Posts Tagged ‘Scientific American’


September 18, 2017

This is the ninth post based on “The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High Tech World” by Drs. Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen. Safety is another casualty of the distracted mind.

Ira Hyman and his colleagues at Western Washington University designed a creative situation to illustrate the effects of distraction. They had a clown, fully clothed in a bright purple and yellow outfit, with large shoes and a bright red bulbous nose, pedal a unicycle around a large open square that is crossed often by most campus students. The researchers interviewed more than 150 students who walked through the square and noted if they were walking alone or with someone else, and if they were using a cell phone or listening to music with ear buds. When asked if they saw anything unusual, only 8% of cell phone users reported that they saw the clown. This is compared with one in three students walking alone without technology or listening to music wearing ear buds and more than half of the students who were walking in pairs without using technology. When asked directly if they saw a clown, only one in four of the cell-phone using students reported seeing it compared with half of single walkers, 61% of music listeners, and 71% of walking pairs. Whatever was happening between the user and his or her phone appears to have inhibited the ability to identify a somewhat unusual happening in the immediate neighborhood.

According to one report in Scientific American, data from a sample of 100 US hospitals found that while in 2004 an estimated nationwide 559 people had hurt themselves by walking into a stationary object while texting, by 2010 that number topped 1,500 and estimates by the study authors predicted the number of injuries would double between 2010 and 2015. A recent study by Corey Basch and her colleagues at several universities tracked more than 3,700 pedestrians crossing Manhattan’s most dangerous intersections and discovered that nearly 30% focused their attention on their mobile device while crossing during the “walk” signal, and one in four were even looking at their phones while crossing during the “don’t walk” signal.

Researchers at the University of Washington and Seattle children’s hospital found similar results in their study of more than 1,000 pedestrians. They discovered than 30% were doing something other than just walking while crossing an intersection, including listening to music and texting. The texting pedestrians took an additional few seconds to cross the street and were nearly four times more likely to show at least one unsafe crossing behavior than those who did not have their head down looking at they phone.

In one experimental study, college students were asked to cross the street in a virtual environment either talking on the phone, listening to music, or texting. Those who were texting and or listening to music were more likely to be hit by a simulated car, which the authors attributed to the conflict between the cognitive demands of crossing the street and paying attention to vehicles and the demands of paying attention to the text message conversation or their music. There is an interruption cost, but perhaps a deadly one in this case.

Little will be written here on driving while distracted. There have already been at least eleven posts on this topic (Enter “Strayer” in the healthy memory blog search box to find some). Suffice it to say, do not do it. Driving while talking on a cell phone is comparably to driving while drunk, and texting is even much more dangerous. Hands free laws are irrelevant. The attentional demands here are what is dangerous.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.




TOADS versus Scientists and Responsible Citizens

May 8, 2017

If you do not know who the TOADS are, please read the immediately preceding post (the one immediately below this one).  The motivation that these TOADS have for scientists providing data and analyses on global warming, is that the scientists are doing this so that they receive grants and contracts for further research.  This claim is absurd, as if there was big money to be made doing research in this area.  No the big money is made by the CEOs and their folks who are responsible for global warming.  That’s where the big money is.  True, there are scientists for hire who will argue against global warming for cash.  The first documented activity like this was the Tobacco’s industry’s efforts to deny the research that smoking increased the risk of getting lung cancer. This activity is discussed in the blog “Did Corporate PR initiate the Post Fact Era?”

HM has the deepest contempt for these TOADS.  They are complete hedonists, not eudaemonists.  They are consumed by material things and physical pleasures.  As they are biologically constrained as to the number of physical pleasures they can enjoy, they keep score with their cash and material things that are purchased and developed for prestige.  Numbers are important to them.  They are materialists and too hell with the quality of life.   Their attitude is too hell with people who need money for the quality of their lives and their ability to provide education for their children so that their children can live well.

HM also feels sorry for these individuals.  They are stunted.  They have no appreciation for science.  Pure hedonism stunts growth.  However, scientists and responsible citizens are eudaemonists who are interested in the quality of life, intellectual pursuits such as science and the arts, and are concerned about their fellow citizens who are not so well off.

So what should people do?  They need to educate themselves as a part of a growth mindset.  Watch television programs on science.  Consult the Wikipedia on scientific topics.  The Wikipedia is also a good source for learning about scientific controversies.  Healthy memory blog readers should be aware of the frequent references to the New Scientist.  The New Scientist is a superb source of science information for the general public.  The New Scientist is a British product.  The Scientific American is a fine publication along with Scientific American Mind.  Scientific American Mind is discontinuing its print publication, but if you have not be won over by electronic publications, try them  You’ll learn just as much with much less clutter. Actually there are too many publications to list.  And to online searches for questions of interest.

There is a previous post “Science Should Inform Democracy, which is on a topic that is extremely important.  TOADS abuse science and put democracy at risk.  They are putting the United States and the world at risk.  Use available means, email, conventional letters, and phone messages, to disabuse them of their comments.  This is especially important for TOADS who are your Senators or in your congressional district.  And do not neglect the leader of the TOADS in the United States, its current president.

This post has barely scratched the surface of Dave Levitan’s “NOT A SCIENTIST:  How Politicians, Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science.”  To provide you with a feeling for the variety and complexity of techniques used by TOADS here are the chapter titles.

The Oversimplification
The Cherry-Pick
The Butter-Up and Undercut
The Demonizer
The Blame the Blogger
The Ridicule and Dismiss
The Literal Nitpick
The Credit Snatch
The Certain Uncertainty
The Blind Eye to Follow-Up
The Lost in Translation
The Straight-Up Fabrication

HM has taken it as his responsibility to inform you about the TOADS, the danger they present not only to the country, but to the entire world, and means of combatting their disinformation.  He hopes he has succeeded in his mission.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

We’re Back

January 17, 2016

We’re returned from the Scientific American Bright Horizons cruise to the Western Caribbean and the Panama Canal.  We disembarked from Fort Lauderdale.  The first port call, more accurately a tendering call, to Half Moon Cay in the Bahamas.  Next port was Oranjestad, Aruba.  Then Cartagena, Columbia before entering the Panama Canal, Gatun Lake, and exiting the Panama Canal, which was a truly memorable experience.  Next came Puerto Limon, Costa Rica.  We were especially impressed by Costa Rica, the country and its fruits.  My wife was overwhelmed by the healthy fruits she found.  We stopped at Georgetown in the Cayman Islands before returning to Fort Lauderdale.

However, the highly of the cruise were the speakers.  All speakers made multiple presentations.   Dr MIchael Starboard is a University Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Texas in Austin.  His opening talk was on the five elements of effective thinking, which was truly impressive.  All his lectures concerned effective thinking and were addressed at specific topics in mathematics.

Dr. Monisha Pasupathi is a professor of psychology at the University of Utah.  She made interesting presentations on important topics including memory, rationality, emotion,  emotion regulation, and personality.

Dr. Glenn Starkman is a professor of physics and astronomy and director toe the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western University.  His presentations were definitely mind expanding, and he made difficult material accessible and understandable.

Dr. Chris Stringer is the Research Leader in Human Origins and a Fellow of the Royal Society.  His presentations on human revolution were enlightening.  There have been many crooked roads on the way to human revolution.

Our group attending these presentations was equally impressive.  They were knowledgeable and highly intelligent.  When asked how many invested in the stock market, a fair number of hands were raised.  But when asked whether they played in the ship’s casino, not a single had was raised.  These were people with growth mindsets who were enjoying the process of growing their minds.

There is much material to ponder here regarding future healthy memory blog posts.  What is of both obvious and immediate interests are Dr.Stringer’s statements about what led to homo sapiens and why it succeeded.  The development of large enough groups was important, but the key to success was what we term in the healthy memory blog as transactive memory.   Transactive memory is the information shared among different memories.  Many minds are needed and there needs to be sharing of information among these minds.  Once spoken language was developed, written language increased the storing power of transactive memory, and the development of the printing press greatly expanded the access to transactive memory.  Today we have the net (see the healthy memory blog post, “Why the Net Matters” which is on the book of the same title by David Eagleman).  Note also the remainder of the title is “Six Easy Ways to Avert the Collapse of Civilization.”  Please reread and assess on your own whether these easy ways to avert the collapse of civilization are easy, and to reassess the risk.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Importance of Testing

September 17, 2015

Complaints are being received from teachers that testing is interfering with the education of students because they have to teach to the test.  There are two points to be made here.  First of all, testing is necessary to measure whether anything is being learned.  The second point is that testing rather than interfere with learning, can enhance learning.  These points were effectively made in a Scientific American Article that can be found at

An example of one of these effective teaching techniques was provided in the article.  The teacher posted a multiple choice question on a smartboard screen.  The students clicked in their answers which were posted on the bottom of the smart board screen.  So the students needed to retrieve information to make their selections.  The teacher received feedback on the knowledge of the class, and was able to provide feedback for the wrong answers.  When every student provides the correct answer, the class members raise their hands and wiggle their fingers in unison, which is an exuberant gesture that they call “spirit fingers.”

There is ample evidence from research in cognitive psychology that retrieval practice increases learning.  Whenever we retrieve a memory, the memory representation changes, and its mental representation becomes stronger, more stable, and more accessible.  If material is simply reread, this retrieval practice does not occur.  Retrieval strengthens and has additional benefits noted by cognitive psychologist Jeffrey Karpicke.  He notes that as our memory is necessarily selective, the usefulness of a fact or idea—as demonstrated by how often we have reason to recall it—makes a sound basis for selection.   He said that “our minds are sensitive to the likelihood that we’ll need knowledge at a future time, and if we retrieve a piece of information now, there’s a good chance that we’ll need it again.  The process of retrieving a memory alters that memory in anticipation of demands we may encounter in the future.”

Karpicke argues that retrieving is the principal way learning happens, “Recalling information we’re already stored in memory is a more powerful learning event that storing that information in the first place.  Retrieval is ultimately the process that makes new memories stick.”  Not only does retrieval practice help students remember the specific information they retrieved, it also improves retention for related material that was not directly tested.  When we are sifting through our mind for the particular piece of information we are trying to recollect, we call up associated memories and in doing so strengthen them as well.

I remember from my college day the yellow marked sections whenever I had a previously owned text.  I made it a point to never rely upon those yellow marked sections.  It was my guess that when studying for a test, the previous user simply reread the highlighted section.  I never did that.   I always tried to recall the gist of the material, and then I checked my recall.  If just rereading highlighted sections was done, my guess is that the best result would be a C.  My goal was an A, and I often received them.

There are hundreds of studies hat have demonstrated retrieval practice is better than virtually any other method of teaching, including doing concept maps.

Research using fMRI has shown that calling up information from memory versus simply restudying it, produces higher levels of activity in particular areas of the brain. These regions are associated with the consolidation, or stabilization, of memories and with the generation of cues that makes memory readily accessible for later recall.  Research has demonstrated that the more active these regions are during an initial learning session, the more successful is recall weeks or months later.

So this testing versus learning complaint is a pseudo issue.  It is not an issue of teaching to the test.  Rather it is a matter of developing teaching plans that require students to actively recall information rather than to simply reread material that will likely be on the  test.  This is a pseudo complaint.  If done properly it is a win win issue.

However, according to the Scientific American article there is a feature of standardized tests that prevents them from being used more effectively as  occasions for learning, and that is that the questions they ask tend to be of a superficial natures, which tends to lead to superficial learning.  There is a tool called Webb’s Depth of Knowledge, created by Norman Webb, a senior scientist at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research.  This tool identifies four levels of mental rigor:
DOK1 (simple recall)
DOK2 (application of skills and concepts)
DOK3 (reasoning and inference)
DOK4 (extended planning and investigation)
Most questions on state tests were DOK1 or DOK2.

So rather than complain about testing, the complaints should be on the DOK required on the tests.  The deeper the depth of knowledge, the better the test, which leads to more effective learning.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.