“Students, colleagues remember psychology prof (Columbia Daily Spectator)” plus 1 more |
| Students, colleagues remember psychology prof (Columbia Daily Spectator) Posted: 24 Mar 2010 02:17 AM PDT Students and colleagues who worked with Professor Christoph Wiedenmayer say they lost a quick-witted, devoted instructor. Wiedenmayer, who died of a heart attack Monday, was an associate professor of clinical neurobiology in psychiatry at the Columbia University Medical Center. He also taught in Columbia's psychology department. Ruthy Sher, CC '12, said that Wiedenmayer inspired her to major in neuroscience. "The truth is, being a student in his class made me realize that what he was teaching was really important. After the class I thought, 'I want to do what he's doing,'" Sher said. Alex Ralph, CC '12, said she decided to take the class after reading impressive CULPA reviews on Wiedenmayer. Ralph called Wiedenmayer a "fascinating individual" who had been "a really wonderful teacher because he was very reasonable—he had a smart sense of humor that really made his lectures enjoyable. I would wait for those little moments." "He was the best professor I've ever had," Sher said. "He was amazing. He was just very organized, very concise. You could tell that he really cared about the students' understanding the material, and you could tell he was really passionate about what he was teaching." Besides taking an active interest in each student's experience of his class, Wiedenmayer had a unique approach to teaching the material, according to Sher. She said that the material was very complex and involved, "but he didn't dumb it down—he made it relatable." "He wanted me to enjoy what he was teaching just as much as he did," Sher said. "You just got that aura from him that he was a nice guy who cared about his students." Kate Nautiyal, a teaching assistant for Wiedenmayer's Mind, Brain, and Behavior course, called Wiedenmayer "an excellent and dedicated teacher." Nautiyal emphasized Wiedenmayer's devotion to helping students through the trials of the material. "He cared about his students and their learning of neuroscience," she said. "He was concerned about both the anxieties and curiosities of students." Psychology department chair Norma Graham notified students of Wiedenmayer's death in an email Monday afternoon. She noted that counseling services would be available at the next class session. "In our department he has been teaching for some years now and we will miss him very much," Graham said in an email. elizabeth.scott@columbiaspectator.com Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Christian Living Resources, Bible Study Tools, Jesus Christ (Crosswalk.com) Posted: 24 Mar 2010 02:12 PM PDT Yesterday, Lifesitenews published an article complaining about me. Many of the complains are recycled from Peter LaBarbera's website and a OneNewsNow article. I addressed those criticisms here and here. Mark Yarhouse also did so on the SIT Framework website. Beyond rehashing LaBarbera's issues, I think the article reflects poorly on Lifesitenews. Let's start with their characterization of how my peers have been reacting to my work. Reporter Matthew Hoffman wrote:
Evangelicals? Let's count how many condemning evangelicals are quoted by LSN. If you count Michael Glatze, two people are quoted as complaining about my views, the other one being Peter LaBarbera. My reason for hedging on Glatze is that he began his ex-gay journey as a member of the LDS church and is listed as an "Executive Assistant" at the Buddhist inspired Shambhala Mountain Center in Colorado, which, according to an article written by Glatze in 2009, is a welcoming place for gays and lesbians. Rather than reporting some broad evangelical condemnation of my work, the article repeats the criticisms of Peter LaBarbera. I noted to Mr. Hoffman when I declined his interview (more about that shortly), that I am on the National Advisory Board for the American Association of Christian Counselors (as is Mark Yarhouse) and that they paid Mark and me to present a half-day workshop at the 2007 conference on how to apply the sexual identity therapy framework. By any definition, the AACC would be considered an evangelical organization. Mr. Hoffman says that I am under fire from evangelicals and yet only quotes one, maybe two. At the same time, he ignored evidence that my views are promoted within a much larger, more mainstream evangelical organization (not to mention several others he could have consulted). As an aside, it is curious that Mr. LaBarbera has not included the AACC in his crusade. The AACC still promotes the SITF via the tapes they sell of the pre-conference workshop. The SITF was featured in the AACC magazine in 2007 via an invited article by Mark Yarhouse. Perhaps, the AACC will be next. When I declined the interview, I pointed out to Mr. Hoffman that the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) also claims to value client self-determination. I sent Mr. Hoffman a link to my recent post, "Is NARTH the next target?" which notes that Joseph Nicolosi says, on the NARTH website, that he provides gay affirmative therapy to some of his clients. NARTH is mentioned favorably at least 46 times on Peter LaBarbera's website. I also sent a link to a YouTube video where Dr. Nicolosi says this about his practice:
Given that Mr. Hoffman mentions my movement away from NARTH's emphasis on reorientation, it would have reasonable and responsible for him to mention that NARTH holds to a view of client self-determination that is arguably more permissive than my own. For instance, in the SITF, if a client seeks celibacy or monogamy, we advocate working with clients to avoid contexts which could elicit undesired behavior. Mr. Hoffman is correct that I changed my mind about an interview with him, but failed to completely describe the circumstances, saying
In fact, I declined his original request. After thinking it over, I asked to see the questions he wanted to ask. I did not agree to an interview although he may have thought that I did since I asked to see the questions. Once I read the questions, which he posted, I decided there was little chance for a fair representation of my views. For instance, I asked Mr. Hoffman how he formed this question (#3 in his list):
I wrote to ask where I "defended the thesis that sexual orientation is biologically determined in the womb, by hormonal deficiencies." He then wrote back citing this article in Uganda's The Independent and quoted this section:
In the email, Mr. Hoffman explained:
I believe he did more than slightly overstate my position. His original question slanted my plainly stated views. That was enough for me to stick with my decision not to do an interview. Currently, LSN is lamenting exclusion from a mainstream Catholic news source, Zenit. I know nothing of the specific issues but it relates to criticisms of LSN's reporting. I can say after this experience, that I will not accept what I read there at face value. Perhaps in the zeal to promote a certain point of view, LSN's reporting is skewed in a manner which concerns more mainstream outlets. Here are some tips. If you are going to advance a thesis, call it an op-ed, don't present it as news. If you make a generalization about a trend or a group, interview more than one person from the group you are characterizing. If you want to have sources trust you, then do not slant or misrepresent their views. Follow up on aspects of a story that may lead you away from your preconceived ideas - avoid confirmation bias. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for Psychology To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment