From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnewsm!cws Tue Nov 19 11:09:55 EST 1991
Article 1299 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnewsm!cws
>From: cws@cbnewsm.att.com (carolyn.w.spivak)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Artificial Stupidity?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.194601.14993@cbnewsm.att.com>
Date: 13 Nov 91 19:46:01 GMT
References: <TODD.91Nov4211052@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> <1991Nov13.173928.26978@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 10


Someone has already mentioned the use of errors (optical illusions,
etc.) as a source of study. Are there recent references which look in a similar
way at developmental disabilities? I would be very interested in these. 

For those who aren't up on the lingo, "developmentally disabled" is
current sprach for "retarded". I used to think this was silly, but am
coming to the conclusion that it's actually rather precise.

Carolyn Spivak


