Do you feel that science in general is to critical of new ideas. I've noticed that anything that doesn't agree with mainstream thought is flamed, for lack of a better description, by mainstream scientists.
The great thing about most mature scientific disciplines is that things that don't agree with mainstream thinking are usually wrong. There's a reason that the currently accepted theories are accepted -- they do a good job of explaining available data. A new theory not only has to do that, it has to either explain the existing data even better (e.g., simpler, or more accurately), or make novel predictions that go counter to existing theories, and then gather new supporting data. Eventually, if the new theory is supported by replicated findings that support it vs the standard theory people (hopefully) start to become converts.
The responsibility is on the 'maverick' to demonstrate the superiority of his/her theory, not on the establishment. Kuhn did a pretty good job of describing this process in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Great crank logical error:
They Laughed at Newton; They laughed at me; I must be like Newton. (Hey guy, they laughed at Bozo, too)
Is this stuff for real? Even if I tried, I couldn't write a better parady of the kind of corporate-consultantspeak nonsense that passes for wisdom in the valley these days. Or does Engelbart have to phrase it this way to get the attention of the people who need to hear it most? Or if I had gone to business school, would I find this sort of prose as easy to parse as I do my own area of the scientific literature?
Having seen Englebart speak before (his Turing award speech at CHI 98), I can tell you that he's anything but a practitioner of the dark and evil consultant-speak.
At this point, I'd say he's a guy with ideas that are huge, so huge that he'll never see them come to fruition in his lifetime (he's pretty old already). He generally talks over people's heads, often going off on vectors, but motivated, perceptive people usually gain a few insights when they hear him.
Anyway, he is probably sincere when he uses terms like 'paradigm shift.' If anyone can envision a true shift, in the Kuhn meaning of the term, it's Engelbart -- He truly believes he can change the world. I think he's always been ahead of his time, so think of this as a sneak preview...
I'm facing the opposite dilemma, the South Park movie is available on DVD for a list price of $30, but on VHS for $103. They apparently do this so that people will rent the tape rather than buy it. But the herds of holiday consumers who bought DVD players can enjoy Cartman, Stan and the gang now.
Damn, if I can't afford a good DVD player (and I won't buy a lame one), how the heck am I going to justify dropping $100 on a tape... Lord, why do you mock me so...
Fun with Procedural Memory
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 3
Neuro-Linguistic programming brings it down to 4 stages:
Cognitive scientists have studied this phenomenon extensively. It's called proceduralization.
Some neat things about procedural memory (as compared to declarative memory which is a memory for facts and events):
* Seems to be more resistant to forgetting than declarative knowledge (which is why you can still ride a bike or use an interface years after having done so). In fact, people with anterograde amnesia (inability to learn new stuff) can still learn (and improve) at skills such as reading backward text.
* You can maintain procedural memories without equivalent declarative representations (with your hands at your sides try describing how to tie your shoe)
* Skill acquisition follows a power law, and can be expressed as T=aP^-b where T= execution time, P= practice a and b are constants (a>0, b>=1).
* The best thing about proceduralization is that it reduces cognitive load, so you can allocate attention to important things like talking to a passenger while driving (although there are data that suggest that talking on a cell phone isn't the same, because the other person isn't reacting to the environment by shutting up during urgent situations)
I feel so increbibly cool right now. What a day today has been, first I was quoted in the NY Times, then (more impressively) on/.
I did indeed e-mail Jenny Lee with the above quotes (pointing out that if there's any substantial learning curve to an interface then it won't be adopted by novices). I was however referring to chorded keyboards which differ from standard QWERTY or Dvorak layouts in that they don't have a 1:1 mapping of keypresses to characters, and require a good deal of initial learning before they can be used at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you feel that science in general is to critical of new ideas. I've noticed that anything that doesn't agree with mainstream thought is flamed, for lack of a better description, by mainstream scientists.
The great thing about most mature scientific disciplines is that things that don't agree with mainstream thinking are usually wrong. There's a reason that the currently accepted theories are accepted -- they do a good job of explaining available data. A new theory not only has to do that, it has to either explain the existing data even better (e.g., simpler, or more accurately), or make novel predictions that go counter to existing theories, and then gather new supporting data. Eventually, if the new theory is supported by replicated findings that support it vs the standard theory people (hopefully) start to become converts.
The responsibility is on the 'maverick' to demonstrate the superiority of his/her theory, not on the establishment. Kuhn did a pretty good job of describing this process in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Great crank logical error:
They Laughed at Newton;
They laughed at me;
I must be like Newton.
(Hey guy, they laughed at Bozo, too)
There are thousands of Bozos for every Newton.
Is this stuff for real? Even if I tried, I couldn't write a better parady of the kind of corporate-consultantspeak nonsense that
passes for wisdom in the valley these days. Or does Engelbart have to phrase it this way to get the attention of the people who
need to hear it most? Or if I had gone to business school, would I find this sort of prose as easy to parse as I do my own area of the scientific literature?
Having seen Englebart speak before (his Turing award speech at CHI 98), I can tell you that he's anything but a practitioner of the dark and evil consultant-speak.
At this point, I'd say he's a guy with ideas that are huge, so huge that he'll never see them come to fruition in his lifetime (he's pretty old already). He generally talks over people's heads, often going off on vectors, but motivated, perceptive people usually gain a few insights when they hear him.
Anyway, he is probably sincere when he uses terms like 'paradigm shift.' If anyone can envision a true shift, in the Kuhn meaning of the term, it's Engelbart -- He truly believes he can change the world. I think he's always been ahead of his time, so think of this as a sneak preview...
I'm facing the opposite dilemma, the South Park movie is available on DVD for a list price of $30, but on VHS for $103. They apparently do this so that people will rent the tape rather than buy it. But the herds of holiday consumers who bought DVD players can enjoy Cartman, Stan and the gang now.
Damn, if I can't afford a good DVD player (and I won't buy a lame one), how the heck am I going to justify dropping $100 on a tape... Lord, why do you mock me so...
Neuro-Linguistic programming brings it down to 4 stages:
Cognitive scientists have studied this phenomenon extensively. It's called proceduralization.
Some neat things about procedural memory (as compared to declarative memory which is a memory for facts and events):
* Seems to be more resistant to forgetting than declarative knowledge (which is why you can still ride a bike or use an interface years after having done so). In fact, people with anterograde amnesia (inability to learn new stuff) can still learn (and improve) at skills such as reading backward text.
* You can maintain procedural memories without equivalent declarative representations (with your hands at your sides try describing how to tie your shoe)
* Skill acquisition follows a power law, and can be expressed as T=aP^-b where T= execution time, P= practice a and b are constants (a>0, b>=1).
* The best thing about proceduralization is that it reduces cognitive load, so you can allocate attention to important things like talking to a passenger while driving (although there are data that suggest that talking on a cell phone isn't the same, because the other person isn't reacting to the environment by shutting up during urgent situations)
I did indeed e-mail Jenny Lee with the above quotes (pointing out that if there's any substantial learning curve to an interface then it won't be adopted by novices). I was however referring to chorded keyboards which differ from standard QWERTY or Dvorak layouts in that they don't have a 1:1 mapping of keypresses to characters, and require a good deal of initial learning before they can be used at all.