harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ("S. R. Harnad") (05/26/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 25 May 90 Volume 1 : Issue 8
New academic group interested in the nature of consciousness.
Strong, Sperber, Cotnoir and culture
Ecological Validity of Psychological Experiments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GS109%PHOENIX.CAMBRIDGE.AC.UK@pucc
Subject: New academic group interested in the nature of consciousness.
The CONSCIOUS SYSTEMS NETWORK (CSN) is a recently formed academic group
which should be of interest internationally to students in the cognitive
sciences, psychology, AI, linguistics and, indirectly, the philosophy
of mind.
Our main concern is with the failure of science to understand the
nature of consciousness as the product of a high-level function of the
brain. Examples of the far-reaching consequences of this failure are
our ignorance of the criteria which a brain-event must satisfy to
enter consciousness; the missing neural link between language and
reality; a general lack of clarity about the end-product of the visual
processes and, for instance, the manner in which space is represented
in the brain; failure to understand the neural correlates of mental
events generally; uncertainty about the biological function of
consciousness and about levels of consciousness in the animal world.
The twin objectives of the network are to promote a more rigorous and
methodical scientific attack on the problem of consciousness than has
hitherto been in evidence, and to serve as an organ of information
exchange in this respect. Among our basic beliefs are the following:-
1. Mind, and the relation between mind and brain, cannot be understood
by science until consciousness is understood. Since we take
consciousness to be the product of a high-level function of the brain,
the problem is to find an account of this function in the precise
language of the natural sciences and to unravel the manner in which it
comes to be realized in the neural networks of the brain.
2. Since consciousness is a property of the organism as a whole, the
only proper approach to this problem is a top-down approach, i.e. an
accurately targeted application of systems thinking, the system in
question being the brain-body system.
3. We believe that any key-concepts and hypotheses the investigation
comes to introduce should throughout be defined or formulated in the
precise language of the natural sciences with its unequivocal reference
to observables. For example, any suggestion that consciousness implies
(inter alia) a power of the brain to form internal representations of
external objects, events or situations, should be coupled with a
clarification in causal, functional or structural terms, of the precise
sense in which 'representation' is here to be understood. And, functional
terms should not be used without their prior clarification in nonfunctional
(e.g. causal) terms.
There are two main reasons for this. The greater the intricacy of a
problem, the greater needs to be the care taken not only with the
logic but also with the semantics of any attempted solution. No
logical inference is stronger than the least definite meaning
occurring in the terms of its premises. Secondly, the ultimate success
of the top-down approach depends on its meeting the bottom-up
approach of the neurosciences, which is already conducted in the
precise language of the natural sciences.
4. These strictures apply also to the technical definition of
'consciousness' which the theory needs to introduce. The problem here
is to find a formula that will satisfy the precision demanded and yet
manages to capture enough of the common meaning the term to satisfy
the ultimate object of the exercise.
In his recently published "LIFE, BRAIN, AND CONSCIOUSNESS"
(Elsevier/North Holland, 1990) Gerd Sommerhoff, co-founder of the
group, has shown how these principles may be implemented, and
illustrated the range of new perceptions and answers that may flow
from this line of attack, including tentative answers to the issues
cited at the top of this document.
***
If interested, write to Kevin Murphy, 338 King's College, Cambridge,
UK, CB2 1ST (group secretary), or e-mail to KPM10 @ UK.AC.CAM.PHX.
from JANET, KPM10 @ PHX.CAM.AC.UK from other networks.
------------------------------
From: JERRY BARKOW <BARKOW%AC.DAL.CA@pucc>
Subject: Strong, Sperber, Cotnoir and culture
Theories of Culture
Good to see interest in culture. I argue at some length, in my
recent book "Darwin, Sex, and Status: Biological Approaches to Mind
and Culture" (University of Toronto Press, 1989), that it is useful to
think of culture as a pool of somewhat organized information. The
crucial question is not whether culture is "really" particulate but,
rather, what the categories are in terms of which the brain chooses
information from the cultural pool; and the attentional channels and
mechanisms that regulate what kinds of information gets absorbed when
and how. More globally, individuals select, edit, and refashion
socially transmitted information (culture) according to algorithms
that, at least in the Pleistocene, would have tended to enhance their
genetic fitness. I use the traditional anthropological terminology (I
am an anthropologist, after all), "mazeway," to indicate the elaborate
set of cognitive maps that the individual builds using (though not
only using) culturally provided information. An individual has a
mazeway, a population has a culture (in which an individual
participates).
Social scientists (e.g., Marvin Harris) tend to provide theories
theories of culture transmission either for culture change or for
culture stability. The approach I am sketching out implies that only
one such transmission theory is needed, one that specifies the
"editing" rules in mazeway construction. "Enculturation" becomes not
a passive process but, as psychologists if not many anthropologists
have long recognized, an active one in which the child and adult play
the roles of editors and revisers. (Contrast this approach with the
Whiting focus of child training and discipline.) This is not the
place in which to summarize a rather large book (which some of you may
have already read), but an example of a psychological mechanism
affecting culture transmission and change is the rule "learn
preferentially from the high in status" (a rule that no doubt could
use a great deal more empirical study). Changing ecological
conditions affect the relative success of "traditional" strategies for
prestige and thus can lead people to change their culture (the hunter
can't find any game but the farmer is doing well so, as an adolescent,
I may learn preferentially from the farmer and follow his strategy --
adolescence is a time of maximum sensitivity to differences in
relative standing).
How do we acquire cultural information? I argue that it is
useful (note the deliberately careful choice of words) to think of the
brain as processing information in Miller, Galanter, and Pribram
fashion, using goals, plans, and codes. At their most basic level,
these are "wired in" by evolution. But they have many "subs" added to
them, and the more "subs" the more culturally labile the information
in question. A language acquisition device might be the deepest of
codes, but after that we have a variety of languages, dialects, etc.
The goal of achieving high relative standing may be wired in but after
that we find a plethora of culturally provided subplans for achieving
it. (I simplify greatly, since I am leaving out a theory of
self-esteem and an analysis of the relationship between primate social
dominance and human striving for social prestige.) If culture is
information then we may wish to think of it as consisting of subcodes,
subplans, and subgoals. (Structuralists in anthropology find what I
think of as subcodes in many information domains of which language is
only one.)
Thinking of culture as particulate is justifiable in some cases
-- that is what transmission theorists like Boyd and Richerson do, and
they provide some interesting results. But they have only one category
of cultural "particle" and one set of transmission rules per
mathematical model, and this is too much of an oversimplification.
Subcodes may be acquired quite faithfully, for example, but the
acquisition of subplans associated with the prestige goal is much more
flexible (a statement that leads to a theory of what the adolescent
identity crisis is about, but I can't summarize an entire book, here,
tempted though I may be). The real differences between Lumsden and
Wilson and Boyd and Richerson stem from the fact that Lumsden and
Wilson appear to have codes and subcodes in mind, while Boyd and
Richerson seem to be thinking of plans and subplans (Barkow, p. 265).
The plan/goal/code trichotomy is very provisional -- I think the
information categories the brain uses in receiving and processing
information are far more numerous and subtle, and that the Leda
Cosmides algorithmic approach is the way to go. But I also think that
the treatment of culture transmission and change that results from
even a simple trichotomy is far more powerful than is the
psychology-free "meme" approach that Dawkins, among others, advocates.
Comments, anyone?
Jerry Barkow (E-mail to BARKOW@AC.DAL.CA, S-mail to Dept. of
Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
N.S. B3H 1T2. Canada.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: steve fuller <FULLER@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: Ecological Validity of Psychological Experiments
<There's a growing body of literature in social psychology (e.g. Gergen, Harre
and Secord, Greenwood, Danziger, Morawski) that casts doubts on the epistemic
value of experiments by arguing that the lab is an "artificial" and
"unrepresetnative" social setting from which to draw conclusions about the
"natural" workings of some social practice. The critics tend to regard
ethnography and history as more "natural" methods with which to examine
social life.
However, a telling feature of their argument is a tendency to take the social
character of the lab experiment (e.g. the fact that the experimenter and subject
constitute a particular authority structure) as somehow diminishing the
experiment's epistemic significance. In this regard, the critics unwittingly
draw on a long-standing philosophical prejudice that makes revealing the social
constraints on some activity tantamount to demonstrating the activity's
illegitimacy.
I would suggest, however, that the social character of the psychology
experiment merely reinforces the idea "acquiring knowledge about people" is
no different from any other human activity in that it is typically conducted
in certain times and places (rather than others), and that attempts to claim
that the activity occurs outside those times and places must bear the burden
of showing how these atypical instances are related to the typical ones.
Thus, claims to the effect that, in ordinary life, we operate with tacit, yet
largely successful theories of interpersonal relations presuppose that the
ordinary situations can be interpreted as approximating controlled settings
in which these theories can be tested. In other words, the "richness" of our
"folk psychology," which allegedly eludes the controls of lab experiments,
is in fact based on an implicit claim that everyday life is fairly regarded as
the scene of pervasive hypothesis testing much like the very lab experiments
that are being debunked. And so, if the possibility of acquiring knowledge
about people from experiments is denied, then it is not clear what is the
paradgimatic social situation for knowledge acquisition that the critics are
presupposing.>
------------------------------
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
Psychology Department Dean, Graduate School of
Princeton University Applied and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ("S. R. Harnad") (05/26/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 25 May 90 Volume 1 : Issue 8
Comments on Gardner's Electronic Archive by Stodolsky
Response from Gardner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc
Subject: Archiving secure interactions
This is the text of:
Stodolsky, D. (in press). Archiving secure interactions [Letter].
Psychological Science.
My invited comment on:
Gardner, W. (in press). The electronic archive: Scientific publishing for the
90's Psychological Science. (Gardner, W. [wpg@virginia.edu], [Apr 1, 1990].
And could equally well be considered a response to the MegaJournal concept.
Archiving secure interactions
Gardner (1990) has done a fine job of illustrating the potential of computer
mediated communication for scientific publication. However, there are both
organizational and efficiency reasons for questioning the appropriateness of
the model chosen. The model presented seems more appropriate for a student of
the discipline than for a researcher. That is, there are (at least) two ways to
use to use computer mediated conferencing. One is the archive or book approach,
and the other is the meeting or argument approach (Stodolsky, 1990). With the
archive or book approach, the user wants the received wisdom, presented in as
clear and noncontroversial manner as possible. With the meeting or argument
approach, the user wants to develop his/her reputation, and will therefore seek
out errors and controversial material so that a response can be contributed
(before it is done by others). It may be too strong a criticism to say the
model is inappropriate, since it is actually the way of approaching the exact
same information which is crucial. What will be argued here is that the great-
est benefits will occur from the extension of computer mediation to include and
in fact, restructure the process of peer review.
Gardner (1990, abstract) argues that "the primary advantage of electronic
publishing is not the inexpensive delivery of text, but the use of a central-
ized archive to concentrate resources for discovery and utilizing information.
The archive would . . . embodying knowledge . . . about . . . the intellectual
goal of individual users." I will argue that the quantitative reduction in
distribution costs is so great that it will lead to fundamental qualitative
changes in scientific communication. And that centralization of resources is
antithetical to a fundamental principle of science. Further, a system embodying
intellectual goals of the individual user would best, for security reasons, be
decentralized. Finally, a decentralized system would more easily make effective
use of a scarce scientific resource (the judgments of reviewers). This is not
to say that the proposed archive is a bad idea, in fact, it may be a pre-
condition to the development of an improved system for peer review, and it
would certainly be an element of such a system.
The qualitative changes which can result from reduced distribution costs can
perhaps best be illustrated by a concrete example. I will briefly describe my
experience with the creation of a conference for the discussion of groupware on
Usenet. Usenet is a world wide network of computers that participate in the
distribution of network news, or just "news" to the initiates. There are about
10,000 computers on this network and about a million users. Some of these
machines are large mainframes with hundreds or even thousands of users. Others
are personal computers, often placed in the user's home, which serve a single
person. Connection to this network requires merely freely available software
and an agreement with the operator of a nearby machine to exchange news, typi-
cally by using a modem and telephone. The news system functions as a distribut-
ed bulletin board. Articles posted on any machine are distributed to all parts
of Usenet within a few days, with most machines getting new articles in less
than a day. The original function of this network was to exchange new software.
This led to creation and distribution of "newsgroups" for discussion about the
software. While computers and software remain a dominant topic, there currently
exists about 500 different newsgroups covering a wide range of topics. One of
the most widely read groups distributes jokes. This group is part of the "rec"
hierarchy (groups oriented towards hobbies and recreational activities). Other
Usenet hierarchies are "comp" (computer topics), "sci" (relating to the
established sciences), "soc" (addressing social issues and socializing), "talk"
(debate oriented), "news" (concerned with the news network and software), and
"misc" (addressing themes not easily classified). One of the unique aspects of
Usenet is that each machine or small group of machines is controlled by a
separate authority. This autonomy is important in terms of the power relations
most desirable for peer review.
The creation of a newsgroup involves a discussion and voting process, the main
objective of which is to determine the level of interest in a new topic and a
proper name. A pair of newsgroups are available for these activities. Under the
guidelines in force at the end of 1989, the process could be completed in about
a month. Creation of the groupware newsgroup, comp.groupware, took about six
months, due in part to my having to learn how to conduct votes. The total
effort involved was roughly that of getting a journal article published.
According to Reid (1990), comp.groupware had a readership of about 15,000
persons after its first month of operation. Average traffic was about three
typewritten pages (six thousand characters) per day. The average cost per
reader was estimated at two cents per month. (This figure includes only direct
communication costs.)
I draw a number of conclusions from this experience. First, the notion of a
journal will have to be revised to fit the network environment. Second, the
economic rational for the editor as gatekeeper in selection of material suitable
for wide distribution has been eliminated. Self publication will become common
and selection of material will become the responsibility of reader. This, of
course, assumes that centralized quality control is best eliminated.
An ideal within science is that only the logical force of an argument should
control its influence. Power relations inherent in the operation of a peer
review journal contradict this ideal (Michel, 1982) and sometime lead to
irresponsible behavior (Garfield, 1988). This contradiction can avoided if a
decentralized system for quality control is created. Computer networks open this
possibility, and in fact, make available superior methods for quality control.
Stodolsky (1990) points out that a loss of information occurs in peer review
because of the use anonymity to protect referees and to ensure impartial review
of manuscripts. This loss can be avoided if pseudonymity is used. A pseudonym
system would permit scientific reputation to be developed as easily by reviewing
other's articles as by publishing ones own.
A system which makes effective use of peer review judgments both in the
selection of manuscripts and in the development of reputation is most practical
and secure with decentralized computer capabilities. A secure pseudonym system
requires a powerful and sophisticated technology. However, if the goal of a
system embodying knowledge about the intellectual goals of individual users is
to be realized, it is unlikely that can be achieved with anything less. In
today's highly competitive environment, authors often will not risk exposing
their intellectual goals prematurely. Even if this data is retained on the
user's computer, interactions with an archive could expose them. Also, since a
close coupling between archived data and the intellectual goals are desired, the
separation of these types of information could lead to inefficiencies. Recent
research suggests that an integration of centralized and decentralized storage
mechanisms leads to the most desirable overall capabilities (Gifford, 1990).
Thus, both security and efficiency concerns, as well as the dynamics of social
organization suggest that maximal decentralization is appropriate.
Gardner (1990) proposes formation of an organization run by scientists to
support users of an electronic archive. A redirection of organizational
resources already in place may be more appropriate. Resources that would
otherwise be consumed in creating a new organization can better be used to
promote the integration of existing organizational units and individual
scientists into the network environment. For a start, every society office with
responsibility for publication should be provided with resources and training
to operate a node on the Internet. For each publication released, at least an
abstract of the articles contained in that publication should be directed to
the appropriate Usenet newsgroup. The Bitnet Psychology Newsletter and Bulletin
Board has been restructured and is now available both by electronic mail and as
the Usenet newsgroup, sci.psychology.digest. This could be an appropriate
channel for the publication of this type of material. The support provided to
this publication should certainly be continued. At least one node should have
responsibility of archiving newsgroups of interest to psychologists. Another
could make material available to those without access to the network or
interest in using it directly. The best service can be probably be provided by
a decentralized system, where staffs of one or two persons work under the
direction of individual scientists.
Savings from this strategy could be invested in applied research directed
towards improving the quality of software available for news reading and for
supporting peer review. Usenet and many other networks are currently dominated
numerically by computer professionals and students whose social science
knowledge is vanishingly small. While a powerful mechanism for the transport of
news is in place and working remarkable well, considering the social environ-
ment of the network, the best news reading software sometimes does not even
present target articles before responses to them. There exits a fertile field
for the application of psychological knowledge, and real opportunities for
social scientists. For example, support for finding the places in discussion
where a person could have maximal impact are needed. Psychological theories
could be embodied in news reading software in order to facilitate this type of
search. Such activities would provide benefits to users and to researchers.
This approach would also prevent the isolation from mainstream developments in
electronic publishing and the wider community of on-line users.
In summary, current organizational resources could be restructured to support
on-line users. This could probably be undertaken with little additional fund-
ing. The next step would be to add editors and then editorial boards to the
network. At the same time, a number of independent researchers could be
developing software for making utilization of the expanding network easier and
more effective. The outputs of this research could be made freely available to
society members. The result would be a rapidly expanding network of users
forming an closely integrated and quality conscious scientific community. The
electronic archive would play a key role in this organizational restructuring,
but without such restructuring the contribution made by such an archive might
not be appreciated.
References
Garfield, E. (1988). Refereeing and peer review: Part 1. In Garfield, E. Essays
of an information scientist: Towards scientography (Vol. 9). Philadelphia: ISI
Press.
Gifford, D. K. (1990). Polychannel Systems for Mass Digital Communication.
Communications of the ACM, 33, 141-151.
Michel, F. C. (1982). Solving the problem of refereeing. Physics Today, 35(12),
9;82.
Reid, B. (1990, February, 1). USENET Readership report for Jan 90. Usenet
conference news.lists. (Message-ID: 382@apostrophe.dec.com)
Stodolsky, D. (1990). Protecting expression in teleconferencing: Pseudonym-
based peer review journals. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication,19(1).
([1989, May 9]. Communication Research and Theory Network [CRTNET],No.175
[Semi-final draft available by electronic mail from LISTSERV@PSUVM.BITNET at
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Speech
Communication and COMSERVE@Vm.ecs.rpi.edu at Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Department of Language, Literature, and Communication])
David S. Stodolsky Internet: david@ruc.dk
Department of Psychology IP No.: 129.142.144.20
Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice: + 45 31 58 48 86
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax: + 45 31 54 32 11
------------------------------
From: "William P. Gardner" <wpg@mendel.acc.virginia.edu>
Subject: Response to Stodolsky by Gardner
Here are some reactions to David's perceptive comments about my article
"The electronic archive: Scientific publishing in the 90's" (in press,
_Psychological_Science_ -- anyone interested in a copy should write to
me at wpg@virginia.edu, please specify ASCII, LaTeX, or surface mail.)
* David contrasts the archive approach with a meeting or argument
approach. As suggested in my article, the two approachs are
complementary rather than competing (see the vignette about user B).
Moreover, I believe that network discussions will be most fruitful if
there are electronically archived references to serve as fixed of
points of reference for the discussion.
* I am sympathetic to many of your comments about the problems of
centralization (I have received a lot of critical mail on this point).
The idea in the archive (a kind of Bibliotheque Nationale out on the
net) may take centralization farther than it needs to go. Still, I
believe that the archive or library concept is important. There needs
to be some single, coherent scheme for organizing the material so that
each electronic article exists as a permanent, efficiently retrievable
record. One way to do this is to store all electronic texts in the
machines of one institution (a Bibliotheque Internationale? :-) ).
But this could place too much power in one institution. A better idea
may be to design a network-wide hypertextual reference scheme, which
would give a netaddress and filing number for any article on any
computer (the way Library of Congress numbers work for libraries.)
Then anyone can start a journal by putting an archive on-line.
Nevertheless, somebody somewhere needs to be copying it all onto optical
disks and putting it into vaults, so that the articles survive when
Journal X goes out of business. A centralized cataloguing service may
also be required. So again, we need some central organization.
* I am not enthusiastic about the USENET model. It was, in fact,
disatisfaction with News that led to the archive paper. Even more
importantly, I don't believe that minor restructuring of current resources
will do the job -- the job is much too big. Current electronic journal
models (including USENET) will not work because the flat ascii file won't
work. We need hypertext and professional standard typography, and anything
else is a step back from the utility available from print technology.
* Your ideas about a new peer review system are fascinating and deserve the
widest possible discussion.
In summary, I am inclined to believe that the ideal scheme falls
somewhere between the position staked out in the target article and what
you suggest in this letter. Your ideas about using the encryption
technology to establish secure net identities may be an essential
component of the solution.
------------------------------
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
Psychology Department Dean, Graduate School of
Princeton University Applied and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ("S. R. Harnad") (05/26/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 25 May 90 Volume 1 : Issue 8
Call for Papers
Color memory query
INTERNATIONAL IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION GROUP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lyn Shackleton <lyn%cs.exeter.ac.uk@pucc>
Subject: Call for Papers
******************** CALL FOR PAPERS ******************
CONNECTION SCIENCE SPECIAL ISSUE
CONNECTIONIST MODELLING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
EDITOR Noel Sharkey
SPECIAL BOARD Jim Anderson Andy Barto Thomas Bever Glyn Humphries
Walter Kintsch Dennis Norris Ronan Reilly Dave Rumelhart
The journal Connection Science would like to encourage submissions
from researchers modelling psychological data or conducting experiments
comparing models within the connectionist framework. Papers of this
nature may be submitted to our regular issues or to the special issue.
Authors wishing to submit papers to the special issue should mark
them SPECIAL PSYCHOLOGY ISSUE. Good quality papers not accepted
for the special issue may appear in later regular issues.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION 12th October, 1990.
Notification of acceptance or rejection will be by the
end of December/beginning of January.
Send submissions to Lyn Shackleton, Connection Science, Department of
Computer Science, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, UK,
EX4 4PT.
lyn shackleton
Centre for Connection Science JANET: lyn@uk.ac.exeter.cs
Dept. Computer Science
University of Exeter UUCP: lyn@expya.uucp
Exeter EX4 4PT
Devon BITNET: lyn@cs.exeter.ac.uk.UKACRL
U.K.
------------------------------
From: Dick Cavonius UAP001 at DDOHRZ11
Subject: Color memory query
I'd be grateful for any references to work within the past decade
on the subject of color memory. If there are substantial responses,
I'll collate them and post them later.
* C.R. Cavonius BITNET:uap001@ddohrz11 *
* Inst. f. Arbeitsphysiologie (Note: uap-zero-zero-one, *
* an der Universitaet Dortmund not uap-oh-oh-one) *
* Ardeystr. 67 Tel: +49 231 1084 261 *
* D-4600 Dortmund 1, F.R. Germany Fax: +49 231 1084 308 *
------------------------------
From: rosenfel%nprdc.navy.mil@pucc (Paul Rosenfeld)
Subject: INTERNATIONAL IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION GROUP
Dr. Robert A. Giacalone of the University of Richmond is interested
in establishing E-mail contact with individuals interested in
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT. Dr. Giacalone is coeditor of IMPRESSION
MANAGEMENT IN THE ORGANIZATION (Erlbaum, 1989) and IMAGE MAKING:
APPLYING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT (Sage, in preparation).
Dr. Giacalone can be contacted at: GIACALONE@URVAX.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
Psychology Department Dean, Graduate School of
Princeton University Applied and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ("S. R. Harnad") (05/26/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 25 May 90 Volume 1 : Issue 8
Research Associates and Assistants need
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Marslen-Wilson <william%MRC-APU.CAM.AC.UK@pucc>
Subject: Research Associates and Assistants need
Birkbeck College University of London
Department of Psychology
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES/ASSISTANTS
Applications are invited for Research Associates and Research
Assistants to work on a Medical Research Council programme grant
on spoken language understanding with Lorraine Tyler and William
Marslen-Wilson, who will be taking up Professorships in the
Department in October 1990. The research covers aspects of
spoken language comprehension ranging from acoustic-phonetic
analysis and word recognition to syntactic parsing and discourse
interpretation. Candidates will be expected to contribute at all
levels to the conduct and development of research in these areas.
The Research Assistant positions can be either full-time or
part-time.
Preferred candidates will have appropriate experience in
experimental psychology, linguistics, laboratory computing or
related disciplines. The positions are available from October 1
1990, and will run until December 1994.
Salaries on scale 1B or 1A within the range #13166 - #19932 p.a.
inclusive of London weighting, depending on age and experience.
Applications, in the form of three copies of a recent cv, should
be sent to Dr L.K. Tyler, Department of Experimental Psychology,
University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB (Tel:
0223-333586; e-mail: LKT10@uk.ac.cam.phx) by May 30 1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TWO RESEARCH ASSOCIATE POSITIONS
Unification based models of lexical access and incremental
interpretation
Applications are invited for two 3 year Research Associate
positions to work on a project funded by the Joint Research
Councils Cognitive Science Initiative. The aim of the project is
to combine psycholinguistic and computational techniques
in modelling the processes of lexical access, parsing and
incremental interpretation in spoken language understanding.
We need one person with a background in psycholinguistics (and
preferably with experience in computational techniques as well)
to assist in the development of computationally based
psychological models and in the design and conduct of
experimental studies. This post will be held at Birkbeck
College, University of London (where William Marslen-Wilson and
Lorraine Tyler are moving in October 1990). The other position is
suitable for someone with a background in computational
linguistics or artificial intelligence and will involve the
design and implementation of computational systems exemplifying
or supporting psychological models. This position will be based
at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory.
Appointments will be made on the RA1A scale (as of 1/5/1990)
between #11390 and #15444; the Birkbeck position will also
receive #1767 London weighting. It is hoped to begin the project
in October 1990.
For further details contact any of the following:
Dr W. Marslen-Wilson (MRC Applied Psychology Unit, 15 Chaucer
Road, Cambridge CB1 1EE; Tel +44(0)223-355294; email
william@mrc-apu.cam.ac.uk)
Dr S. Pulman (University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG.
Currently at SRI International Cambridge Computer Science
Research Centre: +44(0)223-324146; email sgp@cl.cam.ac.uk,
or sgp@ai.sri.com)
Dr L. Tyler (Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing Site,
University of Cambridge, CB2 3EB; Telephone +44(0)223-333586;
e-mail lkt10@phx.cam.ac.uk)
------------------------------
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ("S. R. Harnad") (05/26/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 25 May 90 Volume 1 : Issue 8
PSYCOLOQUY Editorial Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: harnad@clarity.princeton.edu
Subject: PSYCOLOQUY Editorial Board
Here is the editorial board of PSYCOLOQUY as it has materialized so
far; more editors are being invited and more nominations (including
self-nominations) are encouraged. All subspecialties of psychology and
related fields should be represented. Nominees should have some stature
in their specialty and some editorial experience as they will be
adjudicating the submissions of their peers.
EDITORS
Co-Editor, Scientific: Stevan Harnad
Co-Editor, Clinical/Professional: Perry London
EDITORIAL BOARD
Animal Learning: Richard Sutton rich@gte.com
Anthropology: Jerome Barkow barkow@AC.DAL.CA
Applied Psychology, Metatheory:
Daniel Fishman, GSAPP, Rutgers University
Cognition/Computation: Zenon Pylyshyn zenon@cogsci.uwo.ca
Community Psychology: Cary Cherniss, GSAPP.
Economic Psychology: S.E.G. Lea S.E.G.Lea@exeter.ac.uk
Experimental Analysis of Behavior:
A. Charles Catania catania@umbc1.umbc.edu
Lewis R. Gollub lgollub@umd5.umd.edu
Elliott Shimoff shimoff@umbc.bitnet
Hippocampal Functions: David Olton <OLTON_DS%JHUVM@.bitnet>
History: Daniel N. Robinson gu31@guvm.bitnet
Industrial/Organizational Psychology:
Alison Davis-Blake ad18+@andrew.cmu.edu
Mark Fichman mf4f+@andrew.cmu.edu
Carol Kulik ck2a+@andrew.cmu.edu
Language Disorders: Max Coltheart ps_coltheart@vaxa.mqcc.mq.oz.au
Linguistics: Bob Freidin bob@clarity.princeton.edu
Mental Health Service Delivery:
Kathleen Pottick, Rutgers University
Neurolinguistics: Harry Whitaker r12040@uqam.bitnet
Perception: Bruce Bridgeman psy160@ucscc.UCSC.EDU
Personality: Douglas Davis d_davis@hvrord.bitnet
Larry Pervin pervin@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Philosophy: Gilbert Harman ghh@clarity.princeton.edu
School Psychology: Kenneth Schneider, GSAPP
Sensory Psychophysiology:
Gerald Wasserman codelab@brazil.psych.purdue.edu
Treatment of Addictive Disorders:
Fred Rotgers, Rutgers University
Vision: Dick Cavonius uap001@ddohrz11.bitnet
?? Steve Fuller fuller@vtvm2.bitnet
Dan Sperber sperber@poly.polytechnique.fr
John Castellan castellan@ucs.indiana.edu
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ("S. R. Harnad") (05/26/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Fri, 25 May 90 Volume 1 : Issue 8
PSYCOLOQUY Editorial Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: harnad@clarity.princeton.edu
Subject: PSYCOLOQUY Editorial Board
Here is the editorial board of PSYCOLOQUY as it has materialized so
far; more editors are being invited and more nominations (including
self-nominations) are encouraged. All subspecialties of psychology and
related fields should be represented. Nominees should have some stature
in their specialty and some editorial experience as they will be
adjudicating the submissions of their peers.
EDITORS
Co-Editor, Scientific: Stevan Harnad
Co-Editor, Clinical/Professional: Perry London
EDITORIAL BOARD
Animal Learning: Richard Sutton rich@gte.com
Anthropology: Jerome Barkow barkow@AC.DAL.CA
Applied Psychology, Metatheory:
Daniel Fishman, GSAPP, Rutgers University
Cognition/Computation: Zenon Pylyshyn zenon@cogsci.uwo.ca
Community Psychology: Cary Cherniss, GSAPP.
Economic Psychology: S.E.G. Lea S.E.G.Lea@exeter.ac.uk
Experimental Analysis of Behavior:
A. Charles Catania catania@umbc1.umbc.edu
Lewis R. Gollub lgollub@umd5.umd.edu
Elliott Shimoff shimoff@umbc.bitnet
Hippocampal Functions: David Olton <OLTON_DS%JHUVM@.bitnet>
History: Daniel N. Robinson gu31@guvm.bitnet
Industrial/Organizational Psychology:
Alison Davis-Blake ad18+@andrew.cmu.edu
Mark Fichman mf4f+@andrew.cmu.edu
Carol Kulik ck2a+@andrew.cmu.edu
Language Disorders: Max Coltheart ps_coltheart@vaxa.mqcc.mq.oz.au
Linguistics: Bob Freidin bob@clarity.princeton.edu
Mental Health Service Delivery:
Kathleen Pottick, Rutgers University
Neurolinguistics: Harry Whitaker r12040@uqam.bitnet
Perception: Bruce Bridgeman psy160@ucscc.UCSC.EDU
Personality: Douglas Davis d_davis@hvrord.bitnet
Larry Pervin pervin@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Philosophy: Gilbert Harman ghh@clarity.princeton.edu
School Psychology: Kenneth Schneider, GSAPP
Sensory Psychophysiology:
Gerald Wasserman codelab@brazil.psych.purdue.edu
Treatment of Addictive Disorders:
Fred Rotgers, Rutgers University
Roger Rabbit, Adjunct Professor, UCLA
Assistant Director - TTCS
rr@freud.ttcs.edu
Vision: Dick Cavonius uap001@ddohrz11.bitnet
?? Steve Fuller fuller@vtvm2.bitnet
Dan Sperber sperber@poly.polytechnique.fr
John Castellan castellan@ucs.indiana.edu
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************