something is wrong

The latest from my online browsing: "Use Google Calendar to Schedule Relaxation".

I had an almost visceral reaction to that headline this morning. If life has reached the point where you have to block off time from 8:15 to 8:45 Tuesday morning to read poetry, then you're screwed in some fundamental way.

What if you only made it part way through The Rime of the Ancient Mariner at 8:45? Do you put it down or take 10 more minutes to finish it? Do you stress out about the minute you lost thinking about what to do? Did you process the last 5 minutes of reading or was your mind already thinking about the meeting scheduled right after your poetry session?

Then again, it's Sunday morning, and I'm sitting at work. Who has the fundamental problem to own up to?

update on flame retardant church

On this morning's walk to the train, I noticed a porta-potty on the front steps of the church.

an old snippet

I found this in an old memo system I used to use on my computer. They are notes I took after reading a pair of speeches given by Steve Pinker and Liz Spelke after the notorious statement made by the former Harvard president, Larry Summers. In re-reading I don't recall what some of the comments refer to (e.g. "Genetic Boys"), but in general I believe I simply jotted down their points of argument and some mention of the data supporting them.

Six differences that relate to under-representation of women in the sciences and engineering - according to Steve Pinker:

1) Priorities in life
- family vs. status
- work hours
2) Interest in people v. things
3) Willingness to take risks
4) 3-D mental transformations
- mental rotation
- spatial perception
- spatial visualization
5) Mathematical reasoning
6) Variance within each sex

The question is are any of these innate?

1) There are possible biological mechanisms
2) Some of these appear to be universal, or near-universal, across different cultures
- Could be a result of size difference - women always placed in certain roles because they are smaller and considered therefore the "weaker" sex
3) Stability over time
4) Similar differences can be seen in other species (polygynous)
5) Emerge in childhood
6) Genetic boys
7) Lack of differential treatment by parents & teachers
8) correlation of prenatal sex hormones with certain behaviors
9) Reports of correlation between levels of circulating sex hormones and certain aptitudes
10) Imprinted X chromosomes


Liz Spelke:
"I'm saying that when you add up all the things that men are good at, and all the things that women are good at, there is no overall advantage for men that would put them at the top of the fields of math and science."
(recasting the argument.)
She disagrees with the idea that women are born more interested in people and men are born more interested in things. In other words, they disagree on what the research is actually showing us.
Five "core" systems that are the foundation for mathematical reasoning:
1) Representation of small, exact numbers of objects (~ 5 months)
2) Discriminating approximate and large orders of magnitude (~5 months)
3) Natural number concepts (verbal counting) (~2 1/2-4 years)
4) Geometry
5) Landmarks
Sex difference emerge later in life, making the distinction between social and genetic sources murky.
Different problem solving strategies
- Boys tend to rely on geometry and girls tend to rely on landmarks
- For 3D rotations, boys tend to use holistic rotation vs. Girls who do feature by feature comparison
- Boys tend to employ ven diagram-like spatial reasoning vs. girls who tend to plug in formulas
Spelke claims that girls and boys get the same grades in math classes at the college level.
The SAT-M underpredicts the success of women in math.
Spelke also claims, and cites evidence, that parents really do perceive their children differently depending on the sex and independent of reality.
Under-representation of women occurs as a result of:
1) Biased perceptions of men and women
2) Men likely see that they have better odds than women (?)
3) Discouragement from math & science early on
4) Lack of female mentors snowball effect

ideas about academia

In my never-ending search for something to say when people ask me what I'm going to do after my postdoc, I was thinking about what things bother me about the academic track.

The structure and climate of academic scientific research, in particular the egocentric, "independent investigator" model for scientific research, frustrates me. Why not a move toward project-oriented team-based models, where groups of scientists work together to address similar questions from different angles or with different techniques in an egalitarian community? There are clear advantages to multiple experts collaborating, rather than competing, on research questions as well as on training students and postdocs.

The current system also does nothing to capitalize on the increasing number of graduate students within the sciences (and I'm mostly thinking about biological sciences since that is where my experience is). Instead of attempting to retain these bright and highly motivated individuals, it pits them against each other. The individuals that win by securing tenure-track jobs in this system are clearly adept at networking, publishing, and otherwise making their name stand out from the crowded field (sometimes by being a great scientist). However, isn't it likely that many students, who either leave research in the midst of graduate school or opt not to enter the faculty job market after doing a postdoc, could contribute to the field if alternatives to the traditional PI faculty position were readily available to them?

This extends to a separate discussion topic, how to change the mood of the training environment (at the graduate student and postdoc levels) so that the prospect of leaving academia isn't construed as a failure on the part of the student. Given the glut of grad students and postdocs, and the paucity of faculty positions available at any given time, why aren't we exposed to other options and trained for them?