This came through my ComSci mailing list & I thought others might be interested as well:
Say Thanks to Qwest!
"It’s not often these days that we have occasion to laud corporate behavior, but the stance taken by the telecom Qwest in resisting the Bush Administration’s covert program to ensnare every single American citizen in a vast web of telephone surveillance deserves our thanks.
"Every other telecom sold out the privacy of its customers – literally so, taking money to turn over their phone records to the National Security Agency – but Qwest alone insisted on having a court order before complying with Bush’s unprecedented and “indefensible” (as Newt Gingrich put it) invasion of Americans’ personal lives and business affairs."
Website created by Richard Kastelein
Text by Chris Floyd and Richard Kastelein
May 16, 2006
May 14, 2006
The Dread Zone
I encountered this research about the neurobiology of dread twice recently — in the New York Times and on Science Friday (mp3).
Science Friday interviewed Gregory Berns (professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory), who used fMRI to determine the areas of the brain that are activated when we experience dread — and then suggests that the anticipation of something unpleasant or painful (ie, dread) has an effect on the decisions we make. He's combining neurobiology with economic behavior theories.
The Emory press release quotes Dr. Berns: " 'Most people don't like waiting for an unpleasant outcome, and want to get it over with as soon as possible,' explains Dr. Berns, an associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine. 'The only explanation for this is that the dread of having something hanging over your head is worse than the thing that you are dreading. It is a commonplace experience, but standard economic models of decision-making don't deal with this issue. So, we decided to take a biological approach and see what happens in the brain that might cause people to make such rash decisions.' "
This is getting lots o' press:
Health: Study Points to a Solution for Dread: Distraction
by Sandra Blakeslee
New York Times, May 5, 2006.
Scientists have found that dread does not involve fear and anxiety in the moment of an unpleasant event, but rather the attention that people devote to it beforehand.
Is Dread Driving Your Decisions?
Study: Dread Roosts in Brain, Often Prompts 'Get It Over With' Attitude
by Miranda Hitti, WebMD Medical News, May 4, 2006.
And the article itself:
Neurobiological Substrates of Dread (no free access)
ScienceMay 5 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5774, pp. 754 - 758
by Gregory S. Berns, et al.
Deciding between two choices can be difficult, particularly when they are separated in time. Economic theory accommodates the calculation by discounting the future outcome by the amount of time, most simply via a hyperbolic function. An additional factor is the cost of waiting, which can be represented clearly when the outcomes are unpleasant (electric shocks to one's foot), and the choice is between a stronger shock in a few seconds versus a weaker shock a half minute later. Many people will opt to "get it over with," primarily, one assumes, to avoid the anticipation of future pain, which is used as an operational definition by Berns et al. in examining the neural basis of dread. Areas within the cortical pain matrix respond in a fashion that can be associated with the extent of dread expressed across individuals.
Science Friday interviewed Gregory Berns (professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory), who used fMRI to determine the areas of the brain that are activated when we experience dread — and then suggests that the anticipation of something unpleasant or painful (ie, dread) has an effect on the decisions we make. He's combining neurobiology with economic behavior theories.
The Emory press release quotes Dr. Berns: " 'Most people don't like waiting for an unpleasant outcome, and want to get it over with as soon as possible,' explains Dr. Berns, an associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine. 'The only explanation for this is that the dread of having something hanging over your head is worse than the thing that you are dreading. It is a commonplace experience, but standard economic models of decision-making don't deal with this issue. So, we decided to take a biological approach and see what happens in the brain that might cause people to make such rash decisions.' "
This is getting lots o' press:
Health: Study Points to a Solution for Dread: Distraction
by Sandra Blakeslee
New York Times, May 5, 2006.
Scientists have found that dread does not involve fear and anxiety in the moment of an unpleasant event, but rather the attention that people devote to it beforehand.
Is Dread Driving Your Decisions?
Study: Dread Roosts in Brain, Often Prompts 'Get It Over With' Attitude
by Miranda Hitti, WebMD Medical News, May 4, 2006.
And the article itself:
Neurobiological Substrates of Dread (no free access)
ScienceMay 5 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5774, pp. 754 - 758
by Gregory S. Berns, et al.
Deciding between two choices can be difficult, particularly when they are separated in time. Economic theory accommodates the calculation by discounting the future outcome by the amount of time, most simply via a hyperbolic function. An additional factor is the cost of waiting, which can be represented clearly when the outcomes are unpleasant (electric shocks to one's foot), and the choice is between a stronger shock in a few seconds versus a weaker shock a half minute later. Many people will opt to "get it over with," primarily, one assumes, to avoid the anticipation of future pain, which is used as an operational definition by Berns et al. in examining the neural basis of dread. Areas within the cortical pain matrix respond in a fashion that can be associated with the extent of dread expressed across individuals.
Progress on hiring women science faculty members stalls at MIT
Bummer. Science magazine reports that "[t]he number of women faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge has declined or remained flat in five of its six science departments since 2000, whereas the number of women in other areas, such as engineering and architecture, increased significantly during the same period."
The rate for women in the brain / cognitive sciences fell slightly, to 8 / 33 — which is, according to this chart, the highest percentage of women in any of the science departments at MIT.
In his lecture (mp3 file) at Hamline University School of Law last fall, Malcolm Gladwell recounted a story of how more women got hired by symphony orchestras. It used to be that music auditions were face to face, and so the male orchestra leaders could tell the gender of the musicians. Oddly (snark), male musicians were consistently rated WAAAAAY better than female ones, and so they got hired in disproportionate numbers. However, in 1980, "blind auditions" were implemented (for privacy reasons, not to reverse gender bais) in which the conductor could not see the musicians. Shortly thereafter, the number of women in orchestras increased dramatically. (read more about that on Aaron's blog or in blink itself.
Would it be possible to conduct blind job interviews? Might that solve the problem? If there aren't women in science departments now, there won't be any more in 20 years ... just my humble opinion.
Rare for me to jump on my soap box, but sometimes it has to be done.
The rate for women in the brain / cognitive sciences fell slightly, to 8 / 33 — which is, according to this chart, the highest percentage of women in any of the science departments at MIT.
In his lecture (mp3 file) at Hamline University School of Law last fall, Malcolm Gladwell recounted a story of how more women got hired by symphony orchestras. It used to be that music auditions were face to face, and so the male orchestra leaders could tell the gender of the musicians. Oddly (snark), male musicians were consistently rated WAAAAAY better than female ones, and so they got hired in disproportionate numbers. However, in 1980, "blind auditions" were implemented (for privacy reasons, not to reverse gender bais) in which the conductor could not see the musicians. Shortly thereafter, the number of women in orchestras increased dramatically. (read more about that on Aaron's blog or in blink itself.
Would it be possible to conduct blind job interviews? Might that solve the problem? If there aren't women in science departments now, there won't be any more in 20 years ... just my humble opinion.
Rare for me to jump on my soap box, but sometimes it has to be done.
May 10, 2006
A Linguistic Anthropologist in Brazil
Heard an interview with linguistic anthropologist Dan Everett (mp3) on "Sci Pod", New Scientist's podcast.
Everett talks about the Piraha (pronounced "pita ha", best I can tell without a phonetic alphabet) people's lack of words for numbers and things that happened in the past or will happen in the future. They like to have concrete knowledge of events, Everett says, and they only have words for things like "small" or "relatively larger". Everett says, "the Piraha show us that you can get by just fine without numbers." Hmmm.
But does their language affect their culture? Or does their culture affect their language. A great debate!
See the article: Lost for words; They've no myths, no numbers or colours and few words for past or present. No wonder the Pirahã people defy our most cherished ideas about language, says Kate Douglas, New Scientist, March 18, 2006. Note: You can't get the full-text from the New Scientist web site, but it's on LexisNexis and InfoTrac's Business & Company Resource Center.
See also Everett's article in Current Anthropology: "Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language." Current Anthropology 46.4 (August-Oct 2005): 621(26). Note: You can't get the full-text from the Current Anthropology web site, but it's in InfoTrac OneFile.
Everett talks about the Piraha (pronounced "pita ha", best I can tell without a phonetic alphabet) people's lack of words for numbers and things that happened in the past or will happen in the future. They like to have concrete knowledge of events, Everett says, and they only have words for things like "small" or "relatively larger". Everett says, "the Piraha show us that you can get by just fine without numbers." Hmmm.
But does their language affect their culture? Or does their culture affect their language. A great debate!
See the article: Lost for words; They've no myths, no numbers or colours and few words for past or present. No wonder the Pirahã people defy our most cherished ideas about language, says Kate Douglas, New Scientist, March 18, 2006. Note: You can't get the full-text from the New Scientist web site, but it's on LexisNexis and InfoTrac's Business & Company Resource Center.
See also Everett's article in Current Anthropology: "Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language." Current Anthropology 46.4 (August-Oct 2005): 621(26). Note: You can't get the full-text from the Current Anthropology web site, but it's in InfoTrac OneFile.
May 08, 2006
Content -- TV & Scholarly Articles
Two seemingly-unrelated articles in the New York Times in the last two days.
The first, Digital Domain: Someone Has to Pay for TV. But Who? And How?, from the Sunday Times (May 7), talks about technology that prohibits TV viewers from skipping through commercials. It's more of a personal essay than a description (pro or con) of the technology, and it raises the issue of who pays for TV. Randall Stross asserts that if he were "... violating an implicit contract that ... exists between broadcaster and viewer of ad-supported television, I take comfort in the knowledge that no such contract exists." But that is the implied contract, isn't it?
Over at the publishing debate, where there is a contract (ie, sale) of journals to permit access to scholarly articles, today's Times reports on the "Federal Research Public Access Act (ARL link) of 2006, proposed last week by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, [which] would require 11 government agencies to publish online any articles that contained research financed with federal grants. If enacted, the measure would require that the articles be accessible online without charge within six months of their initial publication in a scholarly journal."
Publishers are furious, of course, much as the television companies dislike DVRs that permit ad-skipping. A publisher whines that if journal articles were available on the free web, there would be no way of telling how many people read an article, warning that "readership may be halved". I bet the folks running Institutional Repositories would have a different response; from what I can tell, having articles available on the free web actually *increases* their usage.
Interesting issues. I'm voting against the first and for the second.
The first, Digital Domain: Someone Has to Pay for TV. But Who? And How?, from the Sunday Times (May 7), talks about technology that prohibits TV viewers from skipping through commercials. It's more of a personal essay than a description (pro or con) of the technology, and it raises the issue of who pays for TV. Randall Stross asserts that if he were "... violating an implicit contract that ... exists between broadcaster and viewer of ad-supported television, I take comfort in the knowledge that no such contract exists." But that is the implied contract, isn't it?
Over at the publishing debate, where there is a contract (ie, sale) of journals to permit access to scholarly articles, today's Times reports on the "Federal Research Public Access Act (ARL link) of 2006, proposed last week by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, [which] would require 11 government agencies to publish online any articles that contained research financed with federal grants. If enacted, the measure would require that the articles be accessible online without charge within six months of their initial publication in a scholarly journal."
Publishers are furious, of course, much as the television companies dislike DVRs that permit ad-skipping. A publisher whines that if journal articles were available on the free web, there would be no way of telling how many people read an article, warning that "readership may be halved". I bet the folks running Institutional Repositories would have a different response; from what I can tell, having articles available on the free web actually *increases* their usage.
Interesting issues. I'm voting against the first and for the second.
May 05, 2006
Institutional Repository, Me?
Yes, it’s true! I have put my recent conference presentation into the University of Connecticut’s Institutional Repository. See for yourself, and let me know what you think. I may add more materials, but there are some issues to be worked out.
Should I put in a copy of the final article published in Computers in Libraries? Or the unedited version I originally submitted to them? I do own the copyright, so that is not an issue in this case. But, if I submit the final copy, where do I get the copy? The article is in Academic Search Premier as a pdf (access to ASP required).
I don’t want an unedited copy in the Repository. I don’t know why; maybe I’m just old fashioned. But I do want a record of my work there — both to promote myself, and to represent the library in the Repository. But I’m not sure I have the right to use the ASP copy (and I look at licenses in my day job, so I’m properly concerned).
It’s a muddle for the digital age. What say you?
Should I put in a copy of the final article published in Computers in Libraries? Or the unedited version I originally submitted to them? I do own the copyright, so that is not an issue in this case. But, if I submit the final copy, where do I get the copy? The article is in Academic Search Premier as a pdf (access to ASP required).
I don’t want an unedited copy in the Repository. I don’t know why; maybe I’m just old fashioned. But I do want a record of my work there — both to promote myself, and to represent the library in the Repository. But I’m not sure I have the right to use the ASP copy (and I look at licenses in my day job, so I’m properly concerned).
It’s a muddle for the digital age. What say you?
May 03, 2006
Search the OED from your browser
... if you subscribe to the online Oxford English Dictionary, you can put a link to search it on your browser's toolbar.
Their instructions indicate that this is possible for the usual browsers like Internet Explorer, but also Firefox and even Safari.
Yay, Oxford.
Or, scrumptious.
2. a. U.S. Stylish, handsome. b. Used as a vague epithet of enthusiastic praise: First rate, ‘glorious’. Now esp. of food: delicious. So {sm}scrumptiousness, the state or condition of being scrumptious.
Their instructions indicate that this is possible for the usual browsers like Internet Explorer, but also Firefox and even Safari.
Yay, Oxford.
Or, scrumptious.
2. a. U.S. Stylish, handsome. b. Used as a vague epithet of enthusiastic praise: First rate, ‘glorious’. Now esp. of food: delicious. So {sm}scrumptiousness, the state or condition of being scrumptious.
Counterintuitive, but True
Heard a podcast of Malcolm Gladwell (mp3 file) speaking at Hamline University School of Law last November. I suspect he was recounting many stories from Blink, and he is quite a storyteller.
His thesis is that quick decisions based on few bits of data are more accurate than decisions based which take a long time to reach and are based on multiple data sources. This sounds very intriguing. He points to some research (not footnoted in the podcast) where Emergency Department doctors are more accurate at diagnosing heart attacks with only 4 bits of data (none of which is patient age, prior heart attack history, or recent drug use).
This, he says, is counterintuitive, but true. It's fascinating, and he is a marvelous storyteller.
Being a librarian-to-scientists, I wanted more, um, scientific proof to support what he was saying. Still, since I am in the car for long stretches of time, I do like a good story, and this is one that made me think.
His thesis is that quick decisions based on few bits of data are more accurate than decisions based which take a long time to reach and are based on multiple data sources. This sounds very intriguing. He points to some research (not footnoted in the podcast) where Emergency Department doctors are more accurate at diagnosing heart attacks with only 4 bits of data (none of which is patient age, prior heart attack history, or recent drug use).
This, he says, is counterintuitive, but true. It's fascinating, and he is a marvelous storyteller.
Being a librarian-to-scientists, I wanted more, um, scientific proof to support what he was saying. Still, since I am in the car for long stretches of time, I do like a good story, and this is one that made me think.
Spring Break in the Lower Ninth Ward
The editor of the UConn Daily Campus, Diego Cupolo (a journalism & communication science major) wrote a story recently called Spring Break in the Lower Ninth Ward. According to the UConn Advance, his article was picked up by the Associated Press.
Congratulations & good luck!
Congratulations & good luck!
May 02, 2006
(Engineering) Success through Failure
Today's New York Times has an article about the engineer, Henry Petroski, who, they say, "seems strangely enthusiastic about failure."
For him, "... failures in design and construction present perfect teaching opportunities. They are object lessons in the history and practice and beauty of engineering. 'Failure is central to engineering,' he said in an interview. 'Every single calculation that an engineer makes is a failure calculation. Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.' "
You can read the introduction to Dr. Petroski's book at the Times' site. You can also listen to David Corcoran (a Times science editor) interview him for the Science Times podcast (podcast iTunes feed).
The podcast interview with Dr. Petroski reminded me of Donald Norman's "Psychology of Everyday Things" -- if you liked that book, or the ideas of how things are designed, then you might like this article or podcast.
For him, "... failures in design and construction present perfect teaching opportunities. They are object lessons in the history and practice and beauty of engineering. 'Failure is central to engineering,' he said in an interview. 'Every single calculation that an engineer makes is a failure calculation. Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.' "
You can read the introduction to Dr. Petroski's book at the Times' site. You can also listen to David Corcoran (a Times science editor) interview him for the Science Times podcast (podcast iTunes feed).
The podcast interview with Dr. Petroski reminded me of Donald Norman's "Psychology of Everyday Things" -- if you liked that book, or the ideas of how things are designed, then you might like this article or podcast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)