Archive

Posts Tagged ‘results’

Casual Fridays: What stories do you know?

March 13th, 2009

Last week Greta was telling her class about a study that related to a well-known story. She started off the discussion with a reference to the story, indicating that “of course you all have heard the story of _______” (I can’t tell you the name of the story now because it’s the subject of our study). As you may have guessed by now, she was greeted by a roomful of blank stares. She was surprised, because she grew up hearing this story and assumed that her students would have heard it as well. So the question is, why? Do the common stories we all know go in and out of fashion over the course of generations? Or was this story just less familiar than Greta thought? We think we’ve devised a way to find out. Click here to participate As usual, this week’s study is brief, with about 20 questions. It should take only a few minutes to complete. You have until Thursday, March 19 to complete your response. There is no limit on the number of respondents. Don’t forget to come back next week for the results! Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Casual Fridays: What stories do you know?”

Cognitive Daily Blogs, Cognitive Daily

, , , , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Casual Fridays: What stories do you know? [Cognitive Daily]

March 13th, 2009

Last week Greta was telling her class about a study that related to a well-known story. She started off the discussion with a reference to the story, indicating that “of course you all have heard the story of _______” (I can’t tell you the name of the story now because it’s the subject of our study). As you may have guessed by now, she was greeted by a roomful of blank stares. She was surprised, because she grew up hearing this story and assumed that her students would have heard it as well. So the question is, why? Do the common stories we all know go in and out of fashion over the course of generations? Or was this story just less familiar than Greta thought? We think we’ve devised a way to find out. Click here to participate As usual, this week’s study is brief, with about 20 questions. It should take only a few minutes to complete. You have until Thursday, March 19 to complete your response. There is no limit on the number of respondents. Don’t forget to come back next week for the results! Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Casual Fridays: What stories do you know? [Cognitive Daily]“

BrainAndBehaviour Blogs, Brain & Behaviour

, , , , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Try to get strangers to talk using objects on April 5th [A Blog Around The Clock]

March 12th, 2009

Sorry, Nina, but I think I need to copy and paste the entire thing here: Spring is here and it’s time to talk to strangers. On Sunday April 5, I’ll be conducting a collaborative experiment with 15 intrepid University of Washington graduate students, and I’d like to invite you to join in from your own hometown. April 5 is the first day of a class I’m teaching called Social Technology, in which we are focusing on designing an exhibition that features social objects, that is, exhibits or artifacts that inspire interpersonal dialogue. To kick off the course, we’re doing a simple exercise at the Seattle zoo (but you can do it anywhere). The experiment requires you to go to a public space and do three things: 1. Talk to a stranger. 2. Get two strangers talking to each other. 3. Make and install an object or condition which motivates two strangers to talk to each other without your intervention/involvement. That is, you should be able to watch the strangers talk to each other about the designed social object you have created without being directly involved in the action. The point of this experiment is to play with design conditions that support both facilitated and unfacilitated engagement with strangers. This is something I am obsessively curious about. And while I’ve been exploring venues, situations, and apparel that serve as social objects, I’ve found few examples of explicitly designed social objects. Most social objects that mediate conversation among strangers are incidental. For example, my dog, while a highly evolved social matchmaking device, is not deliberately designed for that task. I believe that focusing specifically on the social capacity of an object, rather than its content or interpretation, yields new design techniques for museum exhibits and other participatory spaces. There are three reasons you might value this activity: 1. It will be fun and kind of unusual. 2. It will help you understand the challenges involved in supporting user self-expression. 3. It will help you develop ways to encourage inter-visitor dialogue and engagement around objects in your institution. And there are three reasons I’d really value your participation: 1. I want to suck your brain and revel in your inventiveness. 2. I want to aggregate all the data, synthesize it and share it. More data means more interesting, nuanced conclusions for everyone. 3. I want to connect these students to a larger group of people interested in exploring topics around social technology in museums. If you want to participate, please leave a comment here or send me an email at nina@museumtwo.com. You don’t have to be a museum person or have any qualifications beyond your interest in participating and documenting your experience. I recommend performing the experiment with friends or family to enhance both the fun and safety of the activities. Do not use plunk your cute baby down in the park, walk away, and call it a social object. You have to actually design something–a sign, an incident, an object, an environment. It’s ok if you fail as long as you try. We’ll learn as much from the social objects that don’t work as from the ones that are astounding successes. Participants will be asked to write up their experiences (photos/video enthusiastically supported!), which will all be featured on a dedicated website. We’ll also be live-twittering the experiment on April 5 using the hashtag #strangemuse. I’ll produce a report that will be shared here on the Museum 2.0 blog. And if you happen to be in the Seattle area, I invite you to join us for a post-experiment dinner on April 5, location TBD (suggestions welcome). So how about it? Ready for a stranger April? Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Try to get strangers to talk using objects on April 5th [A Blog Around The Clock]“

BrainAndBehaviour Blogs, Brain & Behaviour

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Genetic Genealogist on 23andMe’s ancestry testing [Genetic Future]

March 12th, 2009

Genetic genealogist Blaine Bettinger explores the results of his ancestry testing from 23andMe , and compares it to previous results from a much lower-resolution test. The main message: the hundreds of thousands of genetic markers used by 23andMe (and other personal genomics companies, e.g. deCODEme ) to infer genetic ancestry  provide a much more detailed and accurate picture of the geographical origins of your genome. No surprises here. The power of the type of genome-wide genotype data generated by 23andMe for ancestry prediction has been compellingly illustrated by a series of recent studies comparing genetic clustering with geographical origins. Here’s one example comparing a map of northern Finland with the genetic clustering of its population, based on the same type of data: The geographical and genetic maps have the same colour scheme, so you can see immediately how astonishingly well geographical origins can be inferred from this type of genomic information. Similar maps have been generated for other isolated populations (e.g. Sardinia ), and for fine-scale structure within broader regions such as Europe and East Asia . None of the personal genomics companies has yet harnessed the full power of ancestry prediction algorithms, although 23andMe’s advanced global similarity tool appears to be the best attempt currently on the market (screen shot for their European substructure view below the fold.) Blaine is clear that his interest in the results from 23andMe was primarily due to ancestry testing rather than disease risk prediction (he discusses his other results here ). He’s not alone; as best I can tell, a substantial fraction of the personal genomics market is currently driven by  a fascination with genetic ancestry. That’s a huge market: as Blaine noted in another recent post , one genetic genealogy company alone has sold over half a million testing kits . Subscribe to Genetic Future . Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Genetic Genealogist on 23andMe’s ancestry testing [Genetic Future]“

ScienceBlog Blogs, Developing Intelligence

, , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Sutent/Sunitinib (Cheer up!) [Molecule of the Day]

March 12th, 2009

Ready for some good news? Just now, Pfizer announced it was stopping Phase 3 trials of a new cancer treatment, Sutent, early – because it was working so well. Typically, stopping clinical trials of a drug early is bad news – your drug is hurting people, or it doesn’t work. Once in awhile, if a drug is working especially well, the trials are stopped early and the placebo group is allowed to switch to the trial drug. That’s what just happened here. The other good news? It was for pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is often hard to treat, because it often does not present many symptoms early on, so patients are often diagnosed very late. Another treatment for this is very good news. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Sutent/Sunitinib (Cheer up!) [Molecule of the Day]“

ScienceBlog Blogs, Developing Intelligence

, , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Casual Fridays — what makes a great resume? [Cognitive Daily]

February 27th, 2009

There’s a lot of advice online about what makes a good resume, and in these tough economic times, getting a job is tougher than ever. So this week, I thought we’d test some different resumes and see which factors are most important in picking a good candidate. You’ll be asked to read two resumes very carefully, then answer a few questions evaluating each candidate. I’ve changed just a few items on each resume, so make sure you read them closely. Then next week we’ll see which factors matter the most. Click here to participate As usual, the study has just a few questions, and should only take a few minutes to complete. There is no limit on the number of respondents. You’ll have until Thursday, March 5 to complete your response. Don’t forget to come back next Friday for the results! Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Casual Fridays — what makes a great resume? [Cognitive Daily]“

BrainAndBehaviour Blogs, Brain & Behaviour

, , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Casual Fridays: Just a random survey

February 13th, 2009

Just a random Casual Friday survey this week. Click here to take survey . As usual, the survey is brief, and should take only a minute or two to complete. You have until Thursday, February 19 to respond. There is no limit on the number of responses. Don’t forget to come back next Friday for the results. Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Casual Fridays: Just a random survey”

Cognitive Daily Blogs, Cognitive Daily

, , , , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



The danger of diagnosis

February 5th, 2009

In my last post I talked about the value of self knowledge in the context of neuro-psychological testing. I said, "There is no downside to testing." Several readers took me to task for that, pointing out that there can be a downside . . . learning that you are officially "different" can be a crushing blow to the psyche. I have thought about that point quite a bit. Frankly, although I acknowledge what people are saying, it does not make a lot of sense to me. Why would increased self knowledge be such a blow? ADD, Asperger’s or autism are neurological differences. They are (generally) stable conditions, not diseases that progress. If you learn you are on the spectrum, it’s not a death sentence. You’re not going to become senile or lose your wits. So why is the knowledge of why you are different so hard to take? I think we grow up with certain notions of what conditions like "autistic" mean. We think, I’m glad that doesn’t apply to me. Then, all of a sudden, we are told it does apply. Our self image takes a hit. I can understand that, but I still believe that knowledge is power. We can’t change our lives for the better unless we understand what needs changing. Therefore, it is necessary to get beyond the shock of a diagnosis and move into understanding what it means, in terms of how we act, live and get along. To me, critical comments like Samwick’s (on my main blog) illustrate the danger of labels, which is rather a different issue that what I originally meant to write about. When I wrote my original post, I thought how much diagnosis meant to me by helping me understand exactly how my mind differed from other minds around me. For example, the simple insight that I miss nonverbal cues was life-changing. I seized upon the specific behavioral issues and set about constructing a better life. It worked. Words cannot express how much better my life is, thanks to the self-knowledge I’ve gained since learning about my Asperger’s. For some other people, it does not work that way because they become sidetracked by preconceived notions about "having a diagnosis." Instead of looking at their own specific issues, they look at broad statistics associated with the diagnosis. They see phrases like, 32% can’t live independently, or 66% never get married and have a family. They become trapped in generalities rather than focusing on specific issues to make their own lives better. They interpret those general statistics as a prediction for their own future, when it’s nothing of the sort. More specifically, they see their future as inexorably tied to every unfavorable broad statistics associated with their diagnosis. IN that sense, some DO see an autism diagnosis as a sentence to some kind of living death. They get swallowed up by diagnosis, forgetting the fact that they’ve lived their lives before and life goes on after. That is the danger of a label. Some people read what’s associated with a label, and make it self-fulfilling. They let go and become the label. That negative outcome can be reinforced by teachers and adults who say or think, He has a diagnosis of autism. We can’t expect too much of him. That is most assuredly not the way I have lived my life. For knowledge to have power in this context, it must be you-specific knowledge. You should not care what 66% of people do in this context. You should care that you have specific and identified strengths and weaknesses. For example, testing might show that you can read subtle emotion in voices, but you can’t pick signals up from faces alone. That’s an example of knowledge you can act on to make your life better. The fact is, you ARE that way. It’s not new, and you’re not getting worse. You are already living your life in context. Understanding can only help. Next, I’d like to address another important point . . . the risk of a wrong diagnosis. People say, What if I get an Asperger diagnosis when I really have ADD? Can’t that be harmful? That actually goes back to my comments on the dangers of labels. To me, the label does not matter. What matters are the specific insights into your own behaviors and identification of your personal strengths and weaknesses. There is no hazard to learning those things. I agree that diagnostic errors can be harmful, but that too is another subject. Don’t focus on the label. Focus on the behavioral insights. Ask yourself, does the result make sense? If it does, you are the way to improvement. If it doesn’t make sense, question the tester. Perhaps the results don’t mean what he thought. In the end, it is the specific behavioral insights that allow you to make a better life, not a broad brush label. People are not labels. Our personalities are made of countless eccentricities and aberrations, and it’s those I seek to understand. The power is in the details. There is no power in a broad brush label. Finally, there is another danger of diagnosis. That is with your medical record. What if you receive an autism diagnosis and it’s entered into your "official" record because you had the testing done by a professional who’s paid by a health insurer? It’s possible that you could be rated unfavorably for insurance, or even denied insurance later in life. What to do about that? The only answer I know is to pay for testing on your own, and make your own decision where the results are released. I would have some concerns about having any diagnostic information in my medical record because the evidence indicates insurers sometimes try and use those records against us for their own advantage. So the issue of "downsides to the diagnosis" is not as clear-cut as I originally portrayed. I apologize to those who felt my original post was misleading or incomplete. © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Click to continue reading “The danger of diagnosis”

Psychology Today Blogs, Psychology Today

, , , , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Casual Fridays: What gifts are the most romantic?

January 30th, 2009

Valentines’ Day is coming up in just a few weeks, so we thought we’d help our readers prepare by assessing the romance level of a few common gifts they might consider getting for their significant others. I’ve noticed that there’s often a fine line between a romantic gift and a disappointing downer. Does a box of chocolates signal true love or the fact that you’ve given up on your lover ever having a perfect figure? Is a cooking a romantic dinner an event in itself or just a way to guilt your date into “putting out” later on? What gift strikes the right balance? Maybe we can determine the ideal romantic gift. Or maybe we’ll learn that everyone has different ideas as to what constitutes “romantic.” Click here to participate As usual, the study should take just a few minutes to complete. You have until Thursday, February 5 to participate. There is no limit on the number of respondents. Don’t forget to come back next week for the results! [Thanks to Keldwud for the idea!] Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Casual Fridays: What gifts are the most romantic?”

Cognitive Daily Blogs, Cognitive Daily

, , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...



Obama and Stereotype Threat [The Frontal Cortex]

January 26th, 2009

The NY Times reports on a fascinating new study showing that Obama’s election has improved the test scores of African Americans, at least in this one very small study which has yet to undergo peer-review: Now researchers have documented what they call an Obama effect, showing that a performance gap between African-Americans and whites on a 20-question test administered before Mr. Obama’s nomination all but disappeared when the exam was administered after his acceptance speech and again after the presidential election. The inspiring role model that Mr. Obama projected helped blacks overcome anxieties about racial stereotypes that had been shown, in earlier research, to lower the test-taking proficiency of African-Americans, the researchers conclude in a report summarizing their results. “Obama is obviously inspirational, but we wondered whether he would contribute to an improvement in something as important as black test-taking,” said Ray Friedman, a management professor at Vanderbilt University, one of the study’s three authors. “We were skeptical that we would find any effect, but our results surprised us.” Claude Steele, a professor of psychology at Stanford, has pioneered the study of this psychological effect, which is known as stereotype threat . (I talk about stereotype threat in my book in the context of explaining why athletes choke under pressure.) When Steele gave a large group of Stanford sophomores a set of questions from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), and told the students that it would measure their innate intellectual ability, he found that the white students performed significantly better than their black counterparts. This discrepancy⎯commonly known as the achievement gap⎯conformed to a large body of data showing that minority students tend to score lower on a wide variety of standardized tests, from the SAT to the IQ test. However, when Steele gave a separate group of students the same test but stressed that it was not a measure of intelligence⎯he told them it was merely a preparatory drill⎯the scores of the white and black students were virtually identical. The achievement gap had largely been closed. According to Steele, the disparity in test scores was caused by an effect that he calls “stereotype threat”. When black students are told that they are taking a test to measure their intelligence, it brings to mind, rather forcefully, the ugly and untrue stereotype that blacks are less intelligent than whites. (Steele conducted his experiments soon after The Bell Curve was published. But the same effect also exists when women take a math test that supposedly measures “cognitive differences between the genders,” or when white males are exposed to a stereotype about the academic superiority of Asians.) The Stanford sophomores were so worried about being viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype that they performed far below their abilities. If this study is replicated – and that’s a big if – it would be tangible proof of this historic moment, evidence that change has filtered all the way down from the White House to the individual mind. Via Andrew Sullivan Read the comments on this post…

Click to continue reading “Obama and Stereotype Threat [The Frontal Cortex]“

BrainAndBehaviour Blogs, Brain & Behaviour

, , , , , , , , , ,




Rate this!

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 60 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 6)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...