Objective Criteria

When is a paper ready for review?

When is a poster ready for the printer?

How should you decide knowledge work is done?

Frequently, it is subjective or extrinsic. It looks done or it is due (more often overdue). I strive for the higher standard of objective criteria. My work on a daily basis has objective criteria (e.g., I will not get another cup of coffee until I put 500 more words into Scrivener). It is harder, but important, to have measurable, therefore manageable, criteria at the project level.

One of my favorite is "Running The Stack." For every project, I have a stack of index cards. The stack includes defined outcomes, all currently-known steps for the outcomes, and a someday/maybe list for the project. "Running The Stack" is an out-loud reading of a project's index cards. It is a mental sluicing, looking for the golden ideas in the dross. If I can "run the stack" without generating any novel, actionable ideas, I know that when all the current index cards are crumpled in the trashcan I'm done with the project.

Footnote: It is allowed to move an index card to the stack of another project to clear the stack of the current project.

A Different Appoarch to Learning

I believe that an over-learned foundation in the basics of a subject is a prerequisite for tackling more interesting problems. A system like the Khan Academy is the fastest method I have found to create (or reinforce) that foundation.

I'm off to brush-up on Calculus.

Bluish White Collar

I make stuff. Everyday. I get up, grab my lunch pail, make coffee, and boot up my computer. I like to call the stuff I make widgets so I don’t get too full of myself. They are most frequently thoughts and ideas. Sometimes there is a physical manifestation (e.g., poster, presentation, or paper).

A major difference between me and the widget makers in the Rust Belt (RIP) is that I’m my own foreman. Yes, someone else writes the checks but most of the time it is up to me to decide which widgets to make today.

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 is the best method to cut through the clutter of outdated thinking.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!