What's this about layers? Is this the beginning or not? Herein lie the answers - and the method to my madness:
For those who are familiar with my writing, you'll know that I am in the habit of writing essays which probably cover more than enough material to satisfy most readers.
` That, however, tends to be rather time-consuming because of the large amount of research that necessarily goes into it.
However, even when writing small 'chunks' of the essay/article, I would still probably need to do a sizeable amount of research. So; why not just do one source at a time, adding on new insights, details, and corrections, with each pass?
Crucially, I must first start out with a subject I've already done a lot of reading on beforehand, so that I can have a good feel for what I'm getting myself into - not to mention the key facts and points I should expect to cover.
Then, I must select only one or two sources and construct an incomplete article which builds upon what I already know (or think that I know), and then expand upon that with each new source.
This is much like a wiki, except that the references consist of my own college courses and several hundred reputable books, periodicals, etc. and is in fact updated only by myself.
` My materials contain a wealth of information about such things as language, muscles, hoaxes, time, space, dinosaurs, atoms, developmental biology, geology, philosophy, genetics, stars, planets, and most prominently of all, critical thinking skills and virtually anything one could ever care to know about brains - human and otherwise.
As I read new sources, and re-read older sources, I will add onto what I've already written, somewhat like adding layers upon layers onto a very tall cake (of some delicious sort, I hope); thus, I shall call each draft a 'layer'.
` When I've posted at least three layers of an article on this blog, I will add it as a new article on the Corrigendopedia site.
` Before any of these go up, however, I ought to wait until I have racked up five different articles before I even publish any part of the site at all. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be a very grand opening, would it?)
Additionally, each layer shall be annotated so as to reveal my way of asking questions and progressing onto the next step.
` Therefore, this blog ought to be much like watching me write a large essay in a series of steps so that one can see how I plan my next move, including some of the questions that I ask.
` When these blog articles become sizeable enough, I shall thereafter only mention the new parts added and link to the website article, rather than to reiterate the entire article here.
If I do a reasonable enough job at this, I expect that others might find this instructive for building up their own essays. First and foremost, however, they can probably be considered as more of a learning experience for me.
Okay, enough with the talk - where's these layers I'm talking about? Wasn't I about to start on one last time I came by?
Just as I'd planned, I did begin that first article, as well as prepare the Corrigendopedia website's main page. The following morning, however, I woke up with a double-whammy of illnesses and had to sleep a large part of the day; I was too tired and in too much pain to really think about writing or doing anything else.
` Since then, I've been recovering nicely, though am forbidden to write much in the way of blogs or screenplays or any other career-related activities until just before bedtime, when my day's work is done.
` As usual, there's been a lot of work to be done during the day; rearranging furniture and storage in the still-being-remodeled house; cleaning up plaster dust and debris; occasional basement flood relief; doing laundry and other housework; spending quality time with my housemates (including my wily cats); learning to sew properly; not to mention my 70-minute daily aerobic workouts and continuation of hunting for a third job in the present (and suffering) local economy.
Thankfully, everyone here - especially Lucas - has taught me some valuable things about time management, and I expect to have even more spare time in the near future.
` With my extra spare time so far, I've collected the articles from a former (now deleted) science blog of mine for use here, and, as you have already seen, I've decided on the fundamental 'layer' formula necessary for beginning this project (as opposed to the 'bricks' idea from before).
` In fact, assuming that I am not about to be once again called away from this computer or else interrupted by someone who needs to use the computer desk as a writing desk, I shall begin typing that first layer onto this blog right now.
When will I finish? Hopefully, by the time you are reading this article, it will already be up.
Showing posts with label Braaains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Braaains. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Challenges, Challenges!
Sure, we all learn new things about the world, though do you ever think much about how, in order to learn something, you must often unlearn something else that was contradictory?
As a critically thinking person, I cannot help but notice that the culture surrounding me propagates many misconceptions about the world:
` A small, but prevalent, example is the assumption that the direction water spirals down the drain is affected by what side of the equator it is on.
While a phenomenon having to do with the earth's rotation, called the Coriolis Effect, determines the cyclical direction of storms and water currents, it is virtually negligible when it comes to plumbing; its effect on less-than gargantuan scales can only be glimpsed in carefully controlled laboratory conditions.
You can challenge this myth in real life: If you watch water drain from a sink a few times, it will probably swirl one way just as often as it does the other. (You can also change the direction with your hand!)
` And one more thing; a flushing toilet flows either clockwise, counterclockwise, or straight back, and this is determined by the angle of the spouts near the rim of the bowl!
However, it is possible that if this is the first time you've heard this revelation, you may yet forget it in the future! Why?
` Because; I repeated the myth first and corrected it afterward, placing the myth most prominently in one's awareness.
A month from now, which would you remember? The well-ingrained myth that you've heard a hundred times, or that one instance in which you've seen it dispelled (assuming this is the case)? Will you forget it or not?
I've known this general principal for some time, though just prior to this writing I found an interesting article which really exemplifies it. (Shankar Vedantam, Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works, Washington Post, 2007.) It starts out with the description of a psychological experiment:
Norbert Schwarz, a University of Michigan social psychologist, had some volunteers read a flyer issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This flyer repeated many commonly held views about the flu vaccine and labeled which ones were correct and which ones were actually common misconceptions.
Half an hour later, the older volunteers incorrectly remembered the 'trueness' or 'falseness' of 28 percent of the statements! Younger volunteers misremembered the same amount, except this was after three days rather than thirty minutes.
` As for the older individuals at three days, they falsely remembered about 40% of the statements!
The unsettling thing about this is not just that the volunteers wound up with misconceptions about which statements were true and which were false, but that they believed their own mistaken perceptions were put forth as fact from the Center of Disease Control!
That didn't shock me, considering the well-established fact that conscious memories are basically reconstituted from a surprisingly sketchy recording in your brain, resulting in a picture of what you think happened, or what you think you learned.
` It could be relatively accurate to begin with, but over time you can forget more and more details, and to compensate, your brain may 'flesh out' the sketch differently - thus your memory changes without your being aware of it.
This is why people get into arguments over the details of what happened, say, last Wednesday, or what they did on a road trip, or perhaps even what they learned in physics class! Interesting indeed, and you can rest assured that I have more to say on the subject.
Schwarz's study, which has since been confirmed in many peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, shows that reciting a myth to someone - even for the purpose of dispelling it - makes that myth more memorable in the person's mind!
` If they cannot remember the correction as clearly as the myth, they're more likely to believe the myth is true.
And so, the very fact that many myths are challenged may actually help them to stay around. In addition, according to research by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic (and others), a message heard often enough may seem to have been repeated too many times to have come from only one source.
When that happens, the sheer number of repeats can mentally 'overflow' from the original source and be perceived as coming from other, independent sources.
` So if an untrustworthy source says one thing over and over, you might get the sense that you've heard the same thing elsewhere, giving the impression of believability.
Plus, research by cognitive social scientist Ruth Mayo of Hebrew University found that after two things are shown not to be associated, repeating the names of both things close together in time still create the feeling that they are connected.
` If I say; "Bill was shown not to have stolen the car," you feel that Bill is associated with stealing cars, don't you?
So, what if you don't say anything at all? According to a recent study by University of Southern California organizational psychologist Peter Kim, when you don't challenge an assertion, the silence is taken as confirmation.
` Apparently, in the absence of a reply, people will still hear what they want to hear!
The whole point to this is; ensuring that I'm getting correct information across to someone can be difficult if they are also exposed to contrary information.
So you may wonder; what authority do I have to go around shelling out correct information in the first place? That's an excellent question.
` To begin with, I've long been a science enthusiast and have a huge amount of scientific and skeptical understanding from reading the hundreds of publications currently in my possession.
` Secondly, I have more than seventy college credits so far - mostly in science and math - at Everett Community College, though I have not been able to afford tuition since successfully completing Spring 2008.
Someday, however, I will be able to say that I have at least three degrees - in psychology, biology and writing - most likely from Washington State University. You can count on that.
` In the meantime, each day that I go to work at my blue-collar job, I will be pondering the cost of attaining those degrees versus the cost of not having them.
As a critically thinking person, I cannot help but notice that the culture surrounding me propagates many misconceptions about the world:
` A small, but prevalent, example is the assumption that the direction water spirals down the drain is affected by what side of the equator it is on.
While a phenomenon having to do with the earth's rotation, called the Coriolis Effect, determines the cyclical direction of storms and water currents, it is virtually negligible when it comes to plumbing; its effect on less-than gargantuan scales can only be glimpsed in carefully controlled laboratory conditions.
You can challenge this myth in real life: If you watch water drain from a sink a few times, it will probably swirl one way just as often as it does the other. (You can also change the direction with your hand!)
` And one more thing; a flushing toilet flows either clockwise, counterclockwise, or straight back, and this is determined by the angle of the spouts near the rim of the bowl!
However, it is possible that if this is the first time you've heard this revelation, you may yet forget it in the future! Why?
` Because; I repeated the myth first and corrected it afterward, placing the myth most prominently in one's awareness.
A month from now, which would you remember? The well-ingrained myth that you've heard a hundred times, or that one instance in which you've seen it dispelled (assuming this is the case)? Will you forget it or not?
I've known this general principal for some time, though just prior to this writing I found an interesting article which really exemplifies it. (Shankar Vedantam, Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works, Washington Post, 2007.) It starts out with the description of a psychological experiment:
Norbert Schwarz, a University of Michigan social psychologist, had some volunteers read a flyer issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This flyer repeated many commonly held views about the flu vaccine and labeled which ones were correct and which ones were actually common misconceptions.
Half an hour later, the older volunteers incorrectly remembered the 'trueness' or 'falseness' of 28 percent of the statements! Younger volunteers misremembered the same amount, except this was after three days rather than thirty minutes.
` As for the older individuals at three days, they falsely remembered about 40% of the statements!
The unsettling thing about this is not just that the volunteers wound up with misconceptions about which statements were true and which were false, but that they believed their own mistaken perceptions were put forth as fact from the Center of Disease Control!
That didn't shock me, considering the well-established fact that conscious memories are basically reconstituted from a surprisingly sketchy recording in your brain, resulting in a picture of what you think happened, or what you think you learned.
` It could be relatively accurate to begin with, but over time you can forget more and more details, and to compensate, your brain may 'flesh out' the sketch differently - thus your memory changes without your being aware of it.
This is why people get into arguments over the details of what happened, say, last Wednesday, or what they did on a road trip, or perhaps even what they learned in physics class! Interesting indeed, and you can rest assured that I have more to say on the subject.
Schwarz's study, which has since been confirmed in many peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, shows that reciting a myth to someone - even for the purpose of dispelling it - makes that myth more memorable in the person's mind!
` If they cannot remember the correction as clearly as the myth, they're more likely to believe the myth is true.
And so, the very fact that many myths are challenged may actually help them to stay around. In addition, according to research by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic (and others), a message heard often enough may seem to have been repeated too many times to have come from only one source.
When that happens, the sheer number of repeats can mentally 'overflow' from the original source and be perceived as coming from other, independent sources.
` So if an untrustworthy source says one thing over and over, you might get the sense that you've heard the same thing elsewhere, giving the impression of believability.
Plus, research by cognitive social scientist Ruth Mayo of Hebrew University found that after two things are shown not to be associated, repeating the names of both things close together in time still create the feeling that they are connected.
` If I say; "Bill was shown not to have stolen the car," you feel that Bill is associated with stealing cars, don't you?
So, what if you don't say anything at all? According to a recent study by University of Southern California organizational psychologist Peter Kim, when you don't challenge an assertion, the silence is taken as confirmation.
` Apparently, in the absence of a reply, people will still hear what they want to hear!
The whole point to this is; ensuring that I'm getting correct information across to someone can be difficult if they are also exposed to contrary information.
So you may wonder; what authority do I have to go around shelling out correct information in the first place? That's an excellent question.
` To begin with, I've long been a science enthusiast and have a huge amount of scientific and skeptical understanding from reading the hundreds of publications currently in my possession.
` Secondly, I have more than seventy college credits so far - mostly in science and math - at Everett Community College, though I have not been able to afford tuition since successfully completing Spring 2008.
Someday, however, I will be able to say that I have at least three degrees - in psychology, biology and writing - most likely from Washington State University. You can count on that.
` In the meantime, each day that I go to work at my blue-collar job, I will be pondering the cost of attaining those degrees versus the cost of not having them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
