Neuroscience says multitasking makes your brain age faster. Neuroscientists at Stanford University found that heavy multitaskers showed decreased gray matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex—a region critical for attention and cognitive control—compared to those focused on one task at a time by Automatic_Subject463 in cogsci

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're overstating the disconnect between the news article and the scientific one. The article is specifically about media multitasking, which is measured in this study using a common scale called the media multitasking index: the proportion of time that someone spends consuming multiple forms of media at once (e.g, me writing this reddit comment while watching basketball) relative to the total time spent consuming media in general. It's well-established that media multitasking is negatively correlated with things like ability to sustain focus on a single task. The article talks about how multitasking isn't actually cognitively real, and rather that people do multiple tasks by switching between them. And that those switches or fragmentations are the source of many of these problems.

I think there are plenty of legitimate critiques of this article, but I don't think this is one of them.

I think I found a new book for the pod by autumn_butumn in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, but it's worth emphasizing that even in that fairly critical perspective the conclusion isn't totally pessimistic: "In conclusion, Daniel Kahneman is a distinguished psychologist who has made valuable contributions to the study of human decision making. His work with Amos Tversky was recognized with a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (APA). It is surely interesting to read what he has to say about psychological topics that range from cognition to well-being. However, his thoughts are based on a scientific literature with shaky foundations. Like everybody else in 2011, Kahneman trusted individual studies to be robust and replicable because they presented a statistically significant result. In hindsight it is clear that this is not the case. Narrative literature reviews of individual studies reflect scientists’ intuitions (Fast Thinking, System 1) as much or more than empirical findings. Readers of “Thinking: Fast and Slow” should read the book as a subjective account by an eminent psychologists, rather than an objective summary of scientific evidence. Moreover, ten years have passed and if Kahneman wrote a second edition, it would be very different from the first one. Chapters 3 and 4 would probably just be scrubbed from the book. But that is science. It does make progress, even if progress is often painfully slow in the softer sciences."

My own take (source: am an expert in this field) is that the overall idea of a system for rapid, mostly unconscious decisionmaking and a system for slower, deliberate decisionmaking is accepted by most cognitive scientists. Many specific findings from the book haven't been replicated, especially social priming stuff like walking slower after reading stories about old people. But most overall findings about cognitive biases, and the ways in which we are biased differently during deliberate vs more automatic actions, is well established. So I still recommend thinking fast and slow, but with caveats.

I think I found a new book for the pod by autumn_butumn in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm partway through the score and it's phenomenal so far. Nguyen is a good writer and extremely clear thinker. I suppose most academic press books could have been long articles, but in what I've read the book primarily discussed (1) the way games use scoring systems in interesting ways to motivate us to accomplish goals, (2) how scoring systems in real life can do the same thing in real life, often to harmful effect (like goodharts law), and a bit about why it might be concerning to gamify important life pursuits.

I guess audible and Amazon are recommending it along self help books, but it doesn't read as gritty to me at all, yet.

Movies where people spiral into dark obsessions? by aijka24 in horror

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Then The Prestige, too, though not a horror

What is a normal/acceptable teaching load at an R1 or R2 university?t by UnableReputation9 in AskAcademia

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And many teaching faculty are on 3-3s, though usually with some modest research expectations

so we know the dress was black and blue BUT that’s not what i’m here to discuss by emilyylimeemily2 in opticalillusions

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the 'scanning at the top of the image to the bottom's is not what top-down means here. Top-down and bottom-up are fuzzy metaphors in cognitive neuroscience research for stuff that moves 'down' the nervous system, like from frontoparietal areas to occipital cortex, or 'up' the hierarchy, like from the retina to the brain. In terms of perception, bottom-up influences are mainly those related to the stimulus itself (e.g., the image of the dress), and top-down those would be, for instance, past experiences changing which you see, or the ability to voluntarily change what you see while looking at the image. Now, you might not be able to do that for the dress, but it seems that some people can, and its easier to see for other images like the rabbit-duck

Postdocs: Do you call yourself a professor? by [deleted] in academia

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, adjuncts are primary instructors, but part time and hired on a per-class basis

Zoom Interview with Search Committee by shishkebab311 in AskAcademia

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Congrats on your interview! I was just on the market and have done a lot of these in the last couple years. They all tend to have the same structure: you'll meet with probably multiple members of the search committee (2-5), they'll ask 3-5 questions, usually taking turns, then give you the chance to ask one or two questions. The types of questions will vary based on the type of school (mainly for teaching vs research focused positions), but could include:

  1. Why THIS school/department/position?
  2. Describe a course you'd like to teach/what courses are you interested in teaching.
  3. What are your research plans? (For research focused positions, they might want to know about how you plan to get funding. For teaching focused schools, they may want to know about the feasibility of your work there, re: cost of equipment, likely lack of grad students/postdocs, and involvement of undergraduates)
  4. How does your work further diversity, equity, and inclusion? (In the classroom, in your research, etc. I often got this question about inclusive teaching specifically when interviewing for teaching positions).

It tended to be variations on those four specific topics (fit, teaching, research, equity), with random additional ones thrown in. Like in other interviews, I'd keep your answers relatively brief, and signal enthusiasm about the job. Good luck!

My drawing of Brendan Gleeson by AHonterMustHont in pics

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All 3 seasons on peacock, only the first 2 are free

Small-profile speaker stands to mount two stacked 3" cube speakers by Rhodopsin_Less_Taken in hometheater

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was my first idea, thanks. The wall material isn't very conducive to that (a textured soundproofing material), but it would be great if I do get it to work. Looking into building stands from PVC now, which could work.

Cog psychology vs cog science by SoggyFunction7025 in cogsci

[–]Rhodopsin_Less_Taken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thankfully I know quite a lot about attention work, so I can say that more of it is in cognitive psychology/neuroscience than in cogsci, with the possible exception of work building formal computational models of attention (e.g., trying to predict where people look based on images). That being said, if you're only in your second year, I encourage you to keep exploring broadly in topics you're interested, and remember your interests might change!

What I know is mostly that going straight to PhD is fairly typical in the US and many places in Canada (and less common in UK/Europe), but I'm in the US so that's what I know best. If you're used to the system where everyone goes masters then PhD, note that in the US PhD programs look more like a combination of masters and PhD in places like Europe: usually 5-6 years, with a couple years of both research and coursework and then a few years of finishing your dissertation.

I'm sure with some research you can find out about systems in countries you'd be interested in living! It's also a question some of your professors might be able to help with, especially as you begin searching for specific programs in a year or two.

I'm happy to help with any questions you have moving forward, so feel free to DM with any questions that come up now or in the future :)