Good Push Back

Right now the world changes faster than our mental models and systems. Asking "Why is ...?" is the best method to cut through the clutter of outdated thinking. The answer to that question often implicitly includes some combination of these statements:
"I hadn't thought about it."
"That is way it has always been done."
"Someone told me so."
"There is not a better way."

The mere act of making them explicit and named is the start of a better solution.

Science-biased Conversations

Most of the people in my extended social circle have earned master and doctoral degrees. It is a delightful mix that ranges from social scientists to engineers. In addition to proving their ability to sit still and delay gratification, a post-bachelor degree usually requires rigorous scientific steeping. This creates certain implicit guidelines for conversation. Scientists realize the difference between narrative and facts. Disagreements are frequently about definitions. They realize attributing causation is a tricky. Most importantly, scientific training reminds you that you could be wrong. This does not guarantee improved conversational content, but these implicit guidelines are more conductive to the successful exchange of ideas. I wonder what our national discourse would sound like it if was more scientific-biased.

My 3 Types of Questions

My foundational research questions start with a "Why".

Why choose the basic science end of the research spectrum over the applied science end? Why focus on understanding "normal" brain function, in contrast to "abnormal" brain function? Why seek to understand the adult (18-40 years of age) brain, as opposed to the younger or older brain? These questions provide perspective and grounded motivation for what I do.

My primary research questions start with a "What".

What is the end goal of this study? What are the subgoals of this project? What does successful completion of this project look like? These questions set up the trajectory of any given project.

My secondary research questions start with a "How".

How best answer do I answer my primary research questions with my limited resources, whether they are money, time, or attention? How do I construct a project work flow? How do I best collaborate with other members of my team? How do I collect and analyze my data? These questions outline the way I walk the path of the project. They put into focus the vitally important details but are always addressed last.

Accepted to SFN 2011 Annual Conference

My abstract for "Expectancy violation and functional connectivity in musical syntax processing" was accepted to Society for Neuroscience 2011 Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.

Session Type: Poster Session Number: 171
Session Title: Auditory Processing: Human Studies
Date and Time: Sunday Nov 13, 2011 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Location: Walter E. Washington Convention Center: Hall A-C

See you there!

Leveraging The Long Tail

Psychology tends to get to data from a medium number of trials, about 100, from a medium number of subjects, about 30. Occasionally, psychology, particularly perception and sensation research, will get a large number of trials, say 10,000, from a few subjects, say 4 (including the first author).

What happens if you go to the edge. How about a large number of trials (a million trials would be a good start) from one person? How about 1 trial from a large number of people (again, I would start with a million)? Those edges are easier than ever to access via the internet. Using the "long tail" of the internet has been prototyped in science by the Galaxy Zoo project. It is time for psychology to join the game.

Required Reading

The reading list for seminars and conferences sometimes border on the ridiculous. Since everything is electronic, it is additively easy to find and share information. There is always another article that is interesting and possibly relevant. I'm a fast reader but I shepherd my superpower in this instance. In my experience, there are more important aspects to a successful seminar and conference attendance than doing all the required reading.

I show up, my secret weapon. First, that means I am physical at the conference or seminar. Second, I am mentally there. I have "nothing on my mind", a Getting Things Done reference. I have my 8 hours of sleep. While I am physically in the room, I not checking my email, twittering, or looking up what is happening elsewhere. I know this is where I need to be in the universe. I feel like I'm cheating when I fully present at conferences or seminars, even though sometimes I don't all the mandatory reading.

Even though I just made an argument for not reading, sometimes it is better if you show up prepared. Here are my tips & tricks:

1. Read all the abstracts
2. Rank order the articles
3. Read the 1st paragraph of the general discussion
4. Summarize the article in your own words
5. Read the methods
6. Create a list of limitations based on the methods
7. Interpret the figures
8. Read the results
9. Read the discussion
10. Create a list of limitations based on the discussion
11. Read the introduction
12. Create a list of research they should have cited (mostly your own!)

Cognitive Chew Toy

Every researcher I know has a “Cognitive Chew Toy.” A cognitive chew toy is an aspect of research that you love to think, talk, and obsess about. I have two cognitive chew toys, designing studies and creating workflows. I love both. They are a type of thought experiment that will be manifested in the real world. I think they are critical foundations to successful research. However, there is a dark side. Those “fun” aspects need to be balanced with the other facets of research that are less delicious but equally important.