Tools and Questions

A field of study is not defined by the tools that it uses, but by the questions that it asks. The tools are secondary to the questions. Endel Tulving captured this point well in this interview for Cognitive Neuroscience (2002):

The single most critical piece of equipment is still the researcher’s own brain. All the equipment in the world will not help us if we do not know how to use it properly, which requires more than just knowing how to operate it. Aristotle would not necessarily have been more profound had he owned a laptop and known how to program. What is badly needed now, with all these scanners whirring away, is an understanding of exactly what we are observing, and seeing, and measuring, and wondering about.

Advertisements

On Writing

The act of creating something is almost universally accompanied by certain trepidations. In creating something you are, in effect, laying yourself bare for the world to see. To create is to become vulnerable to critique. Others will judge your work and, despite your best efforts, some may view it unfavourably, even subjecting it to ridicule.

Creating anything therefore requires the courage to move beyond these insecurities and to accept that vulnerability. That’s not to say that such feelings will disappear from the psychological landscape (they are more-or-less permanent fixtures), but they cease to be obstructions to the creative process, which is often messy and haphazard.

Writing doesn’t need to be an arduous undertaking. It can be an adventure. Don’t be afraid to play with words, to experiment. Some things you try won’t work, but others will. So write that first draft, even if you think it’s rubbish. Don’t expect everything you write to be brilliant or eloquent or praise-worthy; some things won’t be. Don’t write for the ‘perfect’ reader; write for a real reader. Don’t wait for the ‘perfect’ words; you’ll be waiting forever. Give yourself credit for bad drafts because at least you’re writing. Good drafts may be gratifying, but there’s much to learn from bad drafts. Keep experimenting.

That’s a problem for future Homer

“That’s a problem for future Homer. Man, I don’t envy that guy.” —Homer J. Simpson

In two sentences The Simpsons summarises what we tell ourselves when we procrastinate. It reflects both our understanding that some future self will have to bear the burden of some task and our prescience that this future self will be dissatisfied by having to deal with problems that our present self could have prevented. We allow small problems to develop into larger, less manageable problems that our future selves struggle to cope with. That’s why, like Homer, we don’t envy our future self. We have knowingly mistreated the poor guy by magnifying the size of the problems he will have to deal with.

The battle between our present and future selves is the topic of discussion in this TED talk by Daniel Goldstein, which I recommend watching. The research Goldstein covers in the talk is also discussed in this blog, which is well worth the read if you found the talk interesting.

Why do we do procrastinate? It’s not as though we lack insight into what will happen if we needlessly delay tasks. Experienced procrastinators are acutely aware of what will happen. Yet it remains incredibly difficult to stay on task. Thoughts of doing something else repeatedly intrude, attention is diverted elsewhere, and we find ourselves making lame excuses for our behaviour.

The most common excuse, at least in my own experience, takes the following form: “Now isn’t the perfect time for…” The allure of this excuse lies in its flexibility. It can be applied to almost any situation at almost any time, which also makes it especially hazardous. It is the ultimate “get out of work” card because the definition of ‘perfect’ is often nebulous and always changing, or if the definition is fixed, then it is fixed in such a way as to preclude any possibility of the conditions for ‘perfect’ everbeing met. When is it ever the ‘perfect’ time to read that paper or to start that assignment? If you wait until you are able to do it ‘perfectly’ then you will never do it at all. Make it happen now.

Psychology and Science

Roughly a year ago, Alex Berezow argued that psychologists should be kicked out of the science club. According to him, psychology is not a legitimate scientific endeavour, and calling it a science only serves to dilute the meaning of the word. It’s not “real science”; it’s merely an unstable edifice of murky and ineffable concepts masquerading in scientific dress.

There are certainly areas of psychology that could benefit from taking this criticism seriously and working to address it. Yet Berezow’s critique was not directed at a particular area of psychological inquiry, but at psychology as a whole. The entire endeavour of inquiring into the nature of the mind is, according to this view, unworthy of being considered a legitimate scientific pursuit. This conclusion should surely worry many psychologists who, up until now, have been working under the apparently false impression that a science of the mind is possible, at least in principle.

The ambitious breadth of Berezow’s critique deserves to be emphasised because it seems to have escaped even him. In declaring all psychology unscientific, Berezow is making a blanket claim that covers every area of psychological inquiry, regardless of how it is studied or what knowledge has been gained. This is incredibly misguided. The methods used in happiness research (Berezow’s example) differ from those used in the study of auditory perception or memory consolidation. And yet, from Berezow’s view, neither is a scientific pursuit. The limitations and imprecisions of one set of measures, in one area of psychological interest (e.g., happiness), is apparently enough for us to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Had Berezow narrowed his criticism to those areas of study where they are most appropriate he would not have raised any eye brows. Indeed, he probably would have been expressing similar concerns to those shared by psychologists working in those areas. But the moment he sought to sink the entire intellectual enterprise on the back of one topic in one area of study was the moment he stretched the argument too far to be credible.

Devising clever ways of probing the workings of the living brain can be challenging. Some tools are far less precise than others. Psychologists are aware of these issues. It’s not as though Berezow has suddenly made the entire field cognisant of something that, up until now, it has either forgotten or ignored. However, the answer is not to abandon the enterprise, but to develop better ways of studying the phenomena of interest.

Critics like Berezow want us to view the limitations of our field as an impenetrable wall. This is a defeatist view from which no new knowledge can spring. Psychologists typically view limitations as something to overcome with the development of better and more sophisticated methodology. Ultimately, that is how any science, psychology included, grows and matures.

The eReading Experience

It’s not surprising that many readers have traded in weighty tomes for Kindles and iPads. eBooks offer a number of practical advantages over hard texts. On account of their weightlessness, for example, it is possible to carry around a miniature library’s-worth of books. Many ebooks are available free on the web (i.e., works in the public domain) and those that aren’t can easily be purchased from any number of ebookstores. Of course, that’s not to say that ebooks are unequivocally better than their paperback/hardback cousins. They just offer a different kind of reading experience that many people find appealing (myself included). And that’s what interests me in this post: the reading experience.

Readers are not just passive content consumers. They actively engage with the text, and part of that engagement often involves marking the text: inserting comments or scribbles in the margins, highlighting or underlining pertinent passages, drawing lines connecting different paragraphs or circling whole sections of text, etc. Unfortunately, this aspect of the reading experience is not emulated all too well by current ereaders. Apps like iBooks offer only basic annotation features (coloured highlighting and notes). For digitized texts to be maximally useful, in addition to being mobile, they must lend themselves to the kind of annotation that books have permitted for centuries.

That said, ebooks have the potential to innovate further. Whereas the margins of hard books provide only limited space for readers to add their own marks, digitized texts exceed this limitation by a great magnitude. Readers can do more than just add their own notes to virtual margins; they can append other types of content as well – images, audio, video, links to websites and PDFs, etc. Those all sound like great features, but no ereader app (that I am aware of) currently offers any of those functions. Future versions of Kindle or iBooks perhaps?