| Obě strany předchozí revizePředchozí verzeNásledující verze | Předchozí verze |
| researchblogging [2013/01/19 00:49] – Catching up 2013 #1 Martin Koutecky | researchblogging [2013/01/21 20:10] (aktuální) – Catching up 2013 #3 Martin Koutecky |
|---|
| * [[http://livasperiklis.com/2012/12/11/biofuel-thats-better-than-carbon-neutral/|Biofuel that's better than carbon neutral]] -- a great article about **carbon negative fuels**. First part is about algae-based approaches which have downsides, most importantly that they are fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus) intense. Second part is about a different technique which seems very promising and is backed up by Google and others (and a model plant is already running and close to profitable). | * [[http://livasperiklis.com/2012/12/11/biofuel-thats-better-than-carbon-neutral/|Biofuel that's better than carbon neutral]] -- a great article about **carbon negative fuels**. First part is about algae-based approaches which have downsides, most importantly that they are fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus) intense. Second part is about a different technique which seems very promising and is backed up by Google and others (and a model plant is already running and close to profitable). |
| * [[http://livasperiklis.com/2012/12/05/mits-milli-motein/|MIT's milli-motein]] -- a pretty out there article about the idea of //programmable matter//. Contains a nice video of the model they build, which is basically a chain of motors programmable to switch different shapes. It's nice, but really just a first step. | * [[http://livasperiklis.com/2012/12/05/mits-milli-motein/|MIT's milli-motein]] -- a pretty out there article about the idea of //programmable matter//. Contains a nice video of the model they build, which is basically a chain of motors programmable to switch different shapes. It's nice, but really just a first step. |
| | |
| | ====== Catching up 2013 #2 ====== |
| | * [[http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.cz/2012/12/a-new-test-for-finding-out-what-people.html|A new test for finding out what people really thing of their personality]] -- at first the idea sounds like psycho-bullshit, but the results are convincing. So, **the question**: what are your personality traits? The problem with most questionnaires is that you would try to make a good impression, which skews the results. To get around it the new test flashes a trait (e.g. "anxious" or "brave") for 0.2s and then shows a nonsense chinese pictogram. Then you're asked whether you'd like to put that pictogram on a T-shirt. The idea is simply that you'll be more likely to go for something you actually think describes you (because of the implicit link "this pictogram means anxious"). What really caught my attention is that **this test predicts actual behavior** (perseverance, punctuality, church attendence) **better than previous explicit tests** (i.e. what you say on a personality test). |
| | * [[http://www.peerreviewedbymyneurons.com/2012/12/14/how-should-schools-teach-civics/|What makes students care about politics]] -- the paper compares two ways to teach civics: by **discussing** important political issues OR by **service learning** (e.g. do actual projects to help your community). The wanted outcome is bigger involvement in "big P" politics (intention to vote, interest in politics and diverse opinions) and "little p" politics (volunteering or taking action on a community issue). The interesting part is that **those seem to be independent of each other**, because increasing the "discussion" element only leads to increase in the "big P" part, and the same goes for "service learning" and "little p". So both really are **essential**. |
| | * [[https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/can-we-trust-climate-models/|Can we trust climate models?]] -- an interesting article about uncertainty in climate models. They're not perfect, but they're getting better, and it's reassuring to know that's an ongoing discussion in the scientific community. |
| | * [[http://blog.tomwphillips.co.uk/2012/12/microwaves-still-nothing-special/|Microwave heating: still nothing special]] -- against some information circulating among people, there's nothing special with microwave heating. It has it's specifics coming from the heating method, but so does boiling or frying. |
| | * [[http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.cz/2012/12/the-psychology-of-online-reviews.html|The psychology of online reviews]] -- quote: "//we remain impressed after reading early positive reviews, even if negative reviews come later.//". There are fairly good reasons to try to always read bad reviews before the good ones. |
| | * [[http://livasperiklis.com/2012/12/19/toward-a-new-model-of-the-cell/|Toward a new model of the cell]] -- the idea is to take big datasets about interactions between genes and proteins and //infer// new information, which could then be used as a basis for new hypotheses. It's encouraging that what was automatically inferred by this method seems to match in big part what was put together by hand in the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ontology|Gene Ontology project]], so this looks like a good direction. |
| | * [[http://jonfwilkins.blogspot.cz/2012/12/epigenetics-and-homosexuality.html|Epigenetics and homosexuality]] -- so...a paper about this subject made waves and here the author digs into it. The biggest issue is really how it was interpreted (//i.e. as hard facts//) rather than what it really says. The actual paper gives a computational model which seems to make sense and so it gives us a hypothesis to test... but noone has tested it yet. The author gives both a short and a long explanation of the whole thing. Very well written. |
| | * [[http://epiexperts.com/blog/did-epigenetics-make-us-smart/|Did epigenetics make us smart?]] -- a fairly technical article, but the author feels like the papaer makes a fairly convincing case that certain epigenetic changes (which take much less time to happen than genetics change, mind you) are the key difference between our and apes' brains (in other words //what makes us smart//). |
| | * [[http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2012/12/use-mental-images-to-sway-moral-judgment.html|Use mental images to sway moral judgement]] -- when presented with a cold, factual description of a situation we're more likely to make an utilitarian moral choice. When the picture is more "human", relatable, emotional, the moral judgement will be also more emotional. |
| | * [[http://saypeople.com/2012/12/24/motivation-and-study-skills-are-more-important-than-intelligence-in-learning-mathematics|Motivation and study skills are more important than intelligence in learning mathematics]] -- quote: "//Researchers found that intelligence contributes strongly in the initial stage of achievement in mathematics. However for long term achievements, students’ motivation and study skills and habits play more important role for their ability to learn mathematics. Competent students use different learning techniques, such as summarizing, explaining, and making connections to other materials, to get good marks.//" |
| | |
| | ====== Catching up 2013 #3 ====== |
| | * [[http://www.globalcognition.org/head-smart/critical-thinking-skills/|Critical thinking skills: What are they and how do I get them?]] -- we all know it's good to be able to think critically, but what does it mean exactly? Those are the core skills: **(1)** Suspending judgment to check the validity of a proposition or action, **(2)** Taking into consideration multiple perspectives, **(3)** Examining implications and consequences of a belief or action, **(4)** Using reason and evidence to resolve disagreements, **(5)** Re-evaluating a point of view in light of new information. As far as learning them -- just use them. |
| | * [[http://www.globalcognition.org/head-smart/critical-thinking-in-decision-making/|Critical thinking in decision making]] -- ask yourself those questions: **(1)** Do you have all the necessary information?, **(2)** Is there any conflict in the evidence?, **(3)** The devil’s advocate tells you that your story is wrong. Make up an alternative story. Is it more plausible than the original?. |
| | * [[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2013/01/01/whats-wrong-with-citation-analysis/|What's wrong with citation analysis]] -- citations are one of the bases of the way we currently do science. What could possibly be wrong with it? Well, we're influenced by way more things than we're able to actually quote; after a careful definition of an influence the authors conclude, that "//only about 30% of influences are cited.//" Also, quite often only review papers are quoted, not giving credit to the original researchers. There are many more problems. **My personal opinion: we need to update the "paper" research format.** |
| | * [[http://popsych.org/the-tension-between-theory-and-reality/|The tension between theory and reality]] -- a good, bird-eye view of the current increasing trend of using computer models in research. They're not bad //per se//, but we need to understand the limitations of the tool we're using. |
| | * [[http://saypeople.com/2013/01/06/you-are-continuously-changing-yourself/#.UP1gqK1fTz7|You are continuously changing yourself]] -- all participants felt that: "//they had changed a lot in the past but would change relatively little in the future.//" Some other good ideas there: //“What’s fascinating about that is that people don’t have this belief about other people or about the world,” Van Boven adds. “We fully expect other people to change. We fully realize that we have changed in the past. There’s something odd about this projection of the self into the future that’s psychologically unique.”// |
| | * [[https://brainsidea.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/delaying-dementia-without-pills/|Delaying dementia without pills]] -- one needs to build a //cognitive reserve// -- by using the brain as much as possible (art, education, ...). But, it doesn't //prevent// dementia, just pushes the worst further, when it actually happens //faster//. Succintly: //"The higher the education the shallower the decline before a break point, the later that break point, and the steeper the decline thereafter."// |
| | * [[https://bsclarified.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/qr-codes-to-be-used-to-prevent-drug-counterfeiting/|QR codes to be used to prevent drug counterfeiting]] -- they want to put microscopic qr codes into drugs which will containt information about the specific batch, contents etc., so as to make counterfeiting way harder. Interesting. |
| | * [[https://stoove.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/quantum-ignorance/|Quantum ignorance]] -- this is a brilliant idea, that **there's not //classical// and //quantum// probability**, but that when we're talking about //classical// probability, we're basically just using the fact that the expectation of the sum of many quantum events happening behave like our "classical" probability, but there's really no such thing. |
