Category Archives: Linking Thinking

Link­ing to what oth­ers are think­ing about learn­ing as a way to explore how we learn online.

V
Drug Companies, Doctors and Corruption

Clin­i­cal tri­als are bro­ken. In her review of three recently pub­lished books about the col­lu­sion between influ­en­tial doc­tors and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, Mar­cia Angell reveals the sys­tem­atic biases inher­ent in the very sci­en­tific method designed ensure best med­ical prac­tices. Knowl­edge trans­la­tion rests on the assump­tion that evidence-based research must make its way into prac­tice. Her con­clu­sion is sickening:

It is sim­ply no longer pos­si­ble to believe much of the clin­i­cal research that is pub­lished, or to rely on the judg­ment of trusted physi­cians or author­i­ta­tive med­ical guide­lines. I take no plea­sure in this con­clu­sion, which I reached slowly and reluc­tantly over my two decades as an edi­tor of The­New Eng­land Jour­nal of Medicine.

♦ ♦ ♦

E
Set in Our Ways: Why Change Is So Hard

Even though we yearn for what is new, most of us are unable or will­ing to make fun­da­men­tal changes in our lives. <a href=“http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=set-in-our-ways” title=“Set in Our Ways” Why Change is so Hard”>Change is rarely as easy as we think it will be. Our open­ness to new expe­ri­ences typ­i­cally increases dur­ing our 20s and then grad­u­ally declines until about age 60. After that, some of us become more open again, per­haps because our respon­si­bil­i­ties for rais­ing a fam­ily and earn­ing a liv­ing have been lifted.

♦ ♦ ♦

E
Skeletal Remains

Dinosaur mounts have become so fun­da­men­tal to our idea of what makes a nat­ural his­tory museum that it can be dif­fi­cult to imag­ine the insti­tu­tions ever exist­ing with­out them. So does it mat­ter that 140 years after the first Hadrosaurus foulkii mount, today’s pale­on­tol­o­gists have rein­ter­preted its reliance on four rather than two legs? Yes, says Jesse Smith:

… it’s not so much that, say, Hadrosaurus walked on four legs, but more that this new knowl­edge reflects a bet­ter under­stand­ing of the world as it was before we appeared in it. We’re com­pelled by improved under­stand­ings of those envi­ron­ments that have yet to open them­selves to human occu­pa­tion — Mars, the deep sea, the past. Under­stand­ing life in a way that either spa­tially or tem­po­rally tran­scends the pres­ence of humans builds a con­text that helps us under­stand that pres­ence. The fact that we have a bet­ter idea of what the Hadrosaurus’ skull looked like, that we can replace some of the bones Hawkins used to fill in the blanks, so to speak, sug­gests that an image of the past is fully con­structible if only we’re given the right parts.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
New Tools Help Information Overload

Take a sci­en­tific ques­tion like the genetic dif­fer­ence between humans and chim­panzees. Would you pre­fer to plough through an essay on the sub­ject, or to glance at the visu­al­iza­tion cre­ated by Ben Fry in which the 75,000 let­ters of cod­ing in the human genome form a pho­to­graphic image of a chimp’s head? Vir­tu­ally all of our genetic infor­ma­tion is iden­ti­cal, and Fry high­lights the dis­crep­an­cies by depict­ing nine of the let­ters as red dots. No con­test. Alice Raw­sthorn explains why.

♦ ♦ ♦

E
EEGs Show Brain Differences Between Poor and Rich Kids

Kids from lower socioe­co­nomic lev­els show brain phys­i­ol­ogy pat­terns sim­i­lar to some­one who actu­ally had dam­age in the frontal lobe as an adult, said Robert Knight, a UC Berke­ley pro­fes­sor of psy­chol­ogy and direc­tor of their Neu­ro­science Insti­tute. This is a wake-up call. It’s not just that these kids are poor and more likely to have health prob­lems, but they might actu­ally not be get­ting full brain devel­op­ment from the stress­ful and rel­a­tively impov­er­ished envi­ron­ment asso­ci­ated with low socioe­co­nomic sta­tus: fewer books, less read­ing, fewer games, fewer vis­its to muse­ums. This study has been repeated many times in the last thirty years, with anal­o­gous results; this one is unique in that is sorts out the vari­ables that peo­ple have used to dis­count pre­vi­ous stud­ies and yet ends by ask­ing “Can this be repli­cated?” For heaven’s sake. What more proof do we need?

♦ ♦ ♦

N
Google’s Gatekeepers

A sober­ing piece by law pro­fes­sor Jef­frey Rosen about the crit­i­cal and reluc­tant role that Google’s cor­po­rate gate­keep­ers play in decid­ing what we can and can­not see as it nav­i­gates the ter­ri­tory between pro­vid­ing neu­tral plat­form for free speech and a com­pany in the media and adver­tis­ing business:

“Right now, we’re trust­ing Google because it’s good, but of course, we run the risk that the day will come when Google goes bad,” [law pro­fes­sor Tim] Wu told me. In his view, that day might come when Google allowed its auto­mated Web crawlers, or search bots, to be used for law-enforcement and national-security pur­poses. “Under pres­sure to fight ter­ror­ism or to pacify repres­sive gov­ern­ments, Google could track every­thing we’ve searched for, every­thing we’re writ­ing on gmail, every­thing we’re writ­ing on Google docs, to fig­ure out who we are and what we do,” he said. “It would make the Inter­net a much scarier place for free expres­sion.” The ques­tion of free speech online isn’t just about what a com­pany like Google lets us read or see; it’s also about what it does with what we write, search and view.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
Overload!

The tragedy of the news media in the infor­ma­tion age is that in their strug­gle to find a finan­cial foothold,” writes Bree Nor­den­son, “they have neglected to look hard enough at the larger impli­ca­tions of the new infor­ma­tion land­scape — and more gen­er­ally, of mod­ern life.” That is, infor­ma­tion over­load. Most of us lack the skills — not to men­tion the time, atten­tion, and moti­va­tion — to make sense of today’s unre­lent­ing tor­rent of infor­ma­tion. Far from pre­cip­i­tat­ing the demise of jour­nal­ists and news orga­ni­za­tions, it spells out why jour­nal­ism won’t dis­ap­pear. Paul Duguid explains: “[Infor­ma­tion] needs a rec­om­men­da­tion, a seal of approval, some­thing that says this is reli­able or true or what­ever. And so jour­nal­ists, but also the insti­tu­tions of jour­nal­ism as one aspect of this, become very important.”

♦ ♦ ♦

N
Social Networks and Happiness

It seems to be the case, online as well as offline, that when you smile, the world smiles with you:

We found that social net­works have clus­ters of happy and unhappy peo­ple within them that reach out to three degrees of sep­a­ra­tion. A person’s hap­pi­ness is related to the hap­pi­ness of their friends, their friends’ friends, and their friends’ friends’ friends — that is, to peo­ple well beyond their social hori­zon. We found that happy peo­ple tend to be located in the cen­ter of their social net­works and to be located in large clus­ters of other happy peo­ple. And we found that each addi­tional happy friend increases a person’s prob­a­bil­ity of being happy by about 9%.

♦ ♦ ♦

N
Obama In Your Heart

Ele­va­tion is one of a class of emo­tions that we feel when other peo­ple do good, skill­ful, or admirable things. These emo­tions are unusual in that they are not pri­mar­ily about our­selves, our goals, and our nor­mal petty con­cerns; rather, they make us feel like bet­ter peo­ple. Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term ele­va­tion, writes, “Pow­er­ful moments of ele­va­tion some­times seem to push a men­tal ‘reset but­ton,’ wip­ing out feel­ings of cyn­i­cism and replac­ing them with feel­ings of hope, love, and opti­mism, and a sense of moral inspi­ra­tion.” Barack Obama is appar­ently an off-the-charts ele­va­tion inducer. Haidt’s research shows that ele­va­tion is good at pro­vok­ing a desire to make a dif­fer­ence but not so good at moti­vat­ing real action. But he says the ele­va­tion effect is pow­er­ful nonethe­less. “It does appear to change peo­ple cog­ni­tively; it opens hearts and minds to new pos­si­bil­i­ties. This will be cru­cial for Obama.”

♦ ♦ ♦

E
Procrastinating Again?

Pro­cras­ti­na­tion is not a time-management prob­lem. It’s a com­plex prob­lem involv­ing per­son­al­ity, sit­u­a­tions and moti­va­tion. Every­one occa­sion­ally pro­cras­ti­nates, 15 to 20 per­cent of adults rou­tinely put off activ­i­ties that would be bet­ter accom­plished right away, and a whop­ping 80 to 95 per­cent of col­lege stu­dents have a pen­chant for post­pone­ment. Trisha Guru cov­ers con­tem­po­rary views on and advice for kick­ing the pro­cras­ti­na­tion habit.

♦ ♦ ♦