The article leaves out a few important details. Here is what I have to add to the debate, also informed from seeing Jack Gallant speak at this year's Scene Understanding Symposium (SUnS) about a month ago.
Some of the funding situations are even more dire: Psychology and psychiatry (including endeavors to in search of treatments) are getting funded somewhere between 4 and 6%. Take this also in light of the dramatic increases in post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) we're seeing and the long lag (as you have indicated) that it takes to go from a theoretical treatment to a treatment in practice...
Diverting some (perhaps defense) spending to primary and preventative mental care for these soldiers would be a first step towards stemming this particular tide.
This aside, let us take a macro view for a minute: the U.S. is already losing its edge on the technology race, and if we continue to have these lapses and lags in funding, we're going to be further slowing progress and ultimately contributing to our own economic downturn. Take this downturn with the fact that universities are being run more and more like businesses, and that tenure is now more dependent upon the size of the grants you can pull in, and you have a cutthroat academic environment. This is effectively driving away researchers who pursue questions instead of monetary figures. I shudder to think how many penicillins we have lost over the last few years and how many we stand to lose.
Group Think is a very interesting 'quirk' of the human condition. Doubly so when looking at it from an evolutionary point of view. It's not in our (as a species or as an individual) best interest to lack creative ideas, unless this is part of the built-in system that makes our social species a cohesive one.
Good analysis of the article, and I agree that a well orgaized group is a highly creative and effective tool.
I apologize to all the Kansas Slashdotters here, last I checked you were still rejecting the idea of evolution...
I would also contend that once youtube isn't immediately responsive, it will become much less lucrative for the average surfer. I imagine this is going to be a self-correcting problem...
I study the neuroscience of aggression (if you're interested in that sort of thing: see my blog), and there are no studies to date showing a causative link between watching violence as a child and being violent as an adult. There seems to be strong correlative evidence to that end, but those studies are all so confounded and convoluted, they're hard (or impossible) to interpret and fit in with what we know about the underlying neurobiology.
I would be interested to see who did the 'unpublished study' since it has not yet reached the publication stage. If this is a real causative finding, it would fly in the face of a fair number of prominent and well-skilled researchers. Needless to say, I am very skeptical of this study (and the subsequent FCC action).
Seeing as it has possibility for future software development (of which I plan to pursue) I don't want to put it where the entirety of the internet can get ahold of it, but I'd be quite happy to share it with a few interested parties. Please contact me via email and we'll chat. Here's my Bio so you know I'm for real;-)... oh yeah, and there's some contact info there too...
I agree. Whatever tagging software we're using should account for the fact that 'tag' and 'tags' are essentially the same thing, despite the fact that "tag" != "tags". That's one place where a unified 'tag envelope' or 'tag exchange program' would be very welcomed, I imagine.
I agree with your take on tags being community based. I think there's more use for this out there, such as categorizing communities, looking at the underlying semantics of a website, determining the focus of a company, or summarizing the entirety of a body of research (and more interestingly, categorizig what is part of and what is not part of that body of research).
This is just a problem I've worked on for a few years and have always had a small fascination with, I'm glad to share it (both in the mundane and fantastic applications).
Standardizing the envelope isn't too interesting to me, but the potential of standardizing tagging itself leaves a lot more room for creativity for me. If we were to implement such a 'standardized tagging' scheme, we would need an envelope that made it work, but I'd rather think about the semantics than the technical side... personal preference.
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the inappropriate/funny discussion. I can't say that I ever thought in terms of that before, since I've always looked at this from an 'automatic tagging' point of view, where one program is categorizing all of them. Though you bring me to a very interesting idea: We can categorize via machine the way we categorize IRL: consensus. We could make a population of agents tagging on different criteria (as you would expect from a group of people) and take the consensus (or some composite) as the tag. -=scurries off to write code=-
I think you'll agree with me that "slashdotters" are not "everyone". I mean, they're clearly the creme de la creme of "everyone", but what about all those lesser beings?
There are a lot of instances of manual tagging, and I agree with you that they're just too cumbersome (as does almost an entire field of psycholinguists [if you think you can get all of them to agree on anything you're sorely mistaken. They'll disagree just because they can]).
The automatically generated tags are exactly what I was talking about. I didn't get terribly explicit with my ideas, but you seem to be going in the same direction I was. Getting the software to both tag incoming documents and categorize the semantic webs generated by each is the key to some 'universal' tagging sytem. This way we have maximally efficient tags along with a standardized definition for each and (perhaps most importantly) an automatic way of tagging all the documents to be processed. No room for the "13 year old cheerleader tags" as someone so eloquently put before.
We still have the problem of naming the 'generic' tag categories generated by the software... The solution for that one is a lot hazier, though important. I don't think anyone will go looking for 'category 12233242' to find 'academic humor'.
To be fair to them: They say that this might work. They're producing proteins that are needed to make the cancer drugs that we use now... only at a fraction of the price. This article is a "look at what we thought up" article, the kind that gets scientists thinking differently about things, and in my opinion, is helpful for advancements. No one of us has the solution for cancer, but as history has shown: there's very little that the human population as a whole can't figure out. That is, when we're not busy killing each other.
All in all, it is a useful bit of information: nobody had made chickens produce drugs until now. That's kinda cool. Is it ultimately going to mean the end of cancer? Probably not. Is it going to mean cheaper cancer meds? Probably. Is it going to mean cheaper meds for other diseases? Quite possibly.
Take it a step further and with something else that invades the news: Most flu vaccines are made in eggs, unless I'm mistaken, during a long process and incubation period. What if we can engineer chickens to produce the proteins in their eggs to fight the bird-flu? And if not the bird-flu, what about the next disease coming along and threatening to wipe out a significant portion of our planet?
Sure, they don't cure cancer, but they did take us a step closer.
I'm inclined to disagree that 'tags' are the answer here. I wrote my masters thesis on a method automatically generating semantic webs from plaintext. It's a huge problem with about a dozen different stages, but I had backing in all of my research from the psycholinguistics and computer-science field.
Herein lies the rub: You're never going to get everyone to agree on a set of appropriate tags. Even if you do, you'll never have them uniformly applied (well I find that humorous but you have it tagged as inappropriate).
There are other solutions here, such as automatic semantic generation. Hey, I never said it was an easy solution, but it's one that I'm certain can be accomplished. Flame away;-)
Contrary to popular belief, we have only slightly more of a clue about neural circuitry than the layperson. The human mind is so unbelievably complex.. I've spent my first three years in grad school uncovering question after question after question. I was at a meeting with 20,000 of the top researchers in this field (aptly titled "Neuroscience") and at best there's a presentation or poster that partially answers a question, but raises a dozen more at least. If we sum up all that is 'passion' in just that term, I think we're better off!;-)
Sounds like we need more professors like her. Send her my thanks on behalf of all anonymous students, it's the teachers that go above and beyond that really have an impact. I still remember my high school Bio teacher who took extra time to explain the why and the why it's interesting aside from just the this is what's on the test.
No RIAA case has ever gone to trial, either they scare the defendants into handing over some money or they drop the case when real lawyers get involved.
Gotta love corporate bullying. This is sounding more and more like a Mafia story than anything else (and the mafiaa joke is still funny). How have the courts/law enforcement allowed this to proceed? Isn't this harassment?
Passion. I'll give you that. I don't know that's manifest in neural circuitry, but I agree with the sentiment. The people you and your wife speak of are my favorite people in the world. Intelligence, drive, and creativity. They truly can change the world.
If I may ask, where is your wife a professor (and what kind of professor, more importantly)? I've always wondered how field-specific a lot of these things are.
Funny thing about the 'similar parts of the brain.' There has been much more explanatory power in brain pathways rather than regions. So contrary to 'conventional' thinking, it's very easy (and in fact likely) that pathways overlap for parts of tasks and diverge for others. These pathways are sometimes only a few neurons large, or comprise some small aspect of a brain region (or lobe). As such, I would not be at all surprised if the CS and Music pathways converged for part of their circuit. However, as far as I know there aren't any studies looking at this (however, this is hardly my area of expertise).
I think attrition in CS is a much better alternative to retention. Ultimately, I have worked with people in the industry who clearly have no clue what they're doing, no greater vision, and ultimately are just good for following directions. Sadly, some of them I went to school with and was somewhat offended that they got the same bachelor's degree as I did (which I think is part of my drive for further education).
I find that very interesting, from a psychological point of view. The two fields are generally thought to be very distinct (and I would like to note that we were talking about pianists and coders, not those who are 'musically inclined', which does change the discussion a bit).
My guess would be that since there is a large amount of math (even though it's mostly implicit math) associated with both software development and music (e.g. octaves, distances between notes that create different types of harmony, etc.) and that those who are good at one can be good at the other.
As an aside: I totally agree with the 'get it' or 'don't get it' distinction. I've seen it both as a student and as a teacher, but not so in psychology. Comp-sci seems to be something you either get at the high level or you don't, whereas softer sciences don't. Interesting point (as well as an amusing visual image of the crying student... does that make me a bad person?;-) )
I almost completely agree, though it seems to be a matter of how we define 'coder' in where our differences lie.
A coder, to me, is someone who can take direction and give me code (I need a function to take in these arguments and give me this output).
A developer, to me, is someone who can take a problem, break it down, and tell the coders (or code themselves): "I need a function to take in these arguments and give me this output."
I don't think you can be a good developer without being a craftsman of sorts, wholeheartedly. MySpace HTMLers are nowhere near developers, just like the guy who can play chopsticks is not a pianist.
Sorry, let me expand on this a bit: When coding, it's usually easy to see where you go wrong (compiler error: check your syntax you fool), or even for logic errors, you either see the predicted (hopefully correct) outcome or you don't. Such is not always the case for music. If you are not in tune (pun only slightly intended) with the piece you are playing (or genre, composer, etc) then you're not necessarily going to know when and where you made a mistake.
Further, there's a whole lot of physical limitations placed on piano players that are not the case for coders. The strength with which you hit a key on the computer isn't going to effect how your code is... Typing is a binary event, whereas playing a piece is most definitely an analog event.
Music is not something that is easily taught, which is why teaching piano is not like teaching code. You need to have an ear for harmony (and the psychology behind that is fascinating, by the way) but there is no such requirement (that I can think of) like that for coding.
I've been working in the industry and academia for a number of years now, and the truth of the matter is that you can teach just about anyone to code. Honestly, I work in a psychology department where at least two psychologists have picked up coding in the last year to assist in experiment creation. The real key is finding the people with the brainpower and flexible thinking to be good employees. I have to 100% agree with sodul on that point: finding smart people is what really matters. Ultimately, what does that say about what's on a person's resume?
I still haven't figured out what to look for, since even teaching classes sometimes it's hard to tell who the smart ones are. You can't rely on 'honors' since bookworms can get good grades (with no need to be a flexible and powerful thinker). You can't rely on 'extra curricular activities' since most of the smartest and brightest people I know don't spend their time in organized 'playtime', and tend to prefer to do it on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Updated, after speaking with Kendrick Kay.
The article leaves out a few important details. Here is what I have to add to the debate, also informed from seeing Jack Gallant speak at this year's Scene Understanding Symposium (SUnS) about a month ago.
Some of the funding situations are even more dire: Psychology and psychiatry (including endeavors to in search of treatments) are getting funded somewhere between 4 and 6%. Take this also in light of the dramatic increases in post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) we're seeing and the long lag (as you have indicated) that it takes to go from a theoretical treatment to a treatment in practice... Diverting some (perhaps defense) spending to primary and preventative mental care for these soldiers would be a first step towards stemming this particular tide. This aside, let us take a macro view for a minute: the U.S. is already losing its edge on the technology race, and if we continue to have these lapses and lags in funding, we're going to be further slowing progress and ultimately contributing to our own economic downturn. Take this downturn with the fact that universities are being run more and more like businesses, and that tenure is now more dependent upon the size of the grants you can pull in, and you have a cutthroat academic environment. This is effectively driving away researchers who pursue questions instead of monetary figures. I shudder to think how many penicillins we have lost over the last few years and how many we stand to lose.
And with how little is known about chronic usage of caffeine, I'd be very wary to try these things.
Cognitive science will certainly take a few leaps forward (though that may be because the researchers have started taking some of these drugs)..
Good analysis of the article, and I agree that a well orgaized group is a highly creative and effective tool.
I apologize to all the Kansas Slashdotters here, last I checked you were still rejecting the idea of evolution...
I would also contend that once youtube isn't immediately responsive, it will become much less lucrative for the average surfer. I imagine this is going to be a self-correcting problem...
I study the neuroscience of aggression (if you're interested in that sort of thing: see my blog), and there are no studies to date showing a causative link between watching violence as a child and being violent as an adult. There seems to be strong correlative evidence to that end, but those studies are all so confounded and convoluted, they're hard (or impossible) to interpret and fit in with what we know about the underlying neurobiology.
I would be interested to see who did the 'unpublished study' since it has not yet reached the publication stage. If this is a real causative finding, it would fly in the face of a fair number of prominent and well-skilled researchers. Needless to say, I am very skeptical of this study (and the subsequent FCC action).
Seeing as it has possibility for future software development (of which I plan to pursue) I don't want to put it where the entirety of the internet can get ahold of it, but I'd be quite happy to share it with a few interested parties. Please contact me via email and we'll chat. Here's my Bio so you know I'm for real ;-)... oh yeah, and there's some contact info there too...
I agree. Whatever tagging software we're using should account for the fact that 'tag' and 'tags' are essentially the same thing, despite the fact that "tag" != "tags". That's one place where a unified 'tag envelope' or 'tag exchange program' would be very welcomed, I imagine.
I agree with your take on tags being community based. I think there's more use for this out there, such as categorizing communities, looking at the underlying semantics of a website, determining the focus of a company, or summarizing the entirety of a body of research (and more interestingly, categorizig what is part of and what is not part of that body of research).
This is just a problem I've worked on for a few years and have always had a small fascination with, I'm glad to share it (both in the mundane and fantastic applications).
Standardizing the envelope isn't too interesting to me, but the potential of standardizing tagging itself leaves a lot more room for creativity for me. If we were to implement such a 'standardized tagging' scheme, we would need an envelope that made it work, but I'd rather think about the semantics than the technical side... personal preference.
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the inappropriate/funny discussion. I can't say that I ever thought in terms of that before, since I've always looked at this from an 'automatic tagging' point of view, where one program is categorizing all of them. Though you bring me to a very interesting idea: We can categorize via machine the way we categorize IRL: consensus. We could make a population of agents tagging on different criteria (as you would expect from a group of people) and take the consensus (or some composite) as the tag. -=scurries off to write code=-
I think you'll agree with me that "slashdotters" are not "everyone". I mean, they're clearly the creme de la creme of "everyone", but what about all those lesser beings?
There are a lot of instances of manual tagging, and I agree with you that they're just too cumbersome (as does almost an entire field of psycholinguists [if you think you can get all of them to agree on anything you're sorely mistaken. They'll disagree just because they can]).
The automatically generated tags are exactly what I was talking about. I didn't get terribly explicit with my ideas, but you seem to be going in the same direction I was. Getting the software to both tag incoming documents and categorize the semantic webs generated by each is the key to some 'universal' tagging sytem. This way we have maximally efficient tags along with a standardized definition for each and (perhaps most importantly) an automatic way of tagging all the documents to be processed. No room for the "13 year old cheerleader tags" as someone so eloquently put before.
We still have the problem of naming the 'generic' tag categories generated by the software... The solution for that one is a lot hazier, though important. I don't think anyone will go looking for 'category 12233242' to find 'academic humor'.
To be fair to them: They say that this might work. They're producing proteins that are needed to make the cancer drugs that we use now... only at a fraction of the price. This article is a "look at what we thought up" article, the kind that gets scientists thinking differently about things, and in my opinion, is helpful for advancements. No one of us has the solution for cancer, but as history has shown: there's very little that the human population as a whole can't figure out. That is, when we're not busy killing each other.
All in all, it is a useful bit of information: nobody had made chickens produce drugs until now. That's kinda cool. Is it ultimately going to mean the end of cancer? Probably not. Is it going to mean cheaper cancer meds? Probably. Is it going to mean cheaper meds for other diseases? Quite possibly.
Take it a step further and with something else that invades the news: Most flu vaccines are made in eggs, unless I'm mistaken, during a long process and incubation period. What if we can engineer chickens to produce the proteins in their eggs to fight the bird-flu? And if not the bird-flu, what about the next disease coming along and threatening to wipe out a significant portion of our planet?
Sure, they don't cure cancer, but they did take us a step closer.
I'm inclined to disagree that 'tags' are the answer here. I wrote my masters thesis on a method automatically generating semantic webs from plaintext. It's a huge problem with about a dozen different stages, but I had backing in all of my research from the psycholinguistics and computer-science field.
;-)
Herein lies the rub: You're never going to get everyone to agree on a set of appropriate tags. Even if you do, you'll never have them uniformly applied (well I find that humorous but you have it tagged as inappropriate).
There are other solutions here, such as automatic semantic generation. Hey, I never said it was an easy solution, but it's one that I'm certain can be accomplished. Flame away
Contrary to popular belief, we have only slightly more of a clue about neural circuitry than the layperson. The human mind is so unbelievably complex.. I've spent my first three years in grad school uncovering question after question after question. I was at a meeting with 20,000 of the top researchers in this field (aptly titled "Neuroscience") and at best there's a presentation or poster that partially answers a question, but raises a dozen more at least. If we sum up all that is 'passion' in just that term, I think we're better off! ;-)
Sounds like we need more professors like her. Send her my thanks on behalf of all anonymous students, it's the teachers that go above and beyond that really have an impact. I still remember my high school Bio teacher who took extra time to explain the why and the why it's interesting aside from just the this is what's on the test.
All those ideas and implementation can't be his ideas alone. There is an entire company backing him. They'd do just fine, I'm sure.
Passion. I'll give you that. I don't know that's manifest in neural circuitry, but I agree with the sentiment. The people you and your wife speak of are my favorite people in the world. Intelligence, drive, and creativity. They truly can change the world.
If I may ask, where is your wife a professor (and what kind of professor, more importantly)? I've always wondered how field-specific a lot of these things are.
Funny thing about the 'similar parts of the brain.' There has been much more explanatory power in brain pathways rather than regions. So contrary to 'conventional' thinking, it's very easy (and in fact likely) that pathways overlap for parts of tasks and diverge for others. These pathways are sometimes only a few neurons large, or comprise some small aspect of a brain region (or lobe). As such, I would not be at all surprised if the CS and Music pathways converged for part of their circuit. However, as far as I know there aren't any studies looking at this (however, this is hardly my area of expertise).
I think attrition in CS is a much better alternative to retention. Ultimately, I have worked with people in the industry who clearly have no clue what they're doing, no greater vision, and ultimately are just good for following directions. Sadly, some of them I went to school with and was somewhat offended that they got the same bachelor's degree as I did (which I think is part of my drive for further education).
I find that very interesting, from a psychological point of view. The two fields are generally thought to be very distinct (and I would like to note that we were talking about pianists and coders, not those who are 'musically inclined', which does change the discussion a bit).
;-) )
My guess would be that since there is a large amount of math (even though it's mostly implicit math) associated with both software development and music (e.g. octaves, distances between notes that create different types of harmony, etc.) and that those who are good at one can be good at the other.
As an aside: I totally agree with the 'get it' or 'don't get it' distinction. I've seen it both as a student and as a teacher, but not so in psychology. Comp-sci seems to be something you either get at the high level or you don't, whereas softer sciences don't. Interesting point (as well as an amusing visual image of the crying student... does that make me a bad person?
I almost completely agree, though it seems to be a matter of how we define 'coder' in where our differences lie.
A coder, to me, is someone who can take direction and give me code (I need a function to take in these arguments and give me this output).
A developer, to me, is someone who can take a problem, break it down, and tell the coders (or code themselves): "I need a function to take in these arguments and give me this output."
I don't think you can be a good developer without being a craftsman of sorts, wholeheartedly. MySpace HTMLers are nowhere near developers, just like the guy who can play chopsticks is not a pianist.
Sorry, let me expand on this a bit: When coding, it's usually easy to see where you go wrong (compiler error: check your syntax you fool), or even for logic errors, you either see the predicted (hopefully correct) outcome or you don't. Such is not always the case for music. If you are not in tune (pun only slightly intended) with the piece you are playing (or genre, composer, etc) then you're not necessarily going to know when and where you made a mistake.
Further, there's a whole lot of physical limitations placed on piano players that are not the case for coders. The strength with which you hit a key on the computer isn't going to effect how your code is... Typing is a binary event, whereas playing a piece is most definitely an analog event.
Music is not something that is easily taught, which is why teaching piano is not like teaching code. You need to have an ear for harmony (and the psychology behind that is fascinating, by the way) but there is no such requirement (that I can think of) like that for coding.
I've been working in the industry and academia for a number of years now, and the truth of the matter is that you can teach just about anyone to code. Honestly, I work in a psychology department where at least two psychologists have picked up coding in the last year to assist in experiment creation. The real key is finding the people with the brainpower and flexible thinking to be good employees. I have to 100% agree with sodul on that point: finding smart people is what really matters. Ultimately, what does that say about what's on a person's resume?
I still haven't figured out what to look for, since even teaching classes sometimes it's hard to tell who the smart ones are. You can't rely on 'honors' since bookworms can get good grades (with no need to be a flexible and powerful thinker). You can't rely on 'extra curricular activities' since most of the smartest and brightest people I know don't spend their time in organized 'playtime', and tend to prefer to do it on their own.
Any suggestions?