Ask me anything, anything at all (it's de-lurking week)

OK, this is a rather lame "anything-goes" question, but delurking time it is, so...

Next 20 years winner: Top-down or bottom-up?

Hi Dave, I've recently "subscribed" to your blog in my Google Reader account. I can't remember how I came to find you, but it's really interesting (most of the time - the rest of the time it's not that it's boring, just not of interest personally!).

So, question for you as you insist:
You must spend quite some time thinking about what to post on this blog, then construct and type the post, etc, this must all take some time. What keeps you motivate? Why do you do it? (I guess I mean "what do you get out of it?"!)

Top-down or bottom-up?

Well, with regards to the brain, I think the evidence is quite strong for *both* principles. In IT and robotics, bottom-up has been making quite a surge lately. 20 years from now, if I had to make a guess, I'd go with bottom-up. But really it's a crap shoot, and I'm sure both processes will continue to be important. Maybe what will happen is a *third*, intermediary process (middle-out?) will emerge.

For a good primer on top-down versus bottom-up, try wikipedia

Who do you think is our greatest modern thinker?

UK Daryl:

You're right -- it takes a LOT of time. CogDaily isn't like most blogs, which just offer quick responses to items they see on the web. In many senses, it's not really a blog -- it's more of a news and information service.

How much time? I probably spend an average of about 3 hours on a substantive post where I'm reporting on a peer-reviewed journal article. We do two to three of those per week, so that's 6-9 hours right there. Casual Fridays takes about 2 hours a week. My morning "news" posts take about hour each. Now we're up to 13 to 15 hours. Plus Greta and I meet for lunch once a week to discuss the blog and plans for the future. Greta is the one who chooses the articles I write up, and I'd guess she spends an hour or two a week on that. Now we're up to 16 to 20 person-hours per week. Then there's maybe 3 or 4 more hours a week of routine maintenance -- correspondence, managing comments, and so on. That's about 19 to 24 hours a week.

So, what keeps me motivated? First of all, I just find this stuff fascinating -- not just the research, but writing about the research. As some of you know, we started CogDaily because we were planning to write a book. The blog was just a way to keep our research notes, and if people followed along as we worked, then so much the better.

We're still working on the book, but the project has evolved as we've shared proposals with friends, colleagues, and most importantly, literary agents. It's currently in a "massive revision" phase as we attempt to narrow our focus from all of cognitive psychology to something a bit more manageable. But the prospect of some collected, tangible result, whether a book or something a bit more high-tech, like a DVD-ROM with interactive demos, is definitely the main thing that keeps me going.

That said, I love the immediacy of the blog itself. I love hearing from readers right away, and seeing what other bloggers have to say about what I write. I'd also love to hear suggestions about other ways to compile all the work we've done on Cognitive Daily. What sort of book / DVD / ??? would you like to see?

Why do we sleep?

I'm new to your site, so you may have covered this broad topic. I'm wondering if you think machines will ever be conscious.

Hi Dave,
Much like UK Daryl, I forgot how I found this blog. But I visit regularly because I learn a bunch of new stuff here. I don't get to meet a lot of people in my job so it's great there is a place where I can read about people. I'd like to ask where Davidson is.
Keep up the good work!
Filip
Bulgaria

Who do you think is our greatest modern thinker?

I'm tempted, very tempted, to not answer this question. Greta and I both have this thing about "favorites" -- we don't really have them. My favorite Cognitive Daily post is usually the last one I wrote. My favorite book is often the last one I read.

Second, I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge. Sure, I read a lot, and I think a lot, but there are others who are much more knowledgeable about who the "great" thinkers are. Plus, people who are very smart in one domain will often say something incredibly stupid in some other domain. So coming up with a single "greatest thinker" is difficult. I'm not even sure who's on the short list.

So even though I said I wasn't going to duck this question, I'm going to have to give a bit of a cop-out answer: Stephen Colbert.

I pick Colbert because he mocks like no one has ever mocked before. He plays his character so well that he can instantly not only find the flaws in someone else's argument, but also construct a satirical response that makes them crystal clear. Here's one his greatest: I have a Dreamsicle.

I read Cognitive Daily as it skirts around vague interests of mine. My real interest is computing science, and so any crossover of the two fields is particularly interesting to me.

Here's a question though, related in some way to your previous post on open peer review, etc. Current scientific publication goes through peer review and (if accepted) subsequent publication through conference proceedings or as part of a larger journal.

Do you think there will ever be a time where the web allows for a much more democratic selection of papers? Would it ever be possible for research groups to peer-review papers internally (as it's in their self-interest to ensure the group to which they belong does not publish junk), with subsequent publication on a blog-like system?

In a sense, the blog post becomes the advert for the paper in a very different way to the abstract alone, much in the same way that a 25 minute presentation at a conference should be an advert for a paper. With tools somewhat similar to Digg, would it be possible to see the papers with good, solid contributions bubbling up to the top of the pile? (A popularity score like Digg implements is probably too simple; an accuracy score, and/or a score representing the novelty or utility of the paper might work though?)

Can we ever reach a stage where we look to aggregators such as this rather than expensive journals? Surely the web finally allows for "natural selection" in the world of science? Or do we secretly like flying off to foreign countries at the expense of our employer a little too much to give up on publishing to the "best" conferences?

Why do we sleep?

Good question. Unfortunately, it's completely outside my area of expertise. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it was adaptive for organisms to shut down at night when it was more difficult to find food and other resources, and then we evolved from those organisms. Only later did the brain adapt itself to that cycle, and now we find it difficult to behave rationally after long periods of sleep deprivation. But Coturnix is the man for everything you want to know about sleep.

I'm wondering if you think machines will ever be conscious.

Wow, these are tough questions! Fortunately, this is one I've thought about a lot. There are plenty of philosophers and psychologists who believe that consciousness itself is an illusion. It's evolutionary adaptive for an organism to believe it's more than just a "meat machine," so something approximating consciousness evolved. If you buy this argument, there's no reason to believe that eventually we won't be able to fool computers in just the same way. I certainly believe that somewhere down the line, humans will build a computer that is able to wax quite eloquently about why it, like humans, has consciousness.

What I'm not sure about is whether it will ever be possible to know for sure.

I am a computer science engineer, and I'd like to understand neurochemistry, neurology, and cognition. Most of the books I find are either very out of date or require prerequisite study to understand. Can you recommend any books in those areas that a lay person could get good feel for what we currently know in those areas?

What's the current state of research into humor? I'm an intermitent lurker, so my apologies if you've already done a post on this topic (in which case a pointer to that post would be a sufficient response).

I have my own working theory that I formed some time ago, but I have never really put any effort into vetting it out or going into any significant detail. I'd be interested to know if what I'm thinking is anywhere close to what is being considered by people who actually study this stuff for real. Thanks.

I'd like to ask where Davidson is.

Davidson is in North Carolina, U.S., about 30 miles north of the South Carolina border, and 260 miles west of the Atlantic ocean. It's the home of Davidson College, and it has the cutest little Main Street you'll ever see. It even has its own blog. It's about a 30 minute drive to Charlotte, a two hour drive to Asheville or Raleigh, four hours to Atlanta, and six hours, almost directly Northeast, to Washington, DC.

I really appreciate this offer that you've made. I guess we'll have to see if you end up regretting it ;-).

I've thought about a question to ask you, and this is the best I can come up with. It's not exactly your area of expertise, I know, but it's something that I like to hear everybody's answer to anyway.

If you had to focus on one area in order to fix the problems that we see with our cities - crime, poverty, drugs, unemployment/transient employment, homelessness - what area would you focus on? That is, what area do you think, if focused on, would have the strongest repercussions through our cities? Adequate, stable housing? Education? Family-supporting jobs? Transportation? Creating neighborhoods? Something else entirely?

Do you think there will ever be a time where the web allows for a much more democratic selection of papers? Would it ever be possible for research groups to peer-review papers internally (as it's in their self-interest to ensure the group to which they belong does not publish junk), with subsequent publication on a blog-like system?

Stephen,

Your proposal is impressive, but I'm not convinced that it would actually work in the academic environment. First of all, internal peer review is dicey. Sure, we'd know things coming out of Posner's or Kandel's lab would be top quality, but what of the thousands of other researchers out there, all trying to get publications in order to earn tenure or promotion? What about grad students looking to pad their vitaes for a job search? They all have incentive to simply pump out garbage in hopes of short-term gain, and if no outsider is reviewing their work, many of them will.

I'm also skeptical of using "accuracy" as a measure of the significance of a paper. Someone can come up with an incredibly accurate measure of, say, how many times the average person blinks in a day, but is that really as significant as an experiment which might shed some light on a cure for Alzheimer's?

I do think there's a role for blogs and wikis and other interactive ways of sharing information, but I'm not sure we can dispense completely with formal peer review.

What I would like to see is an opening up of most research results from copyright restrictions, especially when the research was paid for with public money.

I'd like to understand neurochemistry, neurology, and cognition. Most of the books I find are either very out of date or require prerequisite study to understand. Can you recommend any books in those areas that a lay person could get good feel for what we currently know in those areas?

Most books for laypeople in those fields tend not to be comprehensive -- they'll cherry pick cool research in specific areas the author is interested in. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just finished a book, "Satisfaction," by Gregory Berns, which explores the human quest for pleasure. I'm now reading "This is your Brain on Music" by Daniel Levitin, which covers research relating to music perception. If you want a more comprehensive book Stephen Pinker's "How the Mind Works" is pretty good for the cognitive side of things. I may not be the right person to ask about neuroscience, though. Maybe you should pop over to Jake's blog Pure Pedantry (linked over at the left) and ask him. Or you could ask Jonah Lehrer over at The Frontal Cortex (his forthcoming book "Proust was a Neuroscientist" might be just what you're looking for).

What's the current state of research into humor?

We've done a few posts which mention humor peripherally (do a search on "humor" in the dialog to the left to find them), but nothing that tackles the issue head on. I don't know a lot about humor, but one thing I do know is that we don't actually laugh at jokes. We laugh in certain social situations. Most of the things people laugh at, removed from context, aren't very funny. In fact, most research on humor is incredibly dry. There's nothing to take the funny bone out of a joke like analyzing it to death.

If you haven't been to a comedy club and seen a comedian live, you should try it. Immersed in a sympathetic audience, you'll laugh a hundred times harder than watching the same routine on TV. That alone should be significant evidence that humor is more of a means of social connection than anything else.

I really appreciate this offer that you've made. I guess we'll have to see if you end up regretting it ;-).

So far, no regrets at all. I'm having a blast. And at this point, it looks like I'm all caught up -- whew! Unfortunately I need to head out for an hour or so, so there may be a flood when I return.

If you had to focus on one area in order to fix the problems that we see with our cities - crime, poverty, drugs, unemployment/transient employment, homelessness - what area would you focus on? That is, what area do you think, if focused on, would have the strongest repercussions through our cities? Adequate, stable housing? Education? Family-supporting jobs? Transportation? Creating neighborhoods? Something else entirely?

Did you really think I'd say anything other than "education?" Of course, doing a really great job at education requires much more than just improving the schools -- parents, children, and the larger community all need to be involved. We did a post on this a while back.

With regard to the humor, Chris over at Mixing Memory has a recent repost of his old post on the Cognitive Science of Humor that you may wish to check out.

Recently lifehack and techcrunch have claimed that a blog needs to allow comments in order to be considered a blog. Although there are exceptions, most comments on most blogs are of the "thank you," "pat on the back congratulations," or simple repetition of what's already been said without adding any new content. The claim is that blogs are about having a "conversation."

With tools like RSS, trackback, Technorati, etc., it would seem that a better conversation could result from more measured responses being posted on individual blogs rather than in a comments section. But I'm guessing that it's not a conversation of substance that is wanted, at least primarily, but a conversation of socializing. I posted on this topic just this morning, but could you answer two questions (and add anything else you feel is pertinent especially with respect to education and learning) from the perspective of psychology?

(1) What might research in psychology have to offer in understanding why people want comments so much?
(2) In what contexts might comments work better and in which contexts might parallel discussions (i.e., without direct commenting but responding on individual blogs) in the blogosphere work better.

Thanks for answering my question Dave! (and for a great blog read) I'll go pester those people immediately. :)

What's the deal with altruism in humans? Is it a form of reciprocity, or is there more to it? I understand the genetic logic behind a meerkat sentinel risking her life for her brothers and sisters, but what about the guy last week who jumped on the subway tracks to save a total stranger?

When you get stuck outside in weather that wasn't predicted, do you get at least a little upset with the weatherman?

:)

Just a simple question: why do you think there is something as apposed to nothing? by that i mean the fact that you and i are in this physical world...or maybe you believe there is no purpose or something beyond whats here...

Thanks for your response, Dave. Certainly, yes, for so long as the paper count is the measure of progress, it's difficult to imagine a more democratic process.

Of course, you mention a couple of respected names, and this is surely part of the problem, no? If you were to pass two versions of the same paper to anonymous reviewers for a big-name conference, one version with a well-known name on the front and the other with, say, my name on the front, whose would more likely be accepted? I'd put money on the other guy.

Would more eyeballs in a public arena solve this problem? The web may one day offer a mechanism to avoid such favouritism in a manner acceptable to scientific communities. If the web and blog-style systems like this aid discourse, then I have to imagine that the same could be used for paper selection. An idealistic goal, obviously, but perhaps a possibility in the distant future.

(Perhaps another way of looking at things is this: if I submit a paper to a conference 6 months down the line, and after 3 months get comments of varying quality back from 3 reviewers, would I not have been better off posting the preliminary paper in a public arena specifically built for the purpose of holding papers, and acting on criticism as it came in? Would this also not boost competition thus producing stronger results?)

With regard to the humor, Chris over at Mixing Memory has a recent repost of his old post on the Cognitive Science of Humor that you may wish to check out.

Interesting. Chris did a great job, but this is the sort of humor analysis that really bores me. Even the jokes in the post really fall flat. I guess that's basically my point about humor being a social thing. One humor researcher actually goes out on the street and just asks people to laugh. At first they look at him like he's insane, but if they're with a friend, they'll look at him/her and just crack up. Then they'll start making jokes -- completely unfunny stuff, and both of them will be laughing like crazy.

It's not that you can't make people laugh in non-social situations -- Greta laughs out loud while reading books -- it's just that it's much more difficult, because, as I've said before, humor's mostly a social thing.

Recently lifehack and techcrunch have claimed that a blog needs to allow comments in order to be considered a blog.

Tell me about it. And see my recent post on my personal blog.

Although there are exceptions, most comments on most blogs are of the "thank you," "pat on the back congratulations," or simple repetition of what's already been said without adding any new content. The claim is that blogs are about having a "conversation."

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Certainly very few of the comments we get here are of that sort. I do agree that sometimes commenters do those things, but in my experience, it's not most of the time. But even so, I do wonder why some people make that sort of comment -- I also wonder if this is a big issue for lurkers -- not wanting to comment unless adding something substantive to the conversation, so never commenting, even when they have something important to say. From my perspective, I'd rather see the comment, and the group can decide whether it's relevant by responding to it or ignoring it.

What might research in psychology have to offer in understanding why people want comments so much?

I think bloggers and the people who comment on blogs want comments for different reasons. Bloggers want approval for their work, while commenters want attention from others. But regarding basic psychology, I think the book I mentioned earlier, "Satisfaction," has a little to say about this. Basically, Berns' thesis is that we all crave novelty. Comments allow readers to see different twists on old information (the original post). It's harder to experience that just surfing around the blogosphere, because we also habitually visit the same blogs (presumably the ones most likely to satisfy our desire for novelty). But I haven't seen a psychological experiment that specifically addresses comments on blogs.

In what contexts might comments work better and in which contexts might parallel discussions (i.e., without direct commenting but responding on individual blogs) in the blogosphere work better.

I think parallel discussions work best in tight-knit groups, where everyone knows that everyone is reading everyone's blog, so they aren't so concerned that their own work is ignored. Kinda like ScienceBlogs, where most of us read each others' blogs, but don't always comment on them. Trackback used to allow unrelated blogs to comment in a similar way, but the spammers ruined that, so when blogs interact a lot with the a varying set of readers, some of whom don't have blogs, comments are more important.

Thanks for answering my question Dave! (and for a great blog read) I'll go pester those people immediately. :)

You're welcome!

But that brings up an interesting question ... do I have to respond to "thank you" posts? Let's say we limit my response promise to one per person. If you really have a question you're aching to ask, you can always post using a different name, anyways...

Dear Dave,
After reading your post on my RSS feed, I had to respond. You put a pretty good offer on the table. Two vaguely related questions:
1) What is your stance on free will? Do you think we'll ever be able to prove or disprove it?

2) Do you think women are more influenced by their emotions than men? How do you respond to intensely emotional situations?

Thanks and I hope your answers don't get you in trouble with Greta!

What's the deal with altruism in humans? Is it a form of reciprocity, or is there more to it? I understand the genetic logic behind a meerkat sentinel risking her life for her brothers and sisters, but what about the guy last week who jumped on the subway tracks to save a total stranger?

Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works" argues that it's just reciprocity. The guy on the subway tracks is an interesting counterexample, but I think I can show you why even this is an example of reciprocity. First of all, the guy might believe this is going to cement his place in heaven, or some such. Second, if he believed the guy he saved was a fraud, he wouldn't have saved him. Suppose he found out later that the fellow he "saved" just wanted media attention, and intentionally jumped on to the tracks. Suppose he found himself in the same situation, with the same person, a month from now. Would he save him again? (He might, since he now knows it's possible to save him safely. But what if the situation was moved to a different location? What if our fraudster was jumping in front of a bus? I bet our hero wouldn't be so heroic the second time around.)

When you get stuck outside in weather that wasn't predicted, do you get at least a little upset with the weatherman?

Actually, I don't. I get upset, but it's more about my bad luck than the weather forecaster. And actually, weather forecasting has really improved over the last 25 years or so. I can remember, when I was a teenager, the weather forecast had about a 50-50 chance of being correct. Today, I'd say over a period of a few days, the odds are more like 80-20. If you look at the weather forecast in the morning for the same day (clouds at 11:00, scattered showers by 4, clearing by 6), it's nearly always right.

When the weather forecaster is wrong, it's generally because the conditions were outside of their margin of error, not because they made a mistake, so I don't blame them.

Why are clouds square? :P

I wonder how many people take part in your tests compared to just commenting - I'd bet the reader/take-part proportion is higher than 1%.

Anyway, what results in psychology have really bowled you over in the last few years, or has the field become fairly predictable, with results just confirming what people suspected?

Just a simple question: why do you think there is something as apposed to nothing? by that i mean the fact that you and i are in this physical world...or maybe you believe there is no purpose or something beyond whats here...

Yeah, I'm an atheist, so I believe we're just damned lucky to be here. Greta, OTOH, is a Presbyterian. I'm not familiar with church doctrine on why we're here, though, or exactly what her answer would be to that question. I should say that some of our best discussions are about religion, which I find endlessly fascinating. I also enjoy going to church from time to time, but it does get amusing in this small southern town when everyone assumes you're a Christian. Greta has had friends tell her they've never met an atheist.

Of course, you mention a couple of respected names, and this is surely part of the problem, no? If you were to pass two versions of the same paper to anonymous reviewers for a big-name conference, one version with a well-known name on the front and the other with, say, my name on the front, whose would more likely be accepted? I'd put money on the other guy.

I would, too. Interestingly, a few years ago in my other field, composition, the major conference in the field switched to anonymous reviews of conference proposals. After several "big names" got rejected, reviewers started to look for clues in proposals (imagine, for example, there are 4 references to Posner papers in one proposal). I think it's just a natural tendency to look to the familiar as "better." (Interestingly, it would be possible to "game" this by referencing a "superstar" in your proposal!)

Would more eyeballs in a public arena solve this problem? The web may one day offer a mechanism to avoid such favouritism in a manner acceptable to scientific communities. If the web and blog-style systems like this aid discourse, then I have to imagine that the same could be used for paper selection. An idealistic goal, obviously, but perhaps a possibility in the distant future.

I'm not sure if it would. Take a look at the blogosphere, where a few "superstar" blogs dominate the arena. Sure, occasionally a new blog bubbles up to the top, but for the most part, the top blogs don't change. I'm not sure democratizing peer review would eliminate the superstar / little guy dichotomy either.

(Perhaps another way of looking at things is this: if I submit a paper to a conference 6 months down the line, and after 3 months get comments of varying quality back from 3 reviewers, would I not have been better off posting the preliminary paper in a public arena specifically built for the purpose of holding papers, and acting on criticism as it came in? Would this also not boost competition thus producing stronger results?)

Yeah, that can really suck. I'm just not sure what to do about it, other than run the paper by colleagues yourself before submitting it in the first place. "Breaking in" can be incredibly hard -- it was several years after grad school that Greta publish a paper without her adviser's name on it. The establishment is conservative in that way. But is it too conservative? The potential for abuse is great too, and people do need to be vigilant. Greta has reviewed papers from respected colleagues that she ended up rejecting because they weren't up to snuff. So in some ways, the system does work. But sometimes junk gets through, and sometimes good research goes unpublished. It's a balance, and it's a shame that sometimes good people lose out because of it.

What is your stance on free will? Do you think we'll ever be able to prove or disprove it?

I have not spent a lot of time thinking about free will. But let's give it a shot. First off, it seems to me that there are several different levels of free will. I can decide today that I want to lose 20 pounds, but that doesn't mean I won't want to make myself a snack later tonight. Does that mean I don't have free will?

Or I can intend to type a word on the keyboard, but my finger makes an error. Is that a free will problem? OTOH, I decided to complete college, and I did that -- so clearly I can rise above momentary temptations. And I seem to be doing all right with this whole "answer every comment" thing.

In the end, however, I'm afraid the answer to this one is "I don't know."

Do you think women are more influenced by their emotions than men? How do you respond to intensely emotional situations?

Did I mention there's only one question per person?

Seriously, though, I haven't seen evidence of this in the many, many articles I've read about emotion. There was no male/female difference in yesterday's post, for example. I think the "women are more emotional" thing is mostly a stereotype, or an example of people acting according to expectations.

Personally, I tend to clam up when things get highly emotional. Inside, I might be burning with anger, but for the most part, I try not to let it show.

Why are clouds square? :P

Because all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

Ummm... are you on what Lewis Carroll was on?

What they are saying is that to be considered a blog, it must have comments. From techcrunch:

I believe the term "blog" means more than an online journal. I believe a blog is a conversation. People go to blogs to read AND write, not just consume. We've allowed comments here on TechCrunch since it started. At times, user comments can be painful to deal with. But they also keep the writer honest, and make the content vastly more interesting.
Should the definitions of "blog" be revised to exclude journals that do not allow reader comments? Yeah, absolutely.

On my premise about "most blogs", I would say that yours is an exception. When you look at the more than 200 comments (lifehack and techcrunch combined on two posts), about 80% add nothing. The context, content, author's tone, and audience do influence the type of comments, which apparently work better in some settings than others.

Some time surfing the blogosphere can be valuable. Like most, I have certain blogs I subscribe to. But I also have blog search feeds because I want to mix up my reading--keeping an inner core while slowly changing the outer circle to allow new perspectives to help stimulate new ways of looking at old concepts.

This is probably something you've already covered on the blog, but since you're desperate for questions, I won't feel so dumb asking it. :)

What do you think about parapsychology?

I wonder how many people take part in your tests compared to just commenting - I'd bet the reader/take-part proportion is higher than 1%.

Oh, yes, we get many more responses there. On a typical weekend, we get about 2,000 visits, and often we get 500 responses to Casual Fridays studies. So that's close to a 25 percent response rate -- not bad!

What results in psychology have really bowled you over in the last few years, or has the field become fairly predictable, with results just confirming what people suspected?

Oh, no, there have been some really startling results recently. The research we wrote about yesterday, where just telling someone they shared a birthday or a fingerprint reduced aggression is absolutely astonishing. We've reported recently on the amazing frequency of false confessions, on pervasive errors in police lineups, and some unbelievable visual illusions. I think we've got a long way to go before psychological research gets boring. There's just an incredible amount we still don't know.

Also, a bit of a peeve of mine: research which "confirms what we already knew" isn't necessarily boring. For example, the second study in yesterday's post could be considered merely a replication, but it showed that the "birthday" phenomenon wasn't just a blip. Or if a study confirms "common sense" knowledge about a behavior that hasn't previously been studied, I still find that interesting, because now you've got scientific confirmation.

On my premise about "most blogs", I would say that yours is an exception. When you look at the more than 200 comments (lifehack and techcrunch combined on two posts), about 80% add nothing. The context, content, author's tone, and audience do influence the type of comments, which apparently work better in some settings than others.

I agree, after a couple dozen comments, most threads tend to devolve into repetitious nonsense (though so far, this thread appears to be an exception). But I wouldn't say this is true of "most blogs," which don't receive nearly that number of comments. Also, I find when reading popular blogs that I can scan the first 20 or so comments, then scroll down to the end and see if anything interesting is still being discussed. I also like the slashdot system, where comments are moderated, and you can surf at 3 or 4 and eliminate most of the junk. Fortunately, we haven't reached that point here yet.

since you're desperate for questions

Desperate? Really? I wouldn't say I'm desperate -- I was honestly just curious as to who would show up, and what questions might be asked. I've been pleasantly surprised at the thoughtfulness of the questions. Now, on to yours.

What do you think about parapsychology?

Actually, I don't think we have covered that before, so thanks for asking.

I think "parapsychology" is a sham, a scam, and a horrible way to exploit ignorant individuals. Occasionally CogDaily is linked by a "parapsychology" site, and typically my reaction is simply to ignore. I figure they'll probably get more publicity from my link than they'll ever get on their own, so why advertise?

But now that you ask, and without linking to any specific sites, let me just say this. Psychology doesn't exclude phenomena just because they are unexplained. There is no reason to have a "parapsychology," because there are plenty of real psychological problems we don't understand. Take consciousness, for example -- what could be more mysterious than that?

But taking parlor tricks and turning them into science is at best deceptive and at worst exploitative. In any case, it's wrong.

When you see "parapsychology," think "scam."

There seems to be a ton of debate about gender differences and thought processes. I recently took a test at http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml where I scored near a zero, which seems to indicate that my thought processes are fairly androgynous.

How much differences are there in male and female brains, and how much of that difference might be overcome by experience (a bit of a nature vs. nurture question, sorry).

I laugh whether I am alone or with someone. I have a friend who claims he only laughs around other people. I've found that in general there are differences in how much people laugh in given social situations.

I wonder if there is a psychological correlation between laughter and social types. For instance, could we predict certain psychological disorders by examining the way people laugh at certain jokes. Kind of like a Rorschach test with jokes instead of ink blots.

why my tongue tickle me if i am eating ananas?

confirmed blog-lurker AND science-phobic youth advocate loves your site. found you while trying to learn about adolescent brain development. interested in your thoughts on implications for youth policies. concerned that brain development easily reads as "lacks decision making capability" which could fuel even more restrictions on the rights of youth (voting, driving, birth control, medical decisions, etc.).

What is the channel capacity (in Shannon sense) of the human brain? Other brains?

How much differences are there in male and female brains, and how much of that difference might be overcome by experience (a bit of a nature vs. nurture question, sorry).

From my perspective, I'm afraid to say, this just isn't a very interesting question. I'm sure there are differences, but they are swamped by the overwhelming number of similarities. Again, I haven't looked into it especially deeply, but what research I've seen showing gender difference hasn't been especially impressive. I'd also wager that nearly all of the reliable gender difference findings are primarily learned. (But again, it's not something I've looked into a lot, so I wouldn't wager very much on it.)

I wonder if there is a psychological correlation between laughter and social types. For instance, could we predict certain psychological disorders by examining the way people laugh at certain jokes. Kind of like a Rorschach test with jokes instead of ink blots.

That would be an interesting study! In fact, it might be interesting enough to be a Casual Friday. I'm not sure if we could use it to predict psychological disorders, but we might be able to predict other personality traits.

interested in your thoughts on implications for youth policies. concerned that brain development easily reads as "lacks decision making capability" which could fuel even more restrictions on the rights of youth (voting, driving, birth control, medical decisions, etc.).

It's a vexing problem, isn't it? It's so easy to disenfranchise a small segment of the population (raising the drinking age to 21 was a target of my ire when I was younger). Now the big thing seems to be bike helmet / car seat rules for ever-older children. We can't protect them forever -- at some point we'll need them to take car of us in our old age!

What's fascinating to me is that while all this is going on, physical maturity is arriving earlier and earlier. My 15-year-old son is as tall as me (six feet two inches)! Girls are hitting puberty at 12, 11, younger. I think the conflict between society-as-parent and child-as-adult is only going to get stronger in the coming years. Watch out!

What is the channel capacity (in Shannon sense) of the human brain? Other brains?

So you're asking how much data gets moved through the brain every second. Another thing I've never thought about.

Based on a quick Google search, it seems there are about 10^11 neurons in the human brain. Each neuron has about 1024 connections to other neurons. Each neuron can fire once every 2.5 milliseconds, or 400 times per second. So simple multiplication gives 4 X 10^16 bits/second, or 40 quadrillion bps. I think that's right, but I may be making some false assumptions here.

I would suspect for other animals it depends on the number of neurons and the number of connections in that animal's brain.

Psychology and neuroimaging: lasting partnership or 'folie à deux'?

Oops! I almost missed Frederyko's question:

why my tongue tickle me if i am eating ananas?

I assume you're talking about pineapples -- that's what we call them in the U.S. My first guess is citric acid -- a reaction with your tongue. But it might be an allergic reaction. My tongue doesn't tickle. It gets excited, and is a bit tingly, but I wouldn't call it "tickling." The real answer, of course, is that I have no earthly idea.

But in my searching for the answer, I came across this:

A patent for a concoction that is supposed to improve the taste of human semen.

Words fail me. The internet is a vast, remarkable place, isn't it?

Hi, I've been reading your site a bit in the past few months, finding it through Seed. I'm devouring all sorts of material relating to cognitive science that I can find, as I'm writing a senior thesis on it (more specifically, the philosophy of). Now that you've put the offer on the table, I thought I'd run one of my ideas by you to see if it's any good: For one of my topics I'm going to consider Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind theory and compare it to Herbert Spencer's theory of Society as an organism ("The Social Organism"). Ultimately I'm going to work my towards building a picture of how the cells within an organism interact socially to evolve over the generations into what we would call a mind.

Are you familiar at all with Spencer's work, and do you think this is an idea that is worth considering for what I'm working towards? I'm just worried that someone might accuse it as being philosophical fluff--merely reworking the words to fit my own idea of the situation. But I really do think that the principles of organization that guide societal and mental interactions are similar, if not the same.

Lastly, if I'm not overextending my welcome, I'd like to ask to what extent do you think philosophy influences cognitive science? From my studies I can see plainly that cog psych influences philosophy, but is there any sort of feedback going on?

Hi, one assumption that won't hold in your channel capacity answer is that all neurons may fire simultaniously. I read a couple of months ago (can't reference now, paper is on a shelf at my workplace) that the brain will fry itsself when more then about 5% of its neurons engage at the same time. Makes me wonder how the brain regulates that..

And here's my question: The methodology one uses in research probably always comes with an implicit world view. What methods do you use in your research, and why?

Dave,

What do you think of the transhumanism movement, and the prospects for significant enhancement or augmentation of human cognitive ability through genetic engineering or artificial intelligence?

What prevents cultures from helping people put themselves out of their misery when their quality of life is below a reasonable threshold (as they so compassionately do for their pets)? Our culture seems to be comfortable keeping people alive in chronic miserable conditions in hospitals and nursing homes, without giving them an option to opt out. I am talking about quality of life conditions that include and go beyond terminal illness cases. I am sure religion and to some extent the profit motive of those "caring" for the sick play a role. It is not clear to me why this is not a topic of public discussion, as if it were taboo. If it is taboo, why? Are cultural survival instincts taking over?

I don't have a question, but I do want to comment to say I've been reading the site for some time but doubt I've ever made my presence known. So now I am. I enjoy the site and want to say thanks for what you do.

Hi Dave,

What personality test would you recommend taking? It's something I'm curious about right now.

Jonathan --

I'd be uncomfortable responding to your question about a thesis topic at all. It sounds interesting to me, but I haven't actually read either Minsky or Spencer. You have to remember that I'm not really a psychologist. I've been intensively reading journal articles and books for the past two years, so I've picked up quite a bit, but this still puts me perhaps at the level of an advanced undergraduate. I can fake it pretty well because I also have a good general education, but I've got years to go before I would consider myself a psychology "expert."

About your second question, I'd say that philosophy does influence psychology, but I'd also imagine that philosophers are unimpressed at how well psychologists have done, just as psychologists are often unimpressed at how well other disciplines integrate psychology. Wish I could be more help with either of your questions.

Don't be afraid to talk to your adviser -- I'm sure he or she would be happy to discuss your questions with you.

Psychology and neuroimaging: lasting partnership or 'folie à deux'?

Oh, I think they'll be together for a good long time. They'll have their tiffs and their spats, but I think they're just approaching the same problem from different directions. In a sense, both neuroscientists and psychologists are both reverse-engineering the human cognitive organ, and a good reverse engineer wouldn't limit him/herself to just one approach. Both are valuable -- Greta and I just happen to be more interested in the psychological approach.

Hi, one assumption that won't hold in your channel capacity answer is that all neurons may fire simultaniously.

Ah, yes. You're probably right. However, readers shouldn't mistake this for the old saw that "you only use ten percent of your brain." You definitely use your entire brain, it's just that all the neurons don't fire at once.

The methodology one uses in research probably always comes with an implicit world view. What methods do you use in your research, and why?

See my response to Jonathan above -- I'm not actually a psychologist, or any sort of researcher. That said, I tend to agree with you. I think the approach I take to solving problems is closely related to my world view. Now, if I could just clearly describe either one of those things, I'd really be on to something. I have a hard time explaining it, though -- I just try to take a logical, step-by-step approach with whatever I do. But what seems logical to me might not seem that way to others.

I don't have a question, but I do want to comment to say I've been reading the site for some time but doubt I've ever made my presence known. So now I am. I enjoy the site and want to say thanks for what you do.

I don't think you've commented here either, but thanks! I think it's perfectly fine to lurk -- inasmuch as we have access to site stats, we know when you've visited. But still it's great to chime in once in a while. Good to hear from you.

What prevents cultures from helping people put themselves out of their misery when their quality of life is below a reasonable threshold (as they so compassionately do for their pets)? Our culture seems to be comfortable keeping people alive in chronic miserable conditions in hospitals and nursing homes, without giving them an option to opt out. I am talking about quality of life conditions that include and go beyond terminal illness cases. I am sure religion and to some extent the profit motive of those "caring" for the sick play a role. It is not clear to me why this is not a topic of public discussion, as if it were taboo. If it is taboo, why? Are cultural survival instincts taking over?

Well, religious fundamentalism obviously has a lot to do with it. So many religions condemn suicide, and people who take scripture literally then apply it in extreme circumstances where it doesn't make sense. But of course it would be politically impossible to ban religion, so it ends up being easier to just sweep end-of-life issues under the rug instead of discussing them openly.

I suspect there are other reasons, too, but basically, I agree with you. People should have the right to end their lives when the quality of life has deteriorated to the extent that there's not a moment free from misery.

What personality test would you recommend taking? It's something I'm curious about right now.

Again, I haven't read a lot of research in this area, but it really depends on what you want to know. The easiest test is probably Myers-Briggs. There are lots of versions you can take online. Here's one I found in a quick Google search: Jung typology test.

A much more rigorous test, designed to identify possible problems, is the MMPI. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on it.

Whew! Looks like I'm done for now. Time for bed. I'll respond to any comments I have in the morning, then wrap this post up.

Oops! I missed Jason's comment. Okay, one more before hitting the sack:

What do you think of the transhumanism movement, and the prospects for significant enhancement or augmentation of human cognitive ability through genetic engineering or artificial intelligence?

I've thought about some of these things in the abstract, but I didn't actually realize there was a formal "movement" until you pointed it out.

I think it's an alluring concept, but probably one that will suffer more in the execution than we might realize at first. John Scalzi's book "Old Man's War" discusses the idea of people being rejuvenated through these types of procedures, then implanted with computers inside their brains. It sounds good in a science fiction book, but would you want to mess with Windows (or even Mac OS) in your head? What would happen if your brain crashed? There are a million possible unintended consequences of this sort of thing, and we know so little about the mind now that it would be difficult to predict what these consequences might be.

For me, much as I'd like to keep my body young and healthy for hundreds of years, or improve my memory, the risks are simply too great.

i love subjects related to the brain and behavior and hence i subscribe to ur rss feed. since its only out of interest in the topic and i dont really comprehend everything i havent commented so far...

here is a question that you could answer for me:

can a mild stroke in the right hemisphere leave the person more creative than she was earlier?

thanks
srini

I'm another lurker and have been reading your blog for a few months now and never commented (I don't think) but do take part in Casual Fridays!
I don't have a question for you but do have a comment about peer-reviewing as discussed between you and Stephen S:

"Would it ever be possible for research groups to peer-review papers internally (as it's in their self-interest to ensure the group to which they belong does not publish junk), with subsequent publication on a blog-like system"

My supervisor (a Cognitive Psychologist) has mentioned before that to a group of psychologists in the 1970s (I believe they were perception researchers but I could be wrong) set up a journal specifically to let eachother publish in to get their publication rates up - they just reviewed eachothers papers and accepted them all! This may be an urban myth kind of thing and I don't know of any way of verifying it but if it is true it just proves the point that groups will do things like this if they think they can get away with it.

can a mild stroke in the right hemisphere leave the person more creative than she was earlier?

Strokes can have amazing, surprising effects. I do know that some strokes remove inhibitions, which can be dangerous (e.g. crossing the street without looking), but might also enhance creativity. The brain has also proven to be more adaptive than previously thought, re-purposing specialized areas to take over lost functionality. But in general, you don't want to get a stroke.

a group of psychologists in the 1970s (I believe they were perception researchers but I could be wrong) set up a journal specifically to let each other publish in to get their publication rates up.

Hmmm... never heard of that. Of course, scientists start up specialized journals all the time, and a cynical observer could argue that the only reason they're doing it is to increase publication rates. And of course, pseudosciences like "Intelligent Design" and "Parapsychology" have their own journals, since they couldn't get published in scientific journals.

So I'd say there are different levels of this sort of abuse. You may know of one system that has been developed to try to address the issue, the impact factor system. Wikipedia has a nice article on how it works.

Well, I think that wraps up my offer to give personal responses to all commenters on this post. Thanks again to everyone who participated!

Ask you anything? Okay, do you think the man listed below will get any support from North Carolinians?

Time For Leadership on NC budget
By North Carolina State Senator Fred Smith

During the 2006 election, many candidates for office faced questions from voters about the increasing size of North Carolina state government. Questions about the fiscal responsibility of the Easley Administration and Democratic legislative leaders are timely. The past ten years, General Fund spending has grown 24% faster than combined inflation and population growth - translating into a $1,116 increase in real dollars for a typical North Carolina family.(1)

State government spending continues to be out of control with a projected $500 Million revenue shortfall in 2007. The most recent state budget increased spending 9.7%, on top of an 8% increase last year. The failure of the Democratic legislature and Governor Easley to prioritize and control spending has resulted in millions of dollars of inefficient expenditures - instead of worthwhile investments like educating our children or building and maintaining roads. Ultimately, this careless, undisciplined spending has also forced North Carolina to impose on its citizens the highest tax burden in the southeast. Meanwhile, the local tax burden is also increasing.(2) Irresponsible year-after-year increases in spending strain family budgets, stifle private sector growth and damage the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to create new jobs.

Even Lt. Gov. Perdue, one of the most liberal Democratic officeholders in our state's history, seems to recognize the problem. She recently penned an email to supporters touting her hot new "reform" idea: a permanent state efficiency commission. The commission, she says, would "present a maximum of ten separate governmental efficiency proposals" to "counter the pressures in the system favoring wasteful spending and loopholes."(3)

Taken as a stand-alone plan, her proposal is not a bad idea. However, Perdue's latest press release misses the larger point. The failure to control spending isn't for lack of boards, commissions, or processes - it's for lack of leadership. The governor already has the power to appoint advisors or seek outside counsel on fiscal issues - or any other state problem. The governor has the veto power on the budget. He controls the Office of State Budget and Management. He has the bully pulpit.

On the campaign trail in 2004, Gov. Easley's "solution" to the spending problem was a self-enforced spending cap. During the 2005-2006 General Assembly, Easley promptly broke that pledge by signing two budgets that blew through his own cap. Now, Perdue has the magic bullet: her permanent efficiency commission. She says the group will create the "institutional momentum" needed to fight spending. Why add a new commission to the over four hundred boards and commissions already in existence, rather than just rolling up our sleeves and tackling the spending problem? Real leaders take excuses off the table, use the tools they have and get the job done.

Some skeptics may look at Perdue's record and fear that her efficiency commission proposal is just political lip service. She can prove the skeptics wrong though by signing on to support the constitutional amendment I have introduced to cap state spending growth.

Our rapidly growing, rapidly changing state doesn't have time for bureaucratic piddling with new processes. Instead of tinkering with the system, we must make real change which requires leadership. My Taxpayer Protection Amendment limits government spending growth to inflation and population growth. This legislation would immediately put real limits on government growth, finally forcing the legislature to prioritize spending.

Talking about fiscal restraint, finding government efficiencies, and getting tough on spending is a lot like talking about going on a diet. There are a lot of gimmicks and new fads, but we all know there's only one real solution: discipline. We don't need a new "fad" plan, we just need a leader with the discipline to make sure government eats less and exercises more. A constitutional spending cap would force government to create a strategic plan for growth, prioritizing what we consume and cutting outmoded, irrelevant spending.

We don't need a new blue ribbon commission. We don't need to pass the buck. We need results - and that takes disciplined leaders who will roll up their sleeves and make tough decisions. At the end of the day, improving government efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending reduces the demand that government places on the private sector, so the private sector can create jobs and economic growth.

(1) "The State Budget." John Locke Foundation: http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/statebudget.html
(2) Lowrey, Michael. "By the Numbers: What Government Costs in North Carolina Cities and Counties." The Center for Local Innovation. http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/btn2006.pdf
(3) Perdue News Update, December 29, 2006.

Well, NC Conservative, you're past the deadline, but I'll give you my opinion. I don't really follow NC politics especially closely, but I don't think our taxes are too high. Property taxes are unbelievably low. I don't think a cap on tax increases is the way to enforce budgetary discipline. Part of the problem is that the federal government is increasingly placing more of a burden on states with unfunded mandates. If Washington forces us to fund a project we don't want, should we cut other spending to pay for it?

But this sort of rhetoric is always popular, so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy gets a lot of support for his views.