hugh Buckingham: THE ASSOCIATIONISM OF DAVID HARTLEY
3:30-4:00: Susan deSanti & Loraine Obler: HUGHLINGS JACKSON AND
THE AUTOMATIC/PROPOSITIONAL DICHOTOMY
4:00-4:30: Lauren Harris: ON THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN HANDEDNESS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE WORK AND VIEWS OF JOHN B. WATSON
coffee break
5:00-5:30: Stanley Finger: REDUNDANCY, VICARIATION AND RECOVERY
FROM BRAIN DAMAGE IN THE 19TH CENTURY
5:30-6:00: Jason Brown & Karen Chobor: PHRENOLOGICAL STUDIES IN
APHASIA PRIOR TO BROCA
6:00-6:30: Frank Freemon: AMERICAN MEDICINE AND PHRENOLOGY FROM
THE 1820's to 1840's
6:30: adjourn the second day's meeting
==============================================================
Saturday, January 5 Morning Session Chair: Sam Greenblatt
==============================================================
9:00-9:30: Harry Whitaker & Christine Grou: AN EARLY (1802) PUBLIC
DISCUSSION OF GALL'S IDEAS: THE LETTER FROM VILLERS TO CUVIER
9:30-10:00: Detlev Linke: G.W.F. HEGEL's CRITIQUE (1807) OF F.J.
GALL's LOCALIZATIONISM
10:00-10:30: P.J. Koehler: BROWN-SEQUARD's CONTRIBUTION TO THE
CONTROVERSY OF CEREBRAL LOCALIZATION
coffee break
11:00-11:30: Eran Zaidel: SHEPHERD IVORY FRANZ ON HEMISPHERIC
SPECIALIZATION IN THE NORMAL BRAIN
11:30-12:00: Harry Jerison: BRAIN SIZE AND INTELLIGENCE IN THE
19th CENTURY
12:00-12:30: Zvi Lothane: ZUR AUFFASSUNG DER APHASIEN: A FOCAL
POINT OF DIVERGENCE BETWEEN FREUD AND FLECHSIG
12:30-12:50: Lauren Harris: Awards Ceremony for the Best Papers
12:50-1:00: Sam Greenblatt: Adjourn the Conference
===============================================================
For additional information, please contact the Program Local
Arrangements Chair: Harry A. Whitaker, PhD
Departement de psychologie
Laboratoire de Neurscience
de la Cognition
Univ du Quebec a Montreal
C.P. 8888, Succ. A
Montreal, Que, Canada H3C 3P8
E-mail: R12040@UQAM.BITNET
FAX: (514) 987-7953
Phone messages: (514) 987-7002
------------------------------
From: "H. John Hilton" <hilton@sunserver.psych.umn.edu>
Subject: Conference on the Study of Cognition, University of Minnesota
The Study of Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues
February 28-March 2, 1991
Coffman Memorial Union
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Organized in celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Center for
Research in Learning, Perception, and Cognition of the University
of Minnesota.
Since World War II there has been a radical change in perspective
on how to think about and investigate cognitive processes.
Development has been so rapid that there has been little time to
reflect on a variety of underlying conceptual, philosophical
issues. Furthermore, many technological and methodological
advances raise their own conceptual issues. It is the purpose of
this conference to step back, identify some of these issues, and
ask about the nature of our enterprise.
The conference presenters represent a broad range of interests.
The presenters are among the most innovative researchers in their
empirical areas and have demonstrated concern with basic issues in
cognitive psychology.
The conference is organized around three fundamental questions.
First, just what kinds of behavior comprise the domain of
cognition? Second, how can we conceptualize the knowledge base
underlying our cognitive processes? Third, what are the
implications of different methodological approaches for our
understanding of cognition?
Preliminary Program
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28
8:00 a.m. Registration and refreshments, Mississippi Room, 3rd
floor, Coffman Union
8:45 Opening remarks, Albert Yonas, Institute of Child
Development, University of Minnesota
9:00 "The Organization and Reorganization of Categories",
James Jenkins, Department of Psychology, University of
South Florida
10:00 Refreshment break
10:30 "Theories, Constraints, and Cognition", Douglas Medin,
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan
11:30 Lunch, individual arrangements
1:15 p.m. "Broadening the Domain of Information Processing",
Dominic Massaro, Program in Experimental Psychology,
University of California, Santa Cruz
2:15 Refreshment break
2:30 "Ecological Foundations of Cognition: Invariants of
Perception and Action", Michael Turvey, Center for the
Ecological Study of Perception and Action, Department of
Psychology, University of Connecticut
3:30 Refreshment break
4:00 Panel Discussion with Patricia Bauer, Institute of Child
Development, University of Minnesota and Irving
Biederman, Department of Psychology, University of
Minnesota
5:15 Reception, Burton Hall Atrium
FRIDAY, MARCH 1
8:30 a.m. Refreshments
9:00 "How to Think About Perceptual Learning: 25 Years
Later", Eleanor Gibson, Department of Psychology, Cornell
University
10:00 Refreshment break
10:30 "Learning, Cognition, and Education: Then and Now",
Robert Glaser, Learning, Research, and Development
Center, University of Pittsburgh
11:30 Lunch, individual arrangements
1:15 p.m. "A Cultural Cognitive Psychology", Claudia Strauss and
Naomi Quinn, Department of Anthropology, Duke University
2:15 Refreshment break
2:30 "Origins of Conceptual Primitives", David Premack,
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania
3:30 Refreshment break
4:00 Panel Discussion with Anne Pick, Institute of Child
Development, University of Minnesota and William
Charlesworth, Institute of Child Development, University
of Minnesota
7:00 Banquet, Speaker: Gerald Siegel, Department of
Communication Disorders, University of Minnesota,
"Liberation Theoreology"
(see registration for meal options)
SATURDAY, MARCH 2
8:30 a.m. Refreshments
9:00 "The Dynamic Structure of Expert Thinking", Paul Johnson,
Carlson School of Management, Information and Decision
Sciences, University of Minnesota
10:00 Refreshment break
10:30 "Alternative Representations for Cognition: Search and
Reasoning", Herbert Simon, Department of Psychology,
Carnegie Mellon University
11:30 Lunch, individual arrangements
1:15 p.m. "Cognitive Architectures: How Can They Be Evaluated
Empirically?", Walter Kintsch, Institute of Cognitive
Science, University of Colorado at Boulder
2:15 Refreshment break
2:45 "Filling In vs. Finding Out: A Ubiquitous Confusion in
Cognitive Science", Daniel Dennett, Department of
Philosophy, Tufts University
3:45 Panel Discussion with Ulrich Neisser, Department of
Psychology, Emory University and C. Wade Savage,
Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
5:00 Adjourn
GENERAL INFORMATION
Conference Organizers:
Herbert Pick, Co-Chair, Paul van den Broek, Co-Chair, Kirsten
Condry, John Hummel, Lisa Isenberg, David Knill, Leslie Schwandt,
Elizabeth Strickland, Richard Thurlow, Lisa Travis
Location:
The conference will be held in the Coffman Memorial Union, 300
Washington Avenue S.E., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Registration:
The registration fee is $15 for University of Minnesota faculty,
students, and the general public. Registrants receive admission to
all sessions, program materials, refreshment breaks, and Thursday's
reception. Optional meals with conference presenters include a
banquet on Friday, March 1 at the Campus Club in Coffman Memorial
Union. The banquet fee is $20. Registration must be received by
February 18, 1991. To register after this date, call (612) 624-
6053.
A full registration refund will be issued if written cancellation
is received by February 23, 1991. The University of Minnesota
reserves the right to cancel the conference if necessary; in this
event a full refund will be issued.
Registrants will receive a confirmation letter, receipt, and a map
with campus, hotel, and parking locations.
Hotel Accommodations
A block of rooms has been reserved at the Holiday Inn Metrodome,
1500 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55454 at special
rates of $61 single and double rooms. To make reservations,
contact the hotel at (612) 333-4646, extension 605, and mention the
conference title to obtain the special rates. Reservations must be
made by January 30, 1991, in order to receive the discounted rate.
Parking
Ample public parking is available in nearby parking ramps. More
information will be sent with your confirmation letter.
Conference Travel Agent
Group Travel Directors, Inc. is the official travel agency for this
conference offering special discounted fares on Northwest Airlines
flights within the United States. (Frequent Flyer mileage does
apply.) Contact Carolyn Lyon at 1-800-222-7907 outside of
Minnesota. Group Travel Directors is located at 2000 West 98th
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55431.
For further registration information contact:
Lisa Brienzo, Program Director or Chris Carlstrom, Program
Associate, Professional Development and Conference Services, 335
Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Drive S.E., University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0139. Telephone: (612)624-6053, Fax:
(612) 626-1632.
For further program information contact:
Special Programs Committee, Center for Research in Learning,
Perception, and Cognition, 205 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Telephone:
(612)625-9367.
REGISTRATION 51-24LB
February 28-March 2, 1991
Coffman Memorial Union, University of Minnesota
Name____________________________________________________
Address_________________________________________________
City_______________________State__________Zip___________
Telephone (day)_________________________________________
Position/Employer_______________________________________
Payment Enclosed
( ) $15 registration fee
Meal Options
( ) $20 March 1 banquet
$__________ Total Enclosed.(Please make check or money order
payable to University of Minnesota.)
Bill my employer for $________. A purchase order or letter of
authorization is attached.
The registration deadline is February 18, 1991. To register after
this date call (612)624-6053.
Mail registration form and fee to:
Registrar
Professional Development and Conference Services
338 Nolte Center
315 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0139
If registering by P.O., you may fax your registration to
Professional Development and Conference Services, (612)626-1631.
Facilitated by Professional Development and Conference Services
Continuing Education and Extension, University of Minnesota
Sponsored by the American Psychological Association Scientific
Conference Grant Fund, the Wilson Learning Corporation, and the
Center for Research in Learning Perception and Cognition.
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all
persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and
employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national
origin, handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation.
H. John Hilton hilton@eye.psych.umn.edu
Image Understanding Lab eqz6593@umnacvx.bitnet
University of Minnesota / Psychology phone: (612) 626-1551
Minneapolis, MN 55455 fax (612) 626-2079
------------------------------
From: birnbaum%fido.ils.nwu.edu@pucc
Subject: ML91 Final Call for Papers
THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON MACHINE LEARNING
CALL FOR PAPERS
On behalf of the organizing committee, and the individual workshop committees,
we are pleased to announce submission details for the eight workshop tracks
that will constitute ML91, the Eighth International Workshop on Machine
Learning, to be held at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, June
27-29, 1991. The eight workshops are:
o Automated Knowledge Acquisition
o Computational Models of Human Learning
o Constructive Induction
o Learning from Theory and Data
o Learning in Intelligent Information Retrieval
o Learning Reaction Strategies
o Learning Relations
o Machine Learning in Engineering Automation
Please note that submissions must be made to the workshops individually, at
the addresses given below, by March 1, 1991. The Proceedings of ML91 will be
published by Morgan Kaufmann. Questions concerning individual workshops
should be directed to members of the workshop committees. All other questions
should be directed to the program co-chairs at ml91@ils.nwu.edu. Details
concerning the individual workshops follow.
Larry Birnbaum
Gregg Collins
Northwestern University
The Institute for the Learning Sciences
1890 Maple Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201
phone (708) 491-3500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTOMATED KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION
Research in automated knowledge acquisition shares the primary objective of
machine learning research: building effective knowledge bases. However, while
machine learning focuses on autonomous "knowledge discovery," automated
knowledge acquisition focuses on interactive knowledge elicitation and
formulation. Consequently, research in automated knowledge acquisition
typically stresses different issues, including how to ask good questions, how
to learn from problem-solving episodes, and how to represent the knowledge
that experts can provide. In addition to the task of classification, which is
widely studied in machine learning, automated knowledge acquisition studies a
variety of performance tasks such as diagnosis, monitoring, configuration, and
design. In doing so, research in automated knowledge acquisition is exploring
a rich space of task-specific knowledge representations and problem solving
methods.
Recently, the automated knowledge acquisition community has proposed hybrid
systems that combine machine learning techniques with interactive tools for
developing knowledge-based systems. Induction tools in expert system shells
are being used increasingly as knowledge acquisition front ends, to seed
knowledge engineering activities and to facilitate maintenance. The
possibilities of synergistic human-machine learning systems are only beginning
to be explored.
This workshop will examine topics that span autonomous and interactive
knowledge acquisition approaches, with the aim of productive cross-
fertilization of the automated knowledge acquisition and machine learning
communities.
Submissions to the automated knowledge acquisition track should address basic
problems relevant to the construction of knowledge-based systems using
automated techniques that take advantage of human input or human- generated
knowledge sources and provide computational leverage in producing operational
knowledge.
Possible topics include:
o Integrating autonomous learning and focused interaction with an
expert.
o Learning by asking good questions and integrating an expert's
responses into a growing knowledge base.
o Using existing knowledge to assist in further knowledge acquisition.
o Acquiring, representing, and using generic task knowledge.
o Analyzing knowledge bases for validity, consistency, completeness,
and efficiency then providing recommendations and support for revision.
o Automated assistance for theory / model formation and discovery.
o Novel techniques for knowledge acquisition, such as explanation,
analogy, reduction, case-based reasoning, model-based reasoning,
and natural language understanding.
o Principles for designing human-machine systems that integrate the
complimentary computational and cognitive abilities of programs and
users.
Submissions on other topics relating automated knowledge acquisition and
autonomous learning are also welcome. Each submission should specify the basic
problem addressed, the application task, and the technique for addressing the
problem.
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Ray Bareiss (Northwestern Univ.)
Bruce Buchanan (Univ. of Pittsburg)
Tom Gruber (Stanford Univ.)
Sandy Marcus (Boeing)
Bruce Porter (Univ. of Texas)
David Wilkins (Univ. of Illinois)
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Papers should be approximately 4000 words in length. Authors should submit
six copies, by March 1, 1991, to:
Ray Bareiss
Northwestern University
The Institute for the Learning Sciences
1890 Maple Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201
phone (708) 491-3500
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF HUMAN LEARNING
Details concerning this workshop will be forthcoming as soon as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTIVE INDUCTION
Selection of an appropriate representation is critical to the success of
most learning systems. In difficult learning problems (e.g., protein folding,
word pronunciation, relation learning), considerable human effort is often
required to identify the basic terms of the representation language.
Constructive induction offers a partial solution to this problem by
automatically introducing new terms into the representation as needed.
Automatically constructing new terms is difficult because the environment or
teacher usually provides only indirect feedback, thus raising the issue of
credit assignment. However, as learning systems face tasks of greater
autonomy and complexity, effective methods for constructive induction are
becoming increasingly important.
The objective of this workshop is to provide a forum for the interchange
of ideas among researchers actively working on constructive induction issues.
It is intended to identify commonalities and differences among various
existing and emerging approaches such as knowledge-based term construction,
relation learning, theory revision in analytic systems, learning of hidden-
units in multi-layer neural networks, rule-creation in classifier systems,
inverse resolution, and qualitative-law discovery.
Submissions are encouraged in the following topic areas:
o Empirical approaches and the use of inductive biases
o Use of domain knowledge in the construction and evaluation of new terms
o Construction of or from relational predicates
o Theory revision in analytic-learning systems
o Unsupervised learning and credit assignment in constructive induction
o Interpreting hidden units as constructed features
o Constructive induction in human learning
o Techniques for handling noise and uncertainty
o Experimental studies of constructive induction systems
o Theoretical proofs, frameworks, and comparative analyses
o Comparison of techniques from empirical learning, analytical learning,
classifier systems, and neural networks
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Organizing Committee: Program Committee:
Christopher Matheus (GTE Laboratories) Chuck Anderson (Colorado State)
George Drastal (Siemens Corp.) Gunar Liepins (Oak Ridge National Lab)
Larry Rendell (Univ. of Illinois) Douglas Medin (Univ. of Michigan)
Paul Utgoff (Univ. of Massachusetts)
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Papers should be a maximum of 4000 words in length. Authors should include a
cover page with authors' names, addresses, phone numbers, electronic mail
addresses, paper title, and a 300 (maximum) word abstract. Do not indicate or
allude to authorship anywhere within the paper. Send six copies of paper
submissions, by March 1, 1991, to:
Christopher Matheus
GTE Laboratories
40 Sylvan Road, MS-45
Waltham MA 02254
(matheus@gte.com)
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEARNING FROM THEORY AND DATA
Research in machine learning has primarily focused on either (1) inductively
generalizing a large collection of training data (empirical learning) or (2)
using a few examples to guide transformation of existing knowledge into a more
usable form (explanation-based learning). Recently there has been growing
interest in combining these two approaches to learning in order to overcome
their individual weaknesses. Preexisting knowledge can be used to focus
inductive learning and to reduce the amount of training data needed.
Conversely, inductive learning techniques can be used to correct imperfections
in a system's theory of the task at hand (commonly called "domain theories").
This workshop will discuss techniques for reconciling imperfect domain
theories with collected data. Most systems that learn from theory and data
can be viewed from the perspective of both data-driven learning (how
preexisting knowledge biases empirical learning) and theory-driven learning
(how empirical data can compensate for imperfect theories). A primary goal of
the workshop will be to explore the relationship between these two
complementary viewpoints. Papers are solicited on the following (and related)
topics:
o Techniques for inductively refining domain theories and knowledge bases.
o Approaches that use domain theories to initialize an incremental,
inductive-learning algorithm.
o Theory-driven design and analysis of scientific experiments.
o Systems that tightly couple data-driven and theory-driven learning
as complementary techniques.
o Empirical studies, on real-world problems, of approaches
to learning from theory and data.
o Theoretical analyses of the value of preexisting knowledge in inductive
learning.
o Psychological experiments that investigate the relative roles
of prior knowledge and direct experience.
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Haym Hirsh (Rutgers Univ.), hirsh@cs.rutgers.edu
Ray Mooney (Univ. of Texas), mooney@cs.utexas.edu
Jude Shavlik (Univ. of Wisconsin), shavlik@cs.wisc.edu
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Papers should be single-spaced and printed using 12-point type. Authors must
restrict their papers to 4000 words. Papers accepted for general presentation
will be allocated 25 minutes during the workshop and four pages in the
proceedings published by Morgan Kaufmann. There will also be a posters
session; due to the small number of proceedings pages allocated to each
workshop, poster papers will not appear in the Morgan Kaufmann proceedings.
Instead, they will be allotted five pages in an informal proceedings
distributed at this particular workshop only. Please indicate your preference
for general or poster presentation. Also include your mailing and e-mail
addresses, as well as a short list of keywords.
People wishing to discuss their research at the workshop should submit four
(4) copies of a paper, by March 1, 1991, to:
Jude Shavlik
Computer Sciences Department
University of Wisconsin
1210 W. Dayton Street
Madison, WI 53706
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEARNING IN INTELLIGENT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
The intent of this workshop is to bring together researchers from the
Information Retrieval (IR) and Machine Learning (ML) communities to explore
areas of common interest. Interested researchers are encouraged to submit
papers and proposals for panel discussions.
The main focus will be on issues relating learning to the intelligent
retrieval of textual data. Such issues include, for example:
o Descriptive features, clustering, category formation, and
indexing vocabularies in the domain of queries and documents.
+ Problems of very large, sparse feature sets.
+ Large, structured indexing vocabularies.
+ Clustering for supervised learning.
+ Connectionist cluster learning.
+ Content theories of indexing, similarity, and relevance.
o Learning from failures and explanations:
+ Dealing with high proportions of negative examples.
+ Explaining failures and successes.
+ Incremental query formulation, incremental concept
learning.
+ Exploiting feedback.
+ Dealing with near-misses.
o Learning from and about humans:
+ Intelligent apprentice systems.
+ Acquiring and using knowledge about user needs and
goals.
+ Learning new search strategies for differing user
needs.
+ Learning to classify via user interaction.
o Information Retrieval as a testbed for Machine Learning.
o Particularities of linguistically-derived features.
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Christopher Owens (Univ. of Chicago), owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
David D. Lewis (Univ. of Chicago), lewis@cs.umass.edu
Nicholas Belkin (Rutgers Univ.)
W. Bruce Croft (Univ. of Massachusetts)
Lawrence Hunter (National Library of Medicine)
David Waltz (Thinking Machines Corporation)
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Authors should submit 6 copies of their papers. Preference will be given to
papers that sharply focus on a single issue at the intersection of Information
Retrieval and Machine Learning, and that support specific claims with concrete
examples and/or experimental data. To be printed in the proceedings, papers
must not exceed 4 double-column pages (approximately 4000 words).
Researchers who wish to propose a panel discussion should submit 6 copies of a
proposal consisting of a brief (one page) description of the proposed topic,
followed by a list of the proposed participants and a brief (one to two
paragraph) summary of each participant's relevant work.
Both papers and panel proposals should be received by March 1, 1991, at the
following address:
Christopher Owens
Department of Computer Science
The University of Chicago
1100 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
Phone: (312) 702-2505
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEARNING REACTION STRATEGIES
The computational complexity of classical planning and the need for real-time
response in many applications has led many in AI to focus on reactive systems,
that is, systems that can quickly map situations to actions without extensive
deliberation. Efforts to hand code such systems have made it clear that when
agents must interact with complex environments the reactive mapping cannot be
fully specified in advance, but must be adaptable to the agent's particular
environment.
Systems that learn reaction strategies from external input in a complex domain
have become an important new focus within the machine learning community.
Techniques used to learn strategies include (but are not limited to):
o reinforcement learning
o using advice and instructions during execution
o genetic algorithms, including classifier systems
o compilation learning driven by interaction with the world
o sensorimotor learning
o learning world models suitable for conversion into reactions
o learning appropriate perceptual strategies
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Leslie Kaelbling (Teleos), leslie@teleos.com
Charles Martin (Univ. of Chicago), martin@cs.uchicago.edu
Rich Sutton (GTE), rich@gte.com
Jim Firby (Univ. of Chicago), firby@cs.uchicago.edu
Reid Simmons (CMU), reid.simmons@cs.cmu.edu
Steve Whitehead (Univ. of Rochester), white@cs.rochester.edu
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Papers must be kept to four two-column pages (approximately 4000 words) for
inclusion in the proceedings. Preference will be given to submissions with a
single, sharp focus. Papers must be received by March 1, 1990.
Send 3 copies of the paper to:
Charles Martin
Department of Computer Science
University of Chicago
1100 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEARNING RELATIONS
In the past few years, there have been a number of developments in empirical
learning systems that learn from relational data. Many applications (e.g.
planning, design, programming languages, molecular structures, database
systems, qualitative physical systems) are naturally represented in this
format. Relations have also been the common language of many advanced
learning styles such as analogy, learning plans and problem solving. This
workshop is intended as a forum for those researchers doing relational
learning to address common issues such as:
Representation: Is the choice of representation a relational language, a
grammar, a plan or explanation, an uncertain or probabilistic variant, or
second order logic? How is the choice extended or restricted for the purposes
of expressiveness or efficiency? How are relational structure mapped into
neural architectures?
Principles: What are the underlying principles guiding the system? For
instance: similarity measures to find analogies between relational structures
such as plans, "minimum encoding" and other approaches to hypothesis
evaluation, the employment of additional knowledge used to constrain
hypothesis generation, mechanisms for retrieval or adapation of prior plans or
explanations.
Theory: What theories have supported the development of the system? For
instance, computational complexity theory, algebraic semantics, Bayesian and
decision theory, psychological learning theories, etc.
Implementation: What indexing, hashing, or programming methodologies have been
used to improve performance and why? For instance, optimizing the performance
for commonly encountered problems (ala CYC).
The committee is soliciting papers that fall into one of three categories:
Theoretical papers are encouraged that define a new theoretical framework,
prove results concerning programs which carry our constructive or relational
learning, or compare theoretical issues in various frameworks. Implementation
papers are encouraged that provide sufficient details to allow
reimplementation of learning algorithms, and discuss the key time/space
complexity details motivating the design. Experimentation papers are
encouraged that compare methods or address hard learning problems, with
appropriate results and supporting statistics.
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Wray Buntine (RIACS and NASA Ames Research Center), wray@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
Stephen Muggleton (Turing Institute), steve@turing.ac.uk
Michael Pazzani (Univ. of California, Irvine), pazzani@ics.uci.edu
Ross Quinlan (Univ. of Sydney), quinlan@cs.su.oz.au
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Those wishing to present papers at the workshop should submit a paper or an
extended abstract, single-spaced on US letter or A4 paper, with a maximum
length of 4000 words. Those wishing to attend but not present papers should
send a 1 page description of their prior work and current research interests.
Three copies should be sent to arrive by March 1, 1991 to:
Michael Pazzani
ICS Department
University of California
Irvine, CA 92717 USA
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACHINE LEARNING IN ENGINEERING AUTOMATION
Engineering domains present unique challenges to learning systems, such as
handling continuous quantities, mathematical formulas, large problem spaces,
incorporating engineering knowledge, and the need for user-system interaction.
This session concerns using empirical, explanation-based, case-based,
analogical, and connectionist learning techniques to solve engineering
problems such as design, planning, monitoring, control, diagnosis, and
analysis. Papers should describe new or modified machine learning systems
that are demonstrated with real engineering problems and overcome limitations
of previous systems.
Papers should satisfy one or more of the following criteria:
o Present new learning techniques for engineering problems.
o Present a detailed case study which illustrates shortcomings preventing
application of current machine learning technology to engineering problems.
o Present a novel application of existing machine learning techniques to an
engineering problem indicating promising areas for applying machine learning
techniques to engineering problems.
Machine learning programs being used by engineers must meet complex
requirements. Engineers are accustomed to working with statistical programs
and expect learning systems to handle noise and imprecision in a reasonable
fashion. Engineers often prefer rules and classifications of events that are
more general than characteristic descriptions and more specific than
discriminant descriptions. Engineers have considerable domain expertise and
want systems that enable application of this knowledge to the learning task.
This session is intended to bring together machine learning researchers
interested in real-world engineering problems and engineering researchers
interested in solving problems using machine learning technology.
We welcome submissions including but not limited to discussions of
machine learning applied to the following areas:
o manufacturing automation
o design automation
o automated process planning
o production management
o robotic and vision applications
o automated monitoring, diagnosis, and control
o engineering analysis
WORKSHOP COMMITTEE
Bradley Whitehall (Univ. of Illinois)
Steve Chien (JPL)
Tom Dietterich (Oregon State Univ.)
Richard Doyle (JPL)
Brian Falkenhainer (Xerox PARC)
James Garrett (CMU)
Stephen Lu (Univ. of Illinois)
SUBMISSION DETAILS
Submission format will be similar to AAAI-91: 12 point font, single-spaced,
text and figure area 5.5" x 7.5" per page, and a maximum length of 4000 words.
The cover page should include the title of the paper, names and addresses of
all the authors, a list of keywords describing the paper, and a short (less
than 200 words) abstract. Only hard-copy submissions will be accepted (i.e.,
no fax or email submissions).
Four (4) copies of submitted papers should be sent to:
Dr. Bradley Whitehall
Knowledge-Based Engineering Systems Research Laboratory
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1206 West Green Street
Urbana, IL 61801
ml-eng@kbesrl.me.uiuc.edu
Formats and deadlines for camera-ready copy will be communicated upon
acceptance.
------------------------------
From: Andy Clark <andycl%syma.sussex.ac.uk@pucc>
Subject: New Philosophy of Cognitive Science degree at Sussex
Dear Colleague,
The School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at Sussex is about to
begin a new M.A. in the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Some details
follow. I'd be very grateful if you could bring it to the attention of
any good students who might be interested.
Cheers.....Andy Clark
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX, BRIGHTON, ENGLAND
SCHOOL OF COGNITIVE AND COMPUTING SCIENCES
M.A. in the PHILOSOPHY OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE
This one year taught course examines issues relating to computational models
of mind. A specific focus concerns the significance of connectionist models
and the role of rules and symbolic representation in cognitive science.
Students would combine work towards a 20,000 word philosophy dissertation with
subsidiary courses introducing aspects of A.I. and the other Cognitive
Sciences. For information about this new course contact Dr Andy Clark, School
of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex,Brighton, BN1 9QH,
U.K. E-mail: andycl@uk.ac.sussex.syma
Course Structure
TERM 1
Compulsory Course: Philosophy of Cognitive Science (I)
Topic: The Representational Theory of Mind:
From Fodor to Connectionism.
and one out of : Computational Psychology
A.I. Programming (1)
Modern Analytic Philosophy (1)
Modern European Philosophy (1)
TERM 2
Compulsory Course: Philosophy of Cognitive Science (II)
Topic: Code,Concept and Process:
Philosophy, Neuropsychology and A.I.
and one out of: Developmental Cognitive Psychology
A.I. Programming (2)
Neural networks
Modern Analytic Philosophy (2)
Modern European Philosophy (2)
( NOTE: The AI (2) and Neural Networks courses will only be open to students
who have taken A.I.Programming 1 or have a background in A.I.)
TERM 3
Philosophy of Cognitive Science dissertation
(20,000 words)
All students would also be strongly recommended to attend the meetings of the
Philosophy Society and the Cognitive Sciences Seminar.
Choice of options is determined by student preference and content of
first degree. Not all options will always be available and new options may
be added according to faculty interests.
ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS
These will be flexible. A first degree in Philosophy or one of the
Cognitive Sciences would be the usual minimum requirement.
FUNDING
U.K. students may apply for British Academy funding for this
course in the usual manner. Overseas students would need to be
funded by home bodies.
------------------------------
From: Arnie Kahn <FAC_ASKAHN%JMUVAX1@pucc>
Subject: Special Issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly
Call for Manuscripts
SPECIAL ISSUE OF PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN QUARTERLY
WOMEN AND POWER
Arnold Kahn and Janice Yoder are soliciting manuscripts for a social issue of
_Psychology of Women Quarterly_ on WOMEN AND POWER. Theoretical papers,
literature reviews, and empirical studies welcomed. Among possible topics are
power in interpersonal relationships, power in the family, individual
empowerment, work and organizational power, conceptions of power and their
implications, diversity in the experience of power (e.g., gender, race, class,
sexual orientation, disability, etc.), socio-political power.
Enquiries concerning suitability of material should be directed to either:
Arnold S. Kahn Janice D. Yoder
Department of Psychology Department of Women's Studies
James Madison University University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 Milwaukee, WI 53201
(703) 568-3963 (414) 224-5918
FAC_ASKAHN@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU (internet) JANYODER@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU (internet)
FAC_ASKA@JMUVAX1 (bitnet)
Manuscripts should be submitted in quadruplicate to Dr. Kahn at the above
address. All manuscripts will be subject to external review. Deadline for
submission of manuscripts is October 1, 1991.
-----------------------------------
From: COOKJ%sask.usask.ca@pucc
Subject: Database Retrieval and Coding Systems for Patient Access
The Youth Services Program is a multi-disciplinary, community-based
program providing a wide range of integrated services to a youth
population, ages 12 to 20 years, with mental health, social and
behavioral problems. We are in the process of upgrading our
patient database to include fields of data relevant to potential
research applications. In particular, we are trying to develop a
system for coding patients' presenting problems that will
facilitate retrieving information about these patients at a later
date. If you have experience with a patient database or have ideas
about how we could most efficiently enter patient data, I would
appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.
John R. Cook, Ph.D.
Research Coordinator
Youth Services Program
Royal University Hospital
311-20th Street East
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 0A9
Phone: (306) 966-2627
Fax: (306) 652-8848
Email: COOKJ@Sask.Usask.CA
CANADA
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (01/04/91)
PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue #1
Conference Announcement and Call for Papers: TENNET II
Conference on History of Brain Function, Ft. Myers, Florida
Conference on the Study of Cognition, University of Minnesota
ML91 Final Call for Papers
New Philosophy of Cognitive Science degree at Sussex
Special Issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly
Query: Database Retrieval and Coding Systems for Patient Access
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R12040@UQAM.bitnet (Harry Whitaker)
Subject: Conference Announcement and Call for Papers: TENNET II
(NEW) ANNOUNCEMENT (REVISED DATE)
and
CALL FOR PAPERS
TENNET II: Theoretical and Experimental Neuropsychology ---
Neuropsychologie Experimentale et Theorique
May 8-10, 1991, Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Thanks to either the American or Canadian postal services, about
30 per cent of the announcements for TENNET II were lost.
Therefore we have extended the date for submitting abstracts to
January 25, 1991. (TENNET organizing committee)
This is a call for papers for the 1991 meeting, TENNET II,
and for symposia proposals for future TENNET meetings. Papers
on all aspects of experimental and theoretical neuropsychology
are welcome. The conference structure again will be (a) refereed
submitted poster presentations and (b) invited or submitted
thematic symposia of 2-3 hour duration. Both symposia and poster
presentations should be concerned with contemporary topics and
issues.
Poster presentations should deal with a well-defined topic
or problem. Submissions are in two parts: (1) a 200-word
abstract in English, which will be published in Brain & Cognition
or Brain & Language, if the paper is accepted by the committee for
presentation at the conference, and (2) a two-page detailed
description of the paper (English or French) to be refereed by
the Program Committee. Please do not exceed the word limits for
the abstract or the page limits for the description.
Symposia submissions may be sent to any member of the Program
Committee, at any time; there's no particular format. Typical
TENNET symposia involve 3 or 4 presentations, in order to allow
sufficient time for discussion. A list of symposia being planned
for the 1991 TENNET II meeting, is appended at the end of this
announcement.
(new) DEADLINE for submission of abstracts: January 25, 1991
Please send eight (8) typewritten copies of your submission to:
Dr. S. J. Segalowitz
Department of Psychology
Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1
E-Mail: psfsid@BROCKU.CA
The pre-registration fee for the conference is $45.00; students
may register for $25.00. For information on registration and hotel
accomodations (reduced hotel rates for students are available)
and to pre-register, please contact:
Dr. Harry A. Whitaker
Departement de psychologie
Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Case postale 8888, Succursale A
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3P8
Telephone: (514) 987-7002
E-mail: R12040@UQAM.BITNET
FAX: (514) 987-7953
Program committee:
Sidney J. Segalowitz, Brock University, Chair
Harry A. Whitaker, UQAM, Local Arrangements
Dennis Molfese, Southern Illinois Univ at Carbondale
Yves Joanette, Universite de Montreal
Alfonso Caramazza, Johns Hopkins University
Christine Chiarello, Syracuse University
Jean-Luc Nespoulous, Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail
Xavier Seron, Universite de Louvain
For full program, please email to the poster of this message:
R12040@UQAM.bitnet (Harry Whitaker)
------------------------------
From: R12040@UQAM.bitnet (Harry Whitaker)
Subject: Conference on History of Brain Function, Ft. Myers, Florida
FINAL SCHEDULE
COMMEMORATING WORKS BY FRANZ JOSEPH GALL (1791) AND SIGMUND FREUD
(1891): An Historical Conference on Brain Functions
January 2-5, 1991
Ramada Inn on the River
2220 West First Street
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
(813) 332-4888
[For full program, please email to the poster]
For additional information, please contact the Program Local
Arrangements Chair: Harry A. Whitaker, PhD
Departement de psychologie
Laboratoire de Neurscience
de la Cognition
Univ du Quebec a Montreal
C.P. 8888, Succ. A
Montreal, Que, Canada H3C 3P8
E-mail: R12040@UQAM.BITNET
FAX: (514) 987-7953
Phone messages: (514) 987-7002
------------------------------
From: "H. John Hilton" <hilton@sunserver.psych.umn.edu>
Subject: Conference on the Study of Cognition, University of Minnesota
The Study of Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues
February 28-March 2, 1991
Coffman Memorial Union
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Organized in celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Center for
Research in Learning, Perception, and Cognition of the University
of Minnesota.
Since World War II there has been a radical change in perspective
on how to think about and investigate cognitive processes.
Development has been so rapid that there has been little time to
reflect on a variety of underlying conceptual, philosophical
issues. Furthermore, many technological and methodological
advances raise their own conceptual issues. It is the purpose of
this conference to step back, identify some of these issues, and
ask about the nature of our enterprise.
The conference presenters represent a broad range of interests.
The presenters are among the most innovative researchers in their
empirical areas and have demonstrated concern with basic issues in
cognitive psychology.
The conference is organized around three fundamental questions.
First, just what kinds of behavior comprise the domain of
cognition? Second, how can we conceptualize the knowledge base
underlying our cognitive processes? Third, what are the
implications of different methodological approaches for our
understanding of cognition?
[For program, please email to the poster of this message:
R12040@UQAM.bitnet (Harry Whitaker)]
GENERAL INFORMATION
Conference Organizers:
Herbert Pick, Co-Chair, Paul van den Broek, Co-Chair, Kirsten
Condry, John Hummel, Lisa Isenberg, David Knill, Leslie Schwandt,
Elizabeth Strickland, Richard Thurlow, Lisa Travis
Location:
The conference will be held in the Coffman Memorial Union, 300
Washington Avenue S.E., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Registration:
The registration fee is $15 for University of Minnesota faculty,
students, and the general public. Registrants receive admission to
all sessions, program materials, refreshment breaks, and Thursday's
reception. Optional meals with conference presenters include a
banquet on Friday, March 1 at the Campus Club in Coffman Memorial
Union. The banquet fee is $20. Registration must be received by
February 18, 1991. To register after this date, call (612) 624-
6053.
For further registration information contact:
Lisa Brienzo, Program Director or Chris Carlstrom, Program
Associate, Professional Development and Conference Services, 335
Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Drive S.E., University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0139. Telephone: (612)624-6053, Fax:
(612) 626-1632.
For further program information contact:
Special Programs Committee, Center for Research in Learning,
Perception, and Cognition, 205 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Telephone:
(612)625-9367.
------------------------------
From: birnbaum%fido.ils.nwu.edu
Subject: ML91 Final Call for Papers
THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON MACHINE LEARNING
CALL FOR PAPERS
On behalf of the organizing committee, and the individual workshop committees,
we are pleased to announce submission details for the eight workshop tracks
that will constitute ML91, the Eighth International Workshop on Machine
Learning, to be held at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, June
27-29, 1991. The eight workshops are:
o Automated Knowledge Acquisition
o Computational Models of Human Learning
o Constructive Induction
o Learning from Theory and Data
o Learning in Intelligent Information Retrieval
o Learning Reaction Strategies
o Learning Relations
o Machine Learning in Engineering Automation
Please note that submissions must be made to the workshops individually
(write to poster of this message, birnbaum@fido.ils.nwu.edu for
informaton on address of each individual conference chairman) by March
1, 1991. The Proceedings of ML91 will be published by Morgan
Kaufmann. Questions concerning individual workshops should be directed
to members of the workshop committees. All other questions should be
directed to the program co-chairs at ml91@ils.nwu.edu. Details
concerning the individual workshops are available from the poster of
this message.
Larry Birnbaum
Gregg Collins
Northwestern University
The Institute for the Learning Sciences
1890 Maple Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201
phone (708) 491-3500
------------------------------
From: Andy Clark <andycl%syma.sussex.ac.uk>
Subject: New Philosophy of Cognitive Science degree at Sussex
The School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at Sussex is about to
begin a new M.A. in the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Some details
follow. I'd be very grateful if you could bring it to the attention of
any good students who might be interested.
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX, BRIGHTON, ENGLAND
SCHOOL OF COGNITIVE AND COMPUTING SCIENCES
M.A. in the PHILOSOPHY OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE
This one year taught course examines issues relating to computational models
of mind. A specific focus concerns the significance of connectionist models
and the role of rules and symbolic representation in cognitive science.
Students would combine work towards a 20,000 word philosophy dissertation with
subsidiary courses introducing aspects of A.I. and the other Cognitive
Sciences. For information about this new course contact Dr Andy Clark, School
of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex,Brighton, BN1 9QH,
U.K. E-mail: andycl@uk.ac.sussex.syma
ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS
These will be flexible. A first degree in Philosophy or one of the
Cognitive Sciences would be the usual minimum requirement.
FUNDING
U.K. students may apply for British Academy funding for this
course in the usual manner. Overseas students would need to be
funded by home bodies.
------------------------------
From: Arnie Kahn <FAC_ASKAHN%JMUVAX1>
Subject: Special Issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly
Call for Manuscripts
SPECIAL ISSUE OF PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN QUARTERLY
WOMEN AND POWER
Arnold Kahn and Janice Yoder are soliciting manuscripts for a social issue of
_Psychology of Women Quarterly_ on WOMEN AND POWER. Theoretical papers,
literature reviews, and empirical studies welcomed. Among possible topics are
power in interpersonal relationships, power in the family, individual
empowerment, work and organizational power, conceptions of power and their
implications, diversity in the experience of power (e.g., gender, race, class,
sexual orientation, disability, etc.), socio-political power.
Enquiries concerning suitability of material should be directed to either:
Arnold S. Kahn Janice D. Yoder
Department of Psychology Department of Women's Studies
James Madison University University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 Milwaukee, WI 53201
(703) 568-3963 (414) 224-5918
FAC_ASKAHN@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU (internet) JANYODER@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU (internet)
FAC_ASKA@JMUVAX1 (bitnet)
Manuscripts should be submitted in quadruplicate to Dr. Kahn at the above
address. All manuscripts will be subject to external review. Deadline for
submission of manuscripts is October 1, 1991.
-----------------------------------
From: COOKJ%sask.usask.ca
Subject: Database Retrieval and Coding Systems for Patient Access
The Youth Services Program is a multi-disciplinary, community-based
program providing a wide range of integrated services to a youth
population, ages 12 to 20 years, with mental health, social and
behavioral problems. We are in the process of upgrading our
patient database to include fields of data relevant to potential
research applications. In particular, we are trying to develop a
system for coding patients' presenting problems that will
facilitate retrieving information about these patients at a later
date. If you have experience with a patient database or have ideas
about how we could most efficiently enter patient data, I would
appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.
John R. Cook, Ph.D.
Research Coordinator
Youth Services Program
Royal University Hospital
311-20th Street East
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 0A9
Phone: (306) 966-2627
Fax: (306) 652-8848
Email: COOKJ@Sask.Usask.CA
CANADA
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (01/04/91)
PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue 1
Jonathan Baron: Comments on Gordon Becker's Optimal Utilities paper
[Editor's Note: This commentary on Becker's Optimal Utilities
(Psycoloquy 1 (16) 1990) has been refereed by a member of Psycoloquy's
Editorial Board and has been accepted for "skywriting" discussion.
All discussion elicited on this topic will appear under the heading:
"Optimal Utilities/Becker." Comments as well as discussion papers on
other topics are invited. All contributions will be refereed.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Jonathan Baron)
Subject: Comments on Optimal Utilities paper by Gordon Becker
Cc: baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu, becker@zeus.unomaha.edu
Status: R
The rationality of the choice of goals: Comment on Becker(1)
Jonathan Baron
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania
Becker argues that tastes, or, as I shall call them, goals, are
changeable and that utilities can be maximized by changing tastes
so that utility is maximal for all possible outcomes. Changing
tastes has costs in utility, however, so equal utilities should
be seen as a goal toward which we strive rather than something we
can easily achieve. Buddhists strive for such equanimity, and,
perhaps, achieve it to some extent.
Let me first dispense with a minor problem with Becker's
formulation. He suggests that utility can be maximized by
setting all utilities equal to the utility of the best outcome.
But that would mean setting the utility of the worst outcome
equal to that of the best outcome, since the worse outcome is an
outcome among others. All utilities would then be equal to the
utility of the worst outcome, so the outcome that occurred,
whatever it was, would be the worst possible outcome as well as
the best possible outcome. The argument for setting all
utilities equal appears weaker in view of this move. But
Becker's argument can be reformulated to avoid this problem. He
could argue that we should increase our desire for what we have
(or are likely to get) and decrease our desire for what we do not
have (or are not likely to get).
The prescription that we should change our tastes to conform to
what we have has been discussed by Elster (1983) in a book aptly
titled "Sour grapes." Elster was inclined against such changes
of preferences, on the grounds that they discouraged the sorts of
striving that might lead to large improvements, although Elster
was also aware of the advantages of such "adaptive preference
formation."
Elster's and Becker's arguments raise a more general question,
which is how we can conceptualize changes of desires and
incorporate them within utility theory as a normative model (if
we can do so at all). I have suggested (Baron, 1988, pp.
430-432) that the choice of goals (or desires) is itself a
decision problem. Or, more precisely, we must decide what
actions to take to TRY to influence our goals.
A normative theory of decisions about goals (including
strengthening, weakening, adding, or deleting) can be based on
the same criterion as that applied to other decisions, the
maximization of utility, or, in other words, the greatest
achievement of (other) goals. Some of our goals concern our
goals themselves. We want goals that others approve of, or goals
that will give us certain good feelings when we try to achieve
them or succeed in achieving them. These "goals for goals"
generate utilities when we make the choice about goals. Decision
about goals also affect directly the achievement of other goals
that we already have. This is another way in which decisions
about goals have utility. Finally, choices about goals affect
the achievement of goals that we will have in the future (whether
these goals will arise inevitably or as a result of our present
decision about goals).
One consequence of many choices, aside from those designed purely
to change our goals, is that they affect our goals - increasing
the strength of some and decreasing the strength of others - and
we should take this into account. In some decisions, we must
simultaneously consider the modification of goals and their
satisfaction. For example, I have considered running for
congress, expecting not to win but to "educate" my fellow
citizens about certain issues. If I did this, my desire to win
would probably increase as the race went on. In making my
decision whether to run, I must consider simultaneously the
creation of this new goal and the (low) probability of its
achievement. It would be a frustrating experience, unless I
could, through rigorous self-control, prevent myself from wanting
to win.
We are tempted to think that decisions of this sort involve a
certain incommensurability. For example, the decision to have a
child involves a choice of two different paths of life - a choice
of becoming two different people. One person has the goal of
caring for a child and the other has stronger goals concerning
the companionship of friends, entertainment, or achievement. One
commonly mentioned consequence of having children is that people
CARE less about aspects of their lives that they have to give up
in order to find the time to be a good parent. It is not just a
matter of going against one's goals. Rather, after some period
of time, the goals weaken, and the failure to satisfy them is no
longer experienced as a great frustration.
How should we compare two paths of this sort? Of course, one
source of difficulty is the enormous uncertainty we have about
how much each goal will be satisfied and how strongly we will
experience it, but we must put this uncertainty aside. It is not
the issue. (It is, in any case, not peculiar to this type of
decision.) We must, as in other decisions, make our decision on
the basis of probabilities as we know them. What is at issue is
the comparison of different goals with different levels of
achievement of each goal. We may simplify the decision as
follows:
Option 1: Have child
Goal of child's welfare
expected strength: 90
expected level of satisfaction: 70
Goal of social life
expected strength: 40
expected level of satisfaction: 20
Option 2: Do not have child
Goal of child's welfare
expected strength: 0
expected level of satisfaction: 0
Goal of social life
expected strength: 80
expected level of satisfaction: 60
How should we compare these two options? Is it better to have
the child-welfare goal partly satisfied, as in the first option,
or not have it at all, as in the second? What if the expected
level of satisfaction were 40 or 10 instead of 70? Of course,
these numbers are just stand-ins for real consequences, and the
scale is arbitrary.
One way to make these comparison is by consulting the goals we
have that remain constant across the two options. In doing this,
we apply the idea of utility as goal achievement to
goal-plus-satisfaction outcomes such as those just described. We
may, for example, decide that it is better to have the goal of
child welfare, partly satisfied, because it fits with our other
goals of concern about other people and the future and having a
full range of human experiences. But we may decide that the
expected level of achievement of the goal - given the conditions
in which the child would have to grow up, say - might be
"negative," that is, worse than the alternative of not having the
goal and not having it satisfied. Such a conclusion might result
from goals not to make people suffer from what we see as a bleak
future. In reality, such judgments are difficult to make, even
if we are certain of the consequences we are judging. But they
are not IMPOSSIBLE to make. It makes perfect sense to say, "I
wish I didn't care so much about what happens to Susan, given
what is happening to her."
Note that this method of evaluation does not allow us to reason
from any particular first principles (unless such principles can
be independently justified). We cannot compare two sets of goals
without some some core set of common goals. In this respect, the
evaluation of goals is similar to the evaluation of beliefs in
the Bayesian theory. We can evaluate the probability of each
belief, given the probabilities assigned to all other relevant
beliefs, but we cannot compare systems of belief as a whole.
Could we do more than this for goals? Could we, for example,
include each goal as part of its own evaluation? Suppose I am
faced with a choice that involves the development of new goals.
For example, suppose I consider taking up watercolors as a hobby.
In evaluating each such activity, can I also take into account
the goals that result from the activity itself? I do not mean
such general things as "being successful at things that I do,"
for this is a goal I already have, which I can use as a standard
to evaluate new goals. I mean things inherent to the activity,
such as adhering to certain standards of watercolor design,
standards I do not even know about right now (except insofar as
they derive from more general aesthetic standards).
I see no way of making such evaluations. To make any comparative
evaluation, we need common criteria (that is, common goals, since
a goal is a criterion of evaluation). If I am right about this,
our ability to make comparisons of two courses of life is
dependent on the existence of common goals.
In conceiving of goals and their rational adoption, it might help
to think of each goals as a legislator in a governing oligarchy
(of "multiple selves"). Each legislator has a FIXED agenda, a
set of criteria (goals) for evaluating every proposal put before
the group. Admission of new members is based on the same
agendas. Voting is not used; instead, the honest appraisals of
each member are added up. That is, the group admits a new member
when the expected behavior of the new member furthers the agendas
of the members more than does not admitting the new member (or
more than does admitting some alternative possible member). But,
importantly, the new member is not simply a means to further the
agendas of the current members, although that is why they admit
her. The new member brings an agenda of her own, thereby
changing somewhat the overall behavior of the group. In this
way, the rational adoption of goals is instrumental, but its
effect is not solely instrumental. New goals are truly added.
If we think of the strengthening or weakening of goals as
anlogous to addition or subtraction of new (identical) goals,
then we can easily extend this argument to the sorts of problems
that Becker considers.
References
Baron, J. (1988). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University
Press.
Elster, J. (1983). Sour grapes: Studies in the subversion of
rationality. Cambridge University Press.
Note
1. Parts of this comment are excerpted from a manuscript in
preparation.
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (01/04/91)
PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue 1
Consensus Journals - David Stodolsky
Reply - Gordon Becker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Stodolsky <david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc>
Subject: Consensus Journals/Stodolsky
"Gordon Becker" <becker@zeus.unomaha.edu> writes in
"Response to D.S. Stodolsky's 'Consensus Journals'" (PSYCOLOQUY V1 #16):
"The statistical procedure that Stodolsky proposes for evaluating
articles and for selecting new authors would make it even more
difficult than it is now to publish articles that deviate from
the dominant paradigm."
This criticism is not supported and I do not think it can be supported. First,
any author can publish directly, independent of the consensus calculation
procedure. Second, the consensus calculation supports two consensus positions,
thus identifying an opposition and treating it just as it treats the dominant
position. Third, the Cultural Consensus model does not take into account any
historical information, thus use of this model does not grant any benefit to
those with developed reputations. I suggest, however, that the integration of
reputation information is appropriate in scientific discourse. The weight
reputation is given, however, is not specified in the model. The Cultural
Consensus model should be used alone to maximize sensitivity to new paradigms. A
major objective of the Consensus Journal process is to overcome the current
conservatism of scientific journals.
This criticism, and the others in the response, give the impression of
misperception of the level of analysis of my proposal. The procedure I suggest
operates at the level of statements or paragraphs, not full papers as we see
them today.
Becker continues:
"Stodolsky's method also perpetuates the use of anonymity with all
of its disadvantages. Not only does anonymity permit the reviewer
to make false and unsupported statements, to be unnecessarily
disparaging, personal and disrespectful, all with impunity; it
also prevents opening or continuing a fruitful exchange and
cooperative effort with helpful reviewers."
This question is not treated in the target paper, but the criticism is precisely
incorrect. It fails distinguish between anonymity and the use of pseudonyms that
corrects the problems mentioned above.
Finally, Becker states:
"The task of reviewers might then be to
verify the accuracy and relevancy of citations rather than the
worth of the article itself."
This _is_ one task of reviewers of Consensus Journal articles.
The response raises some other interesting points for discussion, but the basis
for them is apparently a misunderstanding of the objectives and procedures for
the Consensus Journal, thus it is hard to offer a reaction to them. I suggest
Becker reanalyzes the article and relevant supporting material to determine
which, if any, of his criticisms and suggestions are, in fact, relevant.
David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38
Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 95 92 82
Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01
------------------------------
From: <BECKER%UNOMA1@pucc>
Subject: Reply to Stodolsky's reply to my comments on Consensus Journals
Reply to Stodolsky's reply to Becker's Comment on D.S. Stodolsky's
"Consensus Journals" in PSYCOLOQUY VI #16
I reread Stodolsky's article, as he suggested in his reply to my
original comments. He is right in pointing out that I had overlooked
the fact that anyone can invite hirself to write an article. This does
not invalidate my criticisms, but strengthens them. If anyone can
publish anything, anytime, then why go through all the statistical
procedures and invitations? What is gained from that compared to simply
allowing the reviews to drive the procedure and force bad articles
out of print?
I also wonder how many articles would be self-invited (as they are today)
and how many referee and moderator invitations would be accepted.
The _statistical procedure_ that he uses and that I criticized in
my first comment still holds: it is conservative in so far as
most reviewers are likely to take the mainstream position and
reject significant deviations from it. In order to obtain the
second modal position there will have to be several other
reviewers thinking like the deviant author - the more original,
the more deviant the article, the less likely the second (positive)
modal position.
The distinction that Stodolsky would like to make between
"anonymity" and "pseudonyms" is, to use his own expression,
"precisely incorrect", since the reviewer remains anonymous
to all but the moderator ... which is precisely the same
situation we have today for anonymous reviews: The editor knows
who the reviewer is but nobody else does. Giving the reviewer a
pseudonym doesn't change that. Moreover, contrary to Stodolsky's
desire to have the reviews enhance the reputation of the reviewer,
the pseudonym enhances the reputation of an anonymous pseudonym
whom nobody but the moderator knows?
Gordon Becker UNO Omaha NE 68182 becker@UNOMA1.BITNET
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (01/04/91)
PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue 1
Branch Chief, Flight Human Factors Branch, NASA Ames
Chair of Clinical Psychology, University of Wales
CogSci/Education Position, U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Dolphin Research Position available
Lectureship in Experimental Psychology, Cambridge
Part-Time Counseling/Clinical Psychologist, U of Illinois at Chicago
Position Announcement: University of Cincinnati (Ohio)
Postdoc: Cognitive Science / Neural Modeling, Rutgers University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Shafto <shafto@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Branch Chief, Flight Human Factors Branch, NASA Ames
BRANCH CHIEF
Flight Human Factors Branch
Aerospace Human Factors Division
NASA Ames Research Center
We seek an exceptional individual who will thrive on management
challenges and extraordinary opportunities for high-impact research and
technology development. This individual will manage a large, vigorous
branch with a wide range of applied research in fatigue and jetlag, crew
coordination, datalink, cockpit design, and automation. The mission of
the branch is to improve the safety and effectiveness of aviation and
space operations. The branch is housed in a newly completed laboratory
building with first-rate research equipment and access to facilities such
as high-fidelity flight simulators. Branch scientists collaborate extensively
with colleagues in NASA, universities, and industry. Requirements: solid
accomplishments as a research manager, broad knowledge of human
factors and related research fields, strong interest in aviation and space
applications, first-rate management and speaking skills. Broad
experience with the air transport industry and other groups within the
aviation community is highly desirable. A Ph.D. is preferred. U.S.
Citizenship is required.
Please send a c.v. and a letter describing your experience and interests
to: Dr. R. Key Dismukes, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 262-1,
Moffett Field, CA 94035.
dismukes@eos.arc.nasa.gov
NASA is an equal opportunity employer
------------------------------
From: PSS001%VAXA.BANGOR.AC.UK@pucc
Subject: Chair of Clinical Psychology, University of Wales
CHAIR OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Salary negotiable within professorial range
Applications are invited for the newly established post of Chair
of Clinical Psychology and Director of the North Wales In-Service
Course in Clinical Psychology. The successful candidate will be
expected to take responsibility for bringing about the conversion
of the existing in-service course to a University-based
postgraduate degree course in Clinical Psychology. The post is
funded by the Welsh Office.
Prospective candidates are invited to contact Professor Fergus
Lowe, Department of Psychology, University of Wales, Bangor (tel.
[0248] 351151, ext. 2210) or Dr. Peter Higson, North Wales
Hospital, Denbigh, Clwyd (tel. [0745] 812871) for informal
enquiries. Email to Dr. Gordon Brown, PSS001@uk.ac.bangor.vaxa.
Applications (10 copies) in the form of a curriculum vitae,
together with the names and addresses of three referees, should
be sent to the Personnel Officer, University of Wales, Bangor,
Gwynedd LL57 2DG, from whom further particulars may be
obtained.
Closing date for receipt of applications is 18 January, 1991.
------------------------------
From: Ellen Brewer <ebrewer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: CogSci/Education Position, U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Faculty Position in
COGNITIVE SCIENCE and EDUCATION,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN.
Tenure track faculty position in Cognitive Science in Department of
Educational Psychology. Open rank, preference for advanced assistant or
beginning associate professor, available August 1991. Requires earned
doctorate specializing in some aspect of cognitive science, plus a
demonstrated record of scholarly productivity in an area of cognitive
science important to educational issues, or in applying cognitive science
perspectives to education.
The successful candidate will be expected to fulfill traditional
professorial roles; also, to provide leadership in graduate instruction
in cognitive science and education, and in developing programs of research
that take cognitive science approaches to address issues of importance to
education.
With appropriate qualifications, affiliation with the Center for the Study
of Reading or the Beckman Institute of Advanced Science and Technology is
possible.
Salary is competitive. To ensure full consideration, apply by January 31,
1991, (letter of application, curriculum vita, three letters of reference,
sample publications, and other supporting materials) to George McConkie,
Department of Educational Psychology, 1310 S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL
61820. (217) 333-7634.
The University of Illinois is an affirmative action/equal opportunity
employer.
Please address all email concerning this position to george@huey.vp.uiuc.edu
--
Ellen Brewer (ebrewer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Non ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco."
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Schull <J_SCHULL%ACC.HAVERFORD.EDU@pucc>
Subject: Dolphin Research Position available
A position has just opened up for a Dolphin Research Associate
in the Florida Keys starting right after New Years. The
position would run for approximately six months and provides
room, board, and some salary (approximately $150 per week).
The research project concerns Dolphin cognition, and uses new
techniques to assess dolphin self-awareness.
The Research Associate would have primary responsibility for the
day to day conduct of the research, and for data maintenance and
telecommunications. The Associate would also work with student
volunteers. Applicants with some prior experience in animal
research, animal training, and/or computer expertise will be
given preference.
Interested people should contact me as soon as possible.
Jonathan Schull
Department of Psychology
Haverford College
215-896-1237 (office)
215-525-4136 (home)
in%"J_SCHULL@Hvrford.bitnet"
------------------------------
From: RGF10%PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK@pucc
Subject: Lectureship in Experimental Psychology, Cambridge
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Lectureship or Assistant Lectureship in Psychology
Applications are invited for a University Lectureship or University
Assistant Lectureship in Experimental Psychology. The appointment will
be made in the general area of human experimental psychology, with
preference given to someone working on language and cognition. The
starting date will be 1st April, 1991 or as soon afterwards as
possible.
The salary for a University Assistant Lecturer is 12,086 pounds a year
rising by Seven annual increments to 16,755 pounds, and for a
University Lecturer, 15,444 pounds a year rising by eleven annual
increments to 23,819 pounds. All Assistant Lecturers are considered for
upgrading to Lecturer during their appointment.
Further formal particulars may be obtained from Dr. D. Franks,
Secretary to the Appointments Committee for the Faculty of Biology 'B',
19 Trumpington Street,Cambridge CB2 1QA, to whom applications should be
sent by 1st March 1991.
For an informal talk contact Dr. O.J. Braddick on 0223-333580 or write to him at
the Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing
Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB.
------------------------------
From: "Barry Greenwald " <U09318%UICVM@pucc>
Subject: Part-Time Counseling/Clinical Psychologist, U of Illinois at Chicago
Counseling/Clinical Psychologist (60-60% time)
Counseling Center, University of Illinois at Chicago (APA accredited).
Prefer doctorate in counseling or clinical psychology with license
eligibility in Illinois. Qualified individuals should be creative and
flexible with a commitment to time limited (one year) therapy, an
ability to plan and implement proactive, developmental programming, and
interest in working with a docotral training program. Preference given
to candidates with demonstrated specializations inethnic minorities'
issues, women's concerns, and/or substance use/abuse. pRIOR EXPERIENCE
IN UNIVERSITY COUNSELING CENTERS DESIRED. Salary commensurate with
experience. Available starting February, 1991. Credentials review
begins December 20, 1990, or when a suitable pool is obtained. Please
submit a letter of interest (not by Email), including qualifications
for working in a counseling center; a current vita; and three letters of
reference to:
Robert B. Lees, Ph.D.
Chair, Search Committee
Counseling Center (m/c 609)
University of Illinois at Chicago
Box 6998
Chicago, Illinois 60680
THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO, AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION EMPLOYER, ENCOURAGES THE APPLICATION OF MINORITIES AND WOMEN FOR THIS
POSITION.
------------------------------
From: WILSON%UCBEH@pucc
Subject: Position Announcement: University of Cincinnati (Ohio)
ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR. The Counseling Program in the Department
of School Psychology and Counseling, University of Cincinnati, seeks to
fill a full-time, tenure-track position in counseling at the Assistant
or Associate Professor level. Responsibilities will include coordinating
the school counseling concentration area; teaching and advising masters
and doctoral students; program, department, and college governance
activities; community and professional service; research and scholarship.
Rank and salary will be based upon background and experience. Applicants
must have an earned doctorate in counseling or a closely related field
and should have competence in research and grant writing. Expertise in
school counseling and expertise in child, adolescent, and/or family
counseling are highly desirable. Academic training in an APA
accredited counseling psychology program is desired but not required.
Women, minorities, and persons with handicaps are strongly encouraged
to apply. Send letter of application, curriculum vita, transcripts of
graduate work, and three letters of recommendation by February 15th, 1991
to: Dr. F. Robert Wilson, Director, Counseling Program, Department of
School Psychology and Counseling, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati
OH 45221-0002. The University of Cincinnati is an affirmative action /
equal opportunity employer. NOTE: Please do not respond via email.
------------------------------
From: Mark Gluck <gluck%psych@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Postdoc: Cognitive Science / Neural Modeling, Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Positions in:
--------------------------
COGNITIVE & NEURAL BASES OF LEARNING
at
Rutgers University
Center for Molecular & Behavioral Neuroscience
195 University Avenue
Newark, NJ 07102
Postdoctoral positions are available for recent Ph.D's in
all areas of Cognitive Science (e.g., Neuroscience, Psychology, Computer
Science) interested in pursuing research in the following areas
of learning theory:
1. COGNITIVE SCIENCE/ADAPTIVE "CONNECTIONIST" NETWORKS:
Experimental and theoretical (computational) studies of human
learning and memory.
2. COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE / COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE:
Models of the neural bases of learning in animals and humans.
Candidates with any (or all) of the following skills are particular encouraged
to apply: (1) familiarity with neural network algorithms and models, (2) strong
computational/analytic skills, and (3) experience with experimental methods,
experimental design, and data analysis in cognitive psychology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Information:
FACILITIES: The Center is a new state-funded research center for
the integrated studies of cognitive, behavioral, and molecular neuroscience.
The Center has good computational resources and experimental laboratories
for behavioral and neural studies.
LOCATION: The Center is located in Newark, NJ, approximately 20 minutes
outside of Manhattan, New York (with easy train and subway access to
midtown and downtown NYC) and close to rural New Jersey countryside
Numerous other research centers in the cognitive and neural sciences
are located nearby including: Cognitive Science Center, Rutgers/New Brunswick;
Centers for Cognitive & Neural Science, New York University; Cognitive
Science Center, Princeton Univ.; Columbia Univ. & Medical School; Siemens
Corporate Research, Princeton, NJ; NEC Research Labs, Princeton, NJ;
AT&T Labs; Bellcore; IBM T. J. Watson Research Labs.
CURRENT FACULTY: E. Abercrombie, G. Buzsaki, I. Creese, M. Gluck,
H. Poizner, R. Siegel, P. Tallal, J. Tepper. Six additional faculty
will be hired. The Center has a total of ten state-funded postdoctoral
positions and will direct, in collaboration with the Institute for Animal
Behavior, a graduate program in Behavioral and Neural Sciences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on learning research at the CMBN/Rutgers or to apply
for these post-doctoral positions, please send a cover letter with a statement
of your research interests, a CV, copies of relevant preprints, and the
the names & phone numbers of references to:
Dr. Mark A. Gluck Phone: (415) 725-2434
Dept. of Psychology <-[Current address to 4/91] FAX: (415) 725-5699
Jordan Hall; Bldg. 420
Stanford University email: gluck@psych.stanford.edu
Stanford, CA 94305-2130
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (01/04/91)
PSYCOLOQUY Thu, 3 Jan 91 Volume 2 : Issue 1
APA Press Release on Persian Gulf Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cheri Fullerton <APASDCF%GWUVM@pucc>
Subject: Staub Release on Persian Gulf Crisis
Contact: Leslie Harless
American Psychological Association
Public Affairs Office
(202) 955-7710
GROUP VIOLENCE EXPERT SAYS
PERSIAN GULF CRISIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED
United States' Role as Bystander Is Criticized
WASHINGTON -- The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could have been avoided had
the U. S. acted in a principled and consistent manner in its role as
bystander, according to psychologist Ervin Staub, Ph.D., of the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, an expert on the origins and psychology of war and
group aggression. Dr. Staub made his comments during the American
Psychological Association's (APA) Scientific Psychology Forum in Washington,
DC, on December 10, 1990.
Calling the United States' role as bystander "tragic," Dr. Staub
criticized the U.S. and the rest of the international community for
encouraging Saddam Hussein's aggressive behavior by failing to condemn his
killing of his own Kurdish population and supporting his invasion of Iran. He
noted that not only did the U.S. fail to send any negative signals to Saddam
Hussein, but clearly affirmed his actions by giving him weapons and other
forms of support.
"If the U.S. and other nations had started to express disapproval and
concern when Saddam Hussein started killing his own internal enemies, if
nations had not rushed to his aid when he invaded Iran, Iraq would not have
invaded Kuwait because it would have been clear that this action would not be
tolerated," according to Dr. Staub. He asserted that the United States
destroyed the option of creating a peaceful resolution to the Persian Gulf
conflict by its haste toward going to war.
Dr. Staub's theory on the evolution of harmdoing traces the steps along
what he calls a "continuum of destruction" and is based on evidence from the
behavioral sciences. In his most recent book, The Roots of Evil: The Origins
of Genocide and Other Group Violence, he sketches a conceptual framework for
the many psychological, cultural and societal influences on one group's desire
to harm another. His theory emphasizes the importance of bystanders who, by
their words and actions, can exert powerful influence on progress along the
"continuum of destruction."
Dr. Staub's comments do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of
the American Psychological Association.
The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the
largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in
the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists.
APA's membership includes more than 102,000 researchers, educators,
clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 46 subfields
of psychology and affiliations with 55 state and Canadian provincial
psychological associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a
profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************