"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the only thing for you. Look what a lot of things there are to learn." — T.H. White, The Once and Future King

A website by Shanta Rohse on learning, technology and design

Recently in: Portable Learner

Portable Learner chihuahua

The continuing education of an educator

A
The Sky Is Falling

The odds that a poten­tially dev­as­tat­ing space rock will hit Earth this cen­tury may be as high as one in 10. Gregg East­er­brook explores why NASA isn’t try­ing harder to pre­vent cat­a­stro­phe, and in doing so offers insight into why our insti­tu­tions learn so slowly. Con­ven­tional think­ing – that the remain­ing space rocks are few, and that encoun­ters with plan­ets were con­fined to our pre­his­toric past – has been eclipsed by more dan­ger­ous real­i­ties, but serve to sup­port NASA’s pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with build­ing a manned moon base.

♦ ♦ ♦

N
The Crowd Within

Psy­chol­o­gists reveal in a study pub­lished in Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence a corol­lary of the wis­dom of crowds: the aver­age of two guesses made by the same per­son at dif­fer­ent times are bet­ter than either guess on its own. The accu­racy of the sec­ond guesses improves when it is made three weeks rather than imme­di­ately after the first. If a guess by def­i­n­i­tion is the best pos­si­ble answer, where do these sec­ond guesses come from? The researchers sug­gest that we are con­stantly cre­at­ing hypothe­ses about the world, and check­ing them against real­ity. Sec­ond guesses are refined first guesses that have passed muster.

♦ ♦ ♦

N
2b Or Not 2b?

Rumours of the death of lan­guage by tex­ting have been slightly exag­ger­ated. We will not see a new gen­er­a­tion of adults grow­ing up unable to write proper Eng­lish, says lin­guis­tics pro­fes­sor David Crys­tal:

[On the con­trary], it is merely the lat­est man­i­fes­ta­tion of the human abil­ity to be lin­guis­ti­cally cre­ative and to adapt lan­guage to suit the demands of diverse set­tings.… In tex­ting what we are see­ing, in a small way, is lan­guage in evo­lu­tion. Tex­ting has added a new dimen­sion to lan­guage use, but its long-term impact is neg­li­gi­ble. It is not a disaster.

♦ ♦ ♦

E
Why Judy Can’t Add: Gender Inequality and the Math Gap

The math gen­der gap joins a long list of dif­fer­ences in test scores that were once ascribed to biol­ogy, but now appear to be influ­enced by social and cul­tural fac­tors. John Tim­mer sum­ma­rizes a study pub­lished in Sci­ence that sug­gests that the gen­der gap in math scores dis­ap­pears in coun­tries with a more gender-equal cul­ture like Swe­den and Iceland.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
Your Brain Lies To You

Eigh­teen per­cent of Amer­i­cans think the sun revolves around the earth. False beliefs are every­where, and efforts to dis­pel mis­in­for­ma­tion are more dif­fi­cult than one would expect because of quirky way our brains store mem­o­ries and con­tinue to mis­lead us. Sam Wang explains how your brain lies to you.

♦ ♦ ♦

V
Why the Cloud Cannot Obscure the Scientific Method

There is lit­tle rea­son not to be enthused over the new avenues of research offered by increas­ingly com­pre­hen­sive and elec­tronic sci­en­tific data sets avail­able to us. But reac­tions to Chris Anderson’s naive claim that the del­uge of data makes the sci­en­tific method obso­lete reminds us why mod­els and the­o­ries are the best tools we have to under­stand­ing our world. For exam­ple, John Tim­mer responds: “Cor­re­la­tions are a way of catch­ing a scientist’s atten­tion, but the mod­els and mech­a­nisms that explain them are how we make the pre­dic­tions that not only advance sci­ence, but gen­er­ate prac­ti­cal applications.”

♦ ♦ ♦

V
Nobody’s A Critic

Crit­i­cism, laments Mar­tin Meis, no longer defines what is good and bad in cul­ture, and he blames new media. “Basi­cally, cul­ture has been democ­ra­tized. It has been flat­tened out and mul­ti­plied. There are no longer real dis­tinc­tions between high and low. There’s just more.” What he laments is not so much the demise of crit­i­cism per se, which is actu­ally quite robust, but rather the demise of the influ­ence of pro­fes­sional crit­ics and the sanc­tity of their domain. But if the rela­tion­ship between ama­teur and pro­fes­sional critic has flat­tened, so too has the rela­tion­ship between critic and artist. Par­tic­i­pa­tion is a two-way street. Mar­tin Weis on the per­sonal impact made by lit­er­ary critic James Wood’s essay, “What Chekhov Meant By Life”:

Or, to put it another way, Chekhov is more Chekhov when you add James Wood. I pre­fer Wood/Chekhov to Chekhov/Chekhov and I sus­pect that there is sim­ply no such thing as the old Chekhov after Wood got to him. By the same token, Wood is the critic that he is in no small mea­sure because of how he was affected and trans­formed by read­ing Chekhov.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
The Itch

Sci­en­tists once saw itch­ing as a form of pain. They now believe it to be a dif­fer­ent order of sen­sa­tion, one which sug­gests that per­cep­tion is more than mere recep­tion. Per­cep­tion is infer­ence. Atul Gawande explains the “brain’s best guess” the­ory of per­cep­tion:

Per­cep­tion is the brain’s best guess about what is hap­pen­ing in the out­side world. The mind inte­grates scat­tered, weak, rudi­men­tary sig­nals from a vari­ety of sen­sory chan­nels, infor­ma­tion from past expe­ri­ences, and hard-wired processes, and pro­duces a sen­sory expe­ri­ence full of brain-provided color, sound, tex­ture, and meaning.

♦ ♦ ♦

R
Is Google Making Us Stupid

Con­trary to the title of this arti­cle, Nicholas Carr isn’t so much ask­ing if Google is mak­ing us stu­pid, but rather if Google mak­ing us think dif­fer­ently. The answer to this ques­tion is yes, and it echoes ear­lier sen­ti­ments by Neil Post­man who pointed out (about tele­vi­sion) that tech­nol­ogy is not neutral:

Then again, the Net isn’t the alpha­bet, and although it may replace the print­ing press, it pro­duces some­thing alto­gether dif­fer­ent. The kind of deep read­ing that a sequence of printed pages pro­motes is valu­able not just for the knowl­edge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intel­lec­tual vibra­tions those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sus­tained, undis­tracted read­ing of a book, or by any other act of con­tem­pla­tion, for that mat­ter, we make our own asso­ci­a­tions, draw our own infer­ences and analo­gies, fos­ter our own ideas. Deep read­ing, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indis­tin­guish­able from deep thinking.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
The Myth of Multitasking

E-mails pour­ing in, cell phones ring­ing, tele­vi­sions blar­ing, pod­casts stream­ing – the great media din that has become an expected part of our lives is one in which we ration our atten­tion among many com­pet­ing tasks. Unfor­tu­nately, Chris­tine Rosen points to a spate of recent stud­ies indi­cat­ing that not only is mul­ti­task­ing a poor strat­egy for learn­ing, the learn­ing you do man­age while mul­ti­task­ing is less flex­i­ble and more spe­cial­ized, so you can­not retrieve the infor­ma­tion as easily.

♦ ♦ ♦