Hi Tom and everybody,

I can understand all the points of view here. And as Rebecca says I am also
interested in the scientific aspect of it all. I think there is a natural
aversion to statistics especially when they deal with feelings. I will speak
using "I", but I think this is a we, because I am scared of the possible use
of a scientific knowledge on the emotional side of Man. Those "statistics"
are leveling the world, chopping off this and that, roughing it all around
as if it was all the same dough.

I can also see the position of Geoffrey who says: "Not me!", You won't get
me in there. And this is another strong side I have. In the sense that I can
write:
"The sky is made of wood"
and I am fully responsible of it. And give it there, if you wish you believe
it, otherwise not. And I am free enough to live even if you do not want to
believe it, or read it.

I can also see the nature of Tom Bell who idealistically approached
Psychology, as we all did - in a lesser degree.

The point is not against Tom Bell or psychology in general, it is against
the possible misuse of it, as well as against the limits of science in
general, and poets, in their "madness" (as Douglas previously said) have
sometimes been able to save themselves from failure for centuries and
centuries.

Anny

From: "tom bell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>


> this oddly enough reminds me of the charges long ago made about the use of
> the Rorschach.  interestingly enough the works being discussed could
> mtaphorically be seen as inkblots where people seem to seize on and then
> reject more sensational aspects.
>
> in response to your other post i have to saythat i was interested in
> psychology which led to my study of it but taking advanced statistics was
a
> rude awakening to reality as i barely passed the course.
>
> i apologize for the argumentive tone here, by the way.  i'm not sure if
I'm
> having a negative day or feel like I've been put in the position of
> defending something i didn't create - just pointed it out as an example.
>
> tom bell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Poetry & Psych
>
>
> > Dominic wrote:
> > You'd hope so, wouldn't you? In actual fact, statistical analysis of
> > patterns of word usage, grammatical idom and so on has been shown to
exert
> > a disconcerting degree of traction when it comes to things like
> determining
> > the gender of an author.
> >
> > Hi Dominic,
> >
> > Well, I agree with your sense of computers, in their increasing
> > subtlety of traction, and with your earlier posts about programming
> > vis a vis Macs.
> >
> > My sense is more what is the point beyond an 'interesting
> > exercise'? The greater subtlety and discernment of which
> > such a computer program is capable arrives merely at what
> > is simply and obviously known. The gender of an author is
> > not usually a mystery,
> > and so having a computer program that can discern the author's
> > gender from a text is useful how?  Which was one of my
> > feelings about the suicidal poet study? The suicidal tendencies
> > of the poets used in this study were known from any number
> > of obvious realities at the time. Another issue is that the
> > study is not meant to be an interesting exercise but a diagnostic
> > tool, but used how? presumably to diagnose poets as suicidal
> > when there are no obvious signs or realities to indicate such
> > tendencies. It could be a story, I suppose, a psychologist
> > scanning ______ journals and sending letters of soliticious
> > warning to the self-referencing poets published in their
> > pages.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> > Rebecca Seiferle
> > www.thedrunkenboat.com
>