Lightly Seared On The Reality Grill

Random expat geekery from The Low Countries

Browsing Posts in Social Sciences

The underlying assumption of brainstorming is that if people are scared of saying the wrong thing, they’ll end up saying nothing at all. The appeal of this idea is obvious: it’s always nice to be saturated in positive feedback. Typically, participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contribution. The whiteboard has been filled with free associations. Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.

- From The New Yorker via Tobias Buckell

And, from the same article, this:

According to Nemeth, dissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others and to reassess our viewpoints. “There’s this Pollyannaish notion that the most important thing to do when working together is stay positive and get along, to not hurt anyone’s feelings,” she says. “Well, that’s just wrong. Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive. True creativity requires some trade-offs.”

There’s a lot more in there, all of which is well worth a read

flattr this!

Every year, it seems, some fool in the press reprints a story about the third Monday of January being the most depressing day of the year. I’ve seen a couple of stories referencing this today but, more hearteningly, I also saw Dr Dean Burnett’s blistering response in The Guardian.

This silly claim comes from a ludicrous equation that calculates “debt”, “motivation”, “weather”, “need to take action” and other arbitrary variables that are impossible to quantify and largely incompatible.

The equation, which was dreamt up by Dr Cliff Arnall (not a Cardiff University psychologist) for a travel firm is meaningless. Fine, if it was just a bit of harmless fun – or an excuse to post a YouTube video – but Dr Burnett does raise a good point:

I believe strongly that pseudoscience (like this equation) regularly presented as genuine science in the mainstream media harms the public understanding of science and psychology.

The rest of the article is well worth a read but first… Here’s a video.

flattr this!

This video, which I found at Cosmic Variance, is a fantastic demonstration of the difference between long-term trends and short-term variation.

flattr this!

The first advertising campaign for non-human primates

Olwell expects brand A to be the capuchins’ favoured product. “Monkeys have been shown in previous studies to really love photographs of alpha males and shots of genitals, and we think this will drive their purchasing habits.”

flattr this!

Plenty has been said about the link between violent rhetoric and violent action but there is very little actual research on the subject. Maggie Koerth-Baker at Boing Boing has, however, located one study that was put together by Poliical Science Post Grad, Nathan Kalmoe. The study – based on an online survey – doesn’t directly deal with explicitly violent rhetoric, but with more common word choices, such as urging supporters to “fight”.

The results are interesting:

Most people—across the board—are actively resistant to the influence of violent metaphor in political speech. At first glance, it looks like the vast majority of Americans—regardless of political leanings—are unlikely to turn violent rhetoric into violent action. But, there’s a catch.

People who are classified as “trait aggressive”—those more likely to engage in aggressive social interaction, no matter the circumstances—DO respond to violent metaphor in political advertisements. What’s completely safe for most of us can make a small minority feel more like acting out.

Obviously, this is a single study based on a single, small sample so drawing conclusions would be a bad idea. However, the suggestion that a percentage of the population can be inspired by violent words to take violent action is something that merits further investigation.

flattr this!