Author Archives: jpminda

The Scientific Workflow

The Minda Lab

When new trainees enter into your lab, do you have a plan or a guide for them? I have a lab manual that explains roles and responsibilities, but I did not (until now) have a guide for how we do things. I wrote this to help my own trainees after a lab meeting last week where we discussed ideas around managing our projects. It started as a simple list, and I’m now making it part of my lab manual. 

So this is my guide for carrying out cognitive psychology and cognitive science research in my lab. The workflow is specific to my lab, but can be adapted. If you think this is helpful, please feel free to share and adapt for your own use. You can keep this workflow in mind when you are planning, conducting, analyzing, and interpreting scientific work. You may notice two themes that seem to run throughout the plan: documenting and sharing. That’s the take home message: Document everything you do and share your work for feedback (with the group, your peers, the field, and the public). Not every project will follow this outline, but most will. 

Theory & Reading

The first step is theory development and understanding the relationship of our work to the relevant literature. We’re involved in cognitive science and develop and test theories about how the mind forms concepts and categories. We should work from two primary theories. Prototype / exemplar theory, which deal with category representations, and the multiple systems theory which addresses the category learning process and rule use. You can keep up with developments using Google Scholar alerts and recommendations.

We want to test the assumptions of these theories, understand what they predict, test their limitations and contrast with alternative accounts. We’re going to design experiments that help understand the theory, the models, and make refinements and/or reject some aspects of our theorization.

  • Use Google Scholar to find updates that are important for your research.
  • Save papers in Paperpile and annotate as needed.
  • Document your work in Google Docs.
  • Share interesting papers and preprints in the relevant channel in Slack.

Hypotheses Generation

Hypotheses are generated to test assumptions and aspects of the theory and to test predictions of other theories. The hypothesis is a formal statement of something that can be tested experimentally and these often arise from more general “research questions” which are broad statements about what you interested in or trying to discover. You might arrive at a research question or an idea while reading a paper, at a conference, while thinking about an observation you made, or by brainstorming in an informal group or lab meeting. Notice that all of these assume you that put in some time and effort to understanding the theory and then allow some time to work over ideas in your mind, on paper, or in a computer simulation.

  • Work on hypothesis generation in lab meetings, our advisory meetings, and on your own.
  • Document your work and ideas in Google Docs (or your own notes).
  • Share insights in lab meetings and in the relevant channel in Slack.

Design study/experiment

Concurrent with hypothesis generation is experimental design. We are designing experiments to test hypotheses about category representation and learning and/or the predictions of computational models. Avoid the temptation to put the cart before the horse and come up with experiments and studies that will produce an effect for its own sake. We want to test hypothesis generated from theories and also carry out exploratory work to help refine our theories. We don’t just want to generate effects.

The design comes first and you need to consider the logic of your experiment, what you plan to manipulate, and what you want to measure. We also want to avoid the temptation to add in more measures than we need, just to see if there’s an effect. For example, do you need to add in 2-3 measures of working memory, mood, or some demographic information just to see if there’s an effect there? If it’s not fully justified, it may hurt more than help because you have non-theoretically driven measures to contend with. I’ve been guilty of this and it always comes back to haunt me.

  • Work on experimental generation in lab meetings, advisory meetings, on your own.
  • Document your work in Google Docs.
  • Use G*Power to estimate correct sample size.
  • Use PsychoPy or Qualtrics to build your experiment.
  • Test these experiment protocols often.
  • Develop a script for research assistants who will be helping you carry out the study.
  • Share insights in lab meetings and in the relevant channel in Slack.

Analysis Plan & Ethics Protocol

This is where we start to formalize things. An analysis plan will link together the hypothesis and the experimental design with the dependent variables and/outcome measures. In this plan, we’ll describe and document how the data will be collected, visualized, analyzed, stored and shared. This plan should describe how we will deal with outlier data, missing data, data from participants who did not complete the experiment correctly, experimenter error, malfunction, etc. This plan can include tentative predictions derived from a model and also a justification of how we intend to analyze and interpret the data. This plan can (and probably should) be pre registered with OSF, which is where we’ll plan to share the data we collect with the scientific community.

At the same time we also want to write a description of our experiment, the research question, and procedures for the University REB. This will also include standardized forms for information and consent, a policy for recruitments, subject safety, data storage and security. The REB has templates and examples, and our lab Slack channel for ethics includes examples as well.

Both of these documents, the analysis plan and the ethics protocol should describe exactly what we are doing and why and should provide enough information that someone else would be able to reproduce our experiments in their own lab. These will also provide an outline for your eventual method section (ethics protocol) and your results section (analysis plan)

  • Document your analysis plan and ethics protocol work in Google Docs.
  • Link these documents to the project sheet for your project.
  • Share in the relevant channel in Slack.

Collect data

Once the experiment is designed, the stimuli have been examined, we’re ready to collect data. Before you run your first subject, however, there are some things to consider. Take some time to run yourself through every condition several times and ask a lab member to do the same. Use this process to make sure things are working exactly as you intend, to make sure the data are being saved on the computer, and to make sure the experiment takes as long as planned.

When you are ready to collect data for your experiment:

  • Meet with all of your  research volunteers to go over the procedure.
  • Book the experiment rooms on the Google Calendar.
  • Reserve a laptop or laptops on the Google Calendar.
  • Recruit participants though SONA or flyers.
  • Use our lab email for recruitment.

While you are running your experiment:

  • Document the study in Google Docs and/or Slack
  • Make a note of anything unusual or out of the ordinary.
  • Collect signatures from participants if you are paying them.
  • Data should stored in text files, excel, or Google sheets. Be sure these are linked to the project sheet.
  • Be sure to follow the data storage procedures outlined in the ethics protocol.

Data Management

Your data plan should specify where and how to store your data. While you are collecting data you should be working on a script in R (or Python) to extract and summarize data according to your plan. When you reach the planned sample size, ensure that all of that data are secure and backed up and do an initial summary with your R script.

As you work on summarizing and managing your data:

  • Make notes in the project sheet or a Google Doc about where the data are stored
  • Document your steps in an R Notebook (or Python Notebook).

Plots & Stats

When you have completed your experiment and taken care of the data storage and basic processing, it’s time to have fun and see what you discovered. The analysis plan is your guide and your analysis plan describes how you want to analyze the data, what your dependent variables are, and how to conduct statistical test with you data to test the hypothesis. But before you do any statistics, work on visualizing the data. Use your R notebook to document everything and generate boxplots, scatter plots, or violin plots to see the means, medians, and the distribution for the data.

Because you are using R Notebooks to do the analysis, you can write detailed descriptions of how you created the plot, what the plot is showing, and how we should interpret the plot.

You can also use R to conduct the tests that we proposed to use in the analysis plan. This might be straightforward ANOVA or t-test, LME models, regression, etc. Follow the plan you wrote, and if you deviate from the plan, justify and document that exploratory analysis.

If you are fitting a decision boundary model to your data, make sure you have the code for the model (these will be on my GitHub) and you should do your modelling separately from the behavioural analysis. The GLM models are saved as R scripts but you should copy or fork to your R-Notebooks for you analysis so you can document what you did. Make sure that you develop the version for you experiment and that the generic model is not modified.

If you are fitting a prototype or exemplar model, these have been coded in Python. Use Python 3 and a basic text editor or JupyterJab. JupyterLab might be better as it’s able to generate markdown and reproducible code like R Notebooks.

Present and explain each step

While you working on your analysis, you should present the work regularly in lab meetings for the rest of the group and we can discuss the work when we meet individually. The ideas is to keep the ideas and work fresh in your mind by reviewing it often. If you try to do too much at once, you may miss something or forget to document a step. Go over your work, make sure its documented, and then work on the new analyses, and repeat. The goal is to be familiar with your data and your analysis so that you can explain it to yourself, to me, to your peers, end eventually anyone who reads your paper.

Use the following guidelines for developing a lab meeting presentation or sharing with me or the group.

  • Make your best plots and figures.
  • Be able to present these to the lab on a regular basis.
  • Use RPubs to share summary work instantly.
  • Keep improving the analysis after each iteration.
  • You should always have 8-10 slides that you can present to the group.
  • Document your work in R Notebooks, Google Docs, and Google Slides.

Write papers around this flow

The final step is to write a paper that describes your research question, your experimental design, your analysis and your interpretation of what the analysis is. A scientific paper, in my opinion has two important features:

  1. The paper should be clear and complete. That means it describes exactly what you wanted to find out, how and why you designed your experiment, how you collected your data, how you analyzed your data, what you discovered, and what that means.  Clear and complete also means that it can be used by you or others to reproduce your experiments.
  2. The paper should be interesting. A scientific paper should be interesting to read. It needs to connect to a testable theory, some problem in the literature, an unexplained observation. It is just as long as it needs to be.

I think the best way to generate a good paper is to make good figures. Try to tell the story of your theory, experiment, and results with figures. The paper is really just writing how you made the figures. You might have a theory or model that you can use a figure to explain. You can create clear figures for the experimental design, the task, and the stimuli. Your data figures, that you made according to you analysis plan, will frame the results section and a lot of what you write is telling the reader what they show, how you made them, and what they mean figures. A scientific paper is writing a narrative for your figures.

Good writing requires good thinking and good planning. But if you’ve been working on your experiment according to this plan, you’ve already done a lot of the thinking and planning work that you need to do to write things. You’ve already made notes about the literature and prior work for your introduction. You have notes from your experimental design phase to frame the experiment. You have an ethics protocol for your methods section and an analysis plan for your results. You’ll need to write the discussion section after you understand the results, but if you’ve been presenting your 8-10 slides in lab meeting and talking about them you will have some good ideas and the writing should flow. Finally, if you’ve been keeping track of the papers in PaperPile, your reference section should be easy.

Submit the paper

The final paper may have several experiments, each around the theme set out in the introduction. It’s a record of what we did, why we did it, and how. The peer reviewed journal article is the final stage, but before we submit the paper we have a few other steps to ensure that our work roughly conforms to the principles of Open Science, each of which should be straightforward if we’ve followed this plan.

  • Create a publication quality preprint using the lab template. We’ll host this on PsyArXiv (unless submitting a blind ms.)  
  • Create a file for all the stimuli or materials that we used and upload to OSF.
  • Create a data archive with all the raw, de-identified data and upload to OSF.
  • Upload a clean version of your R Notebook that describe your analyses and upload to OSF.

Conclusion

As I mentioned at the outset, this might not work for every lab or every project. But the take home message–document everything you do and share your work for feedback–should resonate with most science and scholarship. Is it necessary to have a formal guide? Maybe not, though I found it instructive for me as the PI to write this all down. Many of these practices were already in place, but not really formalized. Do you have a similar document or plan for your lab? I’d be happy to hear in the comments below.

Psychology and the Art of Dishwasher Maintenance

The Importance of Knowing

It’s useful and powerful to know how something works. The cliché that “knowledge is power” may be a common and overused expression but that does not mean it is inaccurate.  Let me illustrate this idea with a story from a different area. I use this rhetorical device often, by the way. I frequently try to illustrate one idea with an analogy from another area. It’s probably a result of being a professor and lecturer for so many years. I try to show the connection between concepts and different examples. It can be helpful and can aid understanding. It can also be an annoying habit.

My analogy has to do with a dishwasher appliance. I remember the first time I figured out how to repair the dishwasher in my kitchen. It’s kind of a mystery how the dishwasher even works, because you never see it working (unless you do this). You just load the dishes, add the detergent, close the door, and start the machine. It runs its cycle out of direct view and when the washing cycle is finished, clean dishes emerge. So there’s an input, some internal state where something happens, and an output. We know what happens, but not exactly how it happens. We usually study psychology and cognition in the same way. We can know a lot about what’s going in and what’s coming out. We don’t know as much about what’s going in inside because we can’t directly observe it. But we can make inferences about what’s happening based on the function.

The Dishwasher Metaphor of the Mind

So let’s use this idea for bit. Let’s call it the “dishwasher metaphor“. The dishwasher metaphor for the mind assumes that we can observe the inputs and outputs of psychological processes, but not their internal states. We can make guesses about how the dishwasher achieves its primary function of creating clean dishes based on what we can observe about the input and output. We can also make guesses about the dishwasher’s functions by taking a look at a dishwasher that is not running and examining the parts. We also can make guesses about the dishwasher’s functions by observing what happens when it is not operating properly. And we can even make guesses about the dishwasher’s functions by experimenting with changing the input, changing how we load the dishes for example, and observing how that might affect the outputs. But most of this is careful, systematic guessing. We can’t actually observe the internal behaviour of the dishwasher. It’s mostly hidden from our view, impenetrable. Psychological science turns out to be a lot like trying to figure out how the dishwasher works. For better or worse, science often involves careful, systematic guessing

Fixing the Broken Dishwasher

The dishwasher in my house was a pretty standard early 2000s model by Whirlpool, though sold under the KitchenAid brand. It worked really well for years, but at some point, I started to notice that the dishes weren’t getting as clean as they used to. Not knowing what else to do, I tried to clean it by running it empty. This didn’t help. It seemed like water was not getting to the top rack. And indeed if I opened it up while it was running I could try to get an idea of what was going on. Opening stops the water but you can catch a glimpse of where the water is being sprayed. When I did this, I could observe that there was little or no water being sprayed out of the top sprayer arm. So now I had the beginnings of a theory of what was wrong, and I could begin testing hypotheses about this to determine how to fix it. What’s more, this hypothesis testing also helped to enrich my understanding of how the dishwasher actually worked.

Like any good scientist, I consulted the literature. In this case, YouTube and do-it-yourself websites. According to the literature, several things can affect the ability of the water to circulate. The pump is one of them. The pump helps to fill the unit with water and also to push the water around the unit at high enough velocity to wash the dishes. So if the pump was not operating correctly, the water would not be able to be pushed around and would not clean the dishes. But that’s not easy to service and also, if the pump were malfunctioning, it would not be filling or draining at all. So I reasoned that it must be something else.

There are other mechanisms and operations that could be failing and therefore restricting the water flow within the dishwasher. And the most probable cause was that something was clogging the filter that is supposed to catch particles from entering the pump or drain. It turns out that there’s a small wire screen underneath some of the sprayer arms. And attached to that is a small chopping blade that can chop and macerate food particles to ensure that they don’t clog the screen. But after a while, small particles can still build up around it and stop it from spinning, which stops the blades from chopping, which lets more food particles build up, which eventually restricts the flow of water, which means there’s not enough pressure to force water to the top level, which means there’s not enough water cleaning the dishes on the top, which leads the dishwasher to fail. Which is exactly what I had been observing. I was able to clean and service the chopper blade and screen and even installed a replacement. Knowing how the dishwasher works allowed me to keep a closer eye on that part, cleaning it more often. Knowing how the dishwasher worked gave me some insight into how to get cleaner dishes. Knowledge, in this case, was a powerful thing.

Trying to study what you can’t see

And that’s the point that I’m trying to make with the dishwasher metaphor.  We don’t necessarily need to understand how it works to know that it’s doing its job. We don’t need to understand how it works to use it. And it’s not easy to figure it out, since we can’t observe the internal state. But knowing how it works, and reading about how others have figured out how it works, can give you an insight into how the the processes work. And knowing how the processes work can give you and insight into how you might improve the operation, how you can avoid getting dirty dishes.

Levels of Dishwasher Analysis

This is just one example, of course and just a metaphor, but it illustrates how we can study something we can’t quite see. Sometimes knowing how something works can help in the operation and the use of that thing. More importantly, this metaphor can help to explain another theory of how we explain and study something. I am going to use this metaphor in a slightly different way and then we’ll put the metaphor away. Just like we put away the clean dishes. They are there in the cupboard, still retaining the effects of the cleaning process, ready to be brought back out again and used: a memory of the cleaning process.

Three ways to explain things

I think we can agree that there are different ways to clean dishes, different kinds of dishwashers, and different steps that you can take when washing the dishes. For washing dishes, I would argue that we have three different levels that we can use to explain and study things. First there is a basic function of what we want to accomplish, the function of cleaning dishes. This is abstract and does not specify who or how it happens, just that it does. And because it’s a function, we can think about it as almost computational in nature. We don’t even need to have physical dishes to understand this function, just that we are taking some input (the dirty dishes) and specifying an output (clean dishes). Then there is a less abstract level that specifies a process for how to achieve the abstract function. For example, a dishwashing process should first rinses off food, use detergent to remove grease and oils, rinse off the detergent, and then maybe dry the dishes. This is a specific series of steps that will accomplish the computation above. It’s not the only possible aeries of steps, but it’s one that works. And because this is like a recipe, we can call it an algorithm. When you follow these steps, you will obtain the desired results. There is also an even more specific level. We can imagine that there are many ways to build a system to carry out these steps in the algorithm so that they produce the desired computation. My Whirlpool dishwasher is one way to implement these steps. But another model of dishwasher might carry them out in a slightly different way. And the same steps could also be carried out by a completely different system (like on of my kids washing dishes by hand, for example). The function is the same (dirty dishes –> clean dishes) and the steps are the same (rinse, wash, rinse again, dry) but the steps are implemented by different system (one mechanical and the other biological). One simple task but there are three ways to understand and explain it.

David Marr and Levels of Analysis

My dishwasher metaphor is pretty simple and kind of silly. But there are theorists who have discussed more seriously the different ways to know and explain psychology. Our behaviour is one, observable aspect of this picture. Just as the dishwasher makes clean dishes, we behave to make things happen in our world. That’s a function. And just like the dishwasher, there are more that one way to carry out a function, and there are also more one way to build a system to carry out the function. The late and brilliant vision scientist David Marr argued that when trying to understand behaviour, the mind, and the brain, scientists can design explanations and theories at three levels. We refer to these as Marr’s Levels of Analysis (Marr, 1982). Marr worked on understanding vision. And vision is something that, like the dishwasher, can be studied at three different levels.

Untitled

Marr described the Computational Level as an abstract level of analysis that examines the actual function of the process. We can study what vision does (like enabling navigation, identifying objects, even extracting regularly occurring features from the world) at this level and this might not need to be as concerned with the actual steps or biology of vision. But at Marr’s Algorithmic Level, we look to identify the steps in the process. For example, if we want to study how objects are identified visually, we specify the initial extraction of edges, the way the edges and contours are combined, and the how these visual inputs to the system are related to knowledge. At this level, just as in the dishwasher metaphor, we are looking at species of steps but have not specified how those steps might be implemented. That examination would be done at the Implementation Level where we would study the visual system’s biological workings. And just like with the dishwasher metaphor, the same steps can be implemented by different systems (biological vision vs computer visions, for example). Marr’s theory about how we explain things has been very influential in my thinking and in psychology in general. It gives us a way to know about something and study somethings at different levels of abstraction and this can lead to insights about biology, cognitions, and behaviour.

And so it is with the study of cognitive psychology. Knowing something about how your mind works, how your brain works, and how the brain and mind interact with the environment to generate behaviours can help you make better decisions and solve problems more effectively. Knowing something about how the brain and mind work can help you understand why some things are easy to remember and others are difficult. In short, if you want to understand why people—and you—behave a certain why, you need to understand how they think. And if you want to understand how people think, you need to understand the basic principles of cognitive psychology, cognitive science, and cognitive neuroscience.

Reference

Marr, D. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (WH Freeman, San Fransisco, 1982).

Ice-Storm Pumpkin Muffins

February always brings terrible weather to Ontario and 2019 is no exception. February 6 saw the city (London, ON) nearly shut down by an ice storm. Schools were closed, the University closed early, and we all stayed home. This was great! We were nearing the completion of a kitchen renovation, it gave us time to unpack a few things and get the kitchen back in working order.

So I decided to bake a batch of pumpkin muffins. Naturally, I posted the picture on Twitter and Instagram and was asked for the recipe so I have to oblige.

Dyv7bgvU8AAkJfI

Hot and fresh from the oven in a newly-renovated kitchen

I have been baking these for at least 10 years and they were the runner up in the muffin category in 2016 at the Ilderton Fair, which is one of the best regional fairs in Ontario. Ilderton, Ontario, for those who don’t know, happens to the home of Scott Moir and the home ice for the most famous Olympic ice dancers in history, Scott Moir and Tessa Virtue. In fact, Scott was at the beer tent when I went to pick up my blue ribbon. Obviously, I assumed that he and I were kind of kindred spirits, him with all the Olympic gold medals and me with a second place muffin prize (not to mention the first place bread a few years earlier). He was busy, though, so he never got a chance to congratulate me on the muffins. Next time, Scott!

So here’s my recipe, I hope they turn out well for you.

Pumpkin Muffins

Makes 12 muffins or one loaf of pumpkin bread.

Preheat oven to 375°

Mix together in a large bowl:

  • 1 3/4 cup all purpose flour (I use Arva Flour)
  • 1 tsp baking soda
  • 1 tsp baking powder
  • 1/2 tsp salt
  • 1 tsp cinnamon
  • 1/2 tsp ground clove
  • 1/2 tsp ground ginger
  • 1/2 tsp ground nutmeg

Whisk together in another bowl:

  • 2 eggs (substitute an extra 1/2 cup pumpkin if you want ’em vegan)
  • 3/4 cup neutral flavour oil (e.g. canola)
  • 1 tsp vanilla

Then add:

  • 1 cup of brown sugar
  • 1 cup of unsweetened pumpkin puree (or any winter squash)

Add the wet ingredients to the dry ingredients in the larger bowl and stir together until just mixed. Don’t overdo it. Spoon into muffin tins that have been lined or greased. Just before baking, sprinkle the tops lightly with a mix of cinnamon and sugar.

bake at 375° for 18 minutes.

These are even better if you let them cool and cover with plastic wrap until the next day, the tops get sticky and irresistible.

 

 

 

Why don’t more academics engage in public debate?

Last week, Matthew Sears, a professor of classic at the University of New Brunswick, wrote a great article in MacLean’s about how academics should participate more often in public scholarship and debate.  For example, if you’re a historian and you think Steven Pinker gets the Enlightenment wrong, speak up and challenge. If you’re a developmental psychologist and you think Jean Twenge gets things wrong about kids and digital devices, speak up. And if you’re a humanities scholar or biological psychologist and you think Jordan Peterson gets archetypes, myth, or lobsters wrong, speak up and challenge! In particular, if some public scholar is writing “out of their lane” and is getting things wrong in your lane, you owe it to your field to set the record straight. (Sears didn’t say it that way, that’s my interpretation).

Sears’s article was a hit. I agreed with his thesis. And there was some great, lively discussion on Twitter, of course. Some academics pointed out that the we do engage in public debate and discourse….on Twitter. But the question remains, why don’t more academics seek out opportunities to engage in public debate? In my opinion, we do, up to a point. And there are a few reasons why we don’t. Many of these were mentioned in response to Sears’s article.

Personal Risks

One clear hurdle is that scholars who speak out, especially against very popular public figures with large online followers, may risk on-line harassment. This could be time consuming at best and life threatening at worst.

In some cases, it may be worth the risk, but in many other cases, it may not be worth risking on-line harassment to challenge a public figure. In order for the risk to be worthwhile, the public figure would need to be making very dangerous or damaging claims, and thankfully that rarely happens among public intellectuals.

Lack of Professional Support

Another hurdle that many scholars face when seeking out public debate and outreach is a lack of professional support. For example, some commenters on Sears’s article pointed out that junior scholars and people from racial minority groups, indigenous groups, and LGBTQ communities face greater public outcry than people in safer circumstances.

Another academic pointed out that universities do encourage some public engagement but there is little institutional incentive and our job performance is usually tied to teaching and research, not public debate. Unlike public speakers and public figures, whose primary job is to be public speakers, academics are teaching and doing research.

These are important challenges, but clearly these don’t apply to everyone. Tenured professors can (and should) speak out and participating in public debate when appropriate. So why don’t more academics look to be publicly engaged?

A Tradeoff

I mentioned that it’s not easy, even if we wanted to. It has to do with the tradeoff between public work and university responsibility. A full time academic might not have much time left for public debate (and vice versa, a public scholar does not have as much time left for academic work).

Some of the most outspoken public intellectuals are not or are no longer traditional “40/40/20” academics. This formula refers to the nominal workload for professors at many large research universities. We’re expected to devote 40% of our job to teaching, another 40% to our research and scholarship, and 20% to service like committee work and editorial duties. If I were to jump into a public debate with a well-known public intellectual, it might take time away from my regular work. Now maybe that’s worth it from time to time but for many of us, this is extra time or a personal project.

The decision to become (or debate with) a well-known public intellectual means a tradeoff with one’s academic work. For that reason, most of us engage with the public in ways that hew closely to our own discipline.

Steven Pinker as an Example

Steven Pinker is a full professor at Harvard, with an incredibly long bibliography of books, chapters, articles, and journal papers. He has a full CV posted so you can see what he’s up to. Mostly, he writes books. Many of them have been best sellers. I thought his “How the Mind Works” was a fantastic book, an inspirational account of the importance of cognitive science. He appears at lectures and on talk shows.

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology

Steven Pinker,  Rose Lincoln / Harvard University

 

But he does not seem to teach very much and it’s impossible to know if he does any departmental service work. It’s Harvard. I imagine that there’s less tedious admin work for full professors at Harvard than full professors at Western (my institution). And Pinker occupies an endowed, named position (the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology) He would not be expected to teach or do administrative work. It would not be a rational use of his time. My point is that he’s not rank and file. Pinker, agree or disagree with his work, is an elite, public intellectual by any definition. And he’s been great in this role as a public academic cognitive scientist.

But as he strayed from cognitive science and linguistics, however, people in other fields began to complain about his work. He’s too optimistic in “Angels of our Better Nature”, some have said. He misunderstands the enlightenment in “Enlightenment Now”, others have complained. These are still important books, but they are outside his primary field. Scholars, even ones who stray into the public forum, like to stay in their lanes and don’t like it when scholars from another field encroach.

Jordan Peterson is a Special Case

Looming over this, of course, is Jordan Peterson. Peterson is not in my field, but we’re in similar cohorts: middle-aged white male, tenured, full professors of Psychology, at large, Canadian research universities (Peterson is at University of Toronto; I’m at the University of Western Ontario). Prior to becoming “The Jordan Peterson” his research impact at U of T was very good but not incredible.  (Note: you can save yourself the trouble of pointing out that my h-index is lower than Peterson’s. Like every academic, I know my score. It’s moderate. I’m cool with that).  He was known to be an excellent lecturer. By all accounts he’s always been hard working.

1024px-jordan_peterson_by_gage_skidmore

Jordan Peterson sitting at the exact same angle as Steven Pinker (cred. G. Skidmore)

By that’s not why he’s famous.

He’s mostly famous now for being opposed to Canadian bill C-16, for his YouTube videos, for being on Joe Rogan, touring with Sam Harris, for his “12 rules” book, and for being the subject of hundreds of think pieces. While he may have been a good teacher, scholar, and departmental citizen at U of T, that’s just not what he does. Not any more. There’s been a tradeoff.  Unlike Pinker, whose fame is primarily within his field as a cognitive psychologist, much of Peterson’s fame is broader and touches on other disciplines. He’s really popular.

His work as a public intellectual is no longer closely connected to his work at U of T as a personality psychologist, or his work as a clinical psychologist, or his work as a teacher. He’s no longer a 40/40/20 academic. What’s more, although he’s still affiliated with the University of Toronto, he’s been on leave. He may not return. And really, why would he? Agree or disagree with his ideas and the cult of personality that has developed around him, he can reach more people as a public speaker than as a tenured professors. And that’s what many of us, as academics, desire: we want to reach people, to teach, to inspire. Far from being “de-platformed” he’s been re-platformed. He’s exchanged the lecture hall for the O2 Arena.

It would be difficult for most academics to compete with those resources and to challenge someone like Jordan Peterson. Some academics have done so in print, though the linked article was written by Ira Wells, who teaches literature and cultural criticism at the University of Toronto. The humanities and cultural criticism are his field.  But most of us don’t regard him as an academic or a researcher but someone in a different category all together. I offer this not as a criticism but as an observation.

I wouldn’t really care too much about Petersons’s work normally, because (unlike Pinker) it’s not in my field. I did not follow his work before he became famous. I do care that some of his videos and writings have been used (by others) to marginalize trans people, including people I know and respect. I can and will stand up for those people, but unless Peterson is going to mischaracterize prototype theory, any criticism by me would be personal and not scholarly. In which case, I’m not speaking as an expert. I might as well be criticizing Dr. Oz or Alan Alda (I cannot imagine I’d ever criticize Alan Alda, BTW he’s one of my heros). It’s possible, it’s my prerogative, but I’m not really doing it as an academic. I’m just doing it. And so I don’t.

I’d be out of my element and would end up costing me time. A protracted debate with a public intellectual who is a full time speaker and public figure would eventually affect my teaching, my scholarship, my research. Unless it’s in my own field, it’s difficult to justify.

Most of us do public work within our field

There are lots of successful public intellectuals who are working in their fields. Sara Goldrick-Rab for example is a world leader on the cost of education. Susan Dynarski is well known for her economics work and also for the use of laptops in the classroom. My colleague Adrian Owen was recently awarded the OBE for his work on consciousness and vegetative state has written a terrific popular book on the topic. Daniel Levitin writes on cognition and music. The list is long.

The criticism seems start when academics fail to “stay in their lane”. The public did not object to Jordan Peterson’s work on personality and creativity, or Noam Chomsky’s work on linguistics, or even Steven Hawking’s work on black holes. When these people wrote and worked on other topics, their limitations began to show.

In the end, I think most of us as academics are happy and enthusiastic to engage in public debate, we just tend to do it in our own fields. We tend to self-promote and educate and not debate on topics we’re not experts in. As for me? I think I do my best work in the classroom. I like the outreach I can do in the formal setting. I’m working on bringing that to my next book but don’t expect me to be to far outside my element.

Not yet…we’ll see.

 

The Benefits of Playing Sports

Both of my daughters play team sports. Club sports, recreational leagues, competitive leagues, and high school teams. It’s part of the fabric in our community and it’s also a bit of cultural heritage as well. Team sports are part of growing up for many middle class Canadians and Americans. And of course I played a lot of different sports in high school and my wife did as well. So we probably passed that on to our own kids.

Benefits of team sports

Team sports have a lot of obvious benefits. There’s the physical activity aspect for sure and team sports can be a fun way to stay in good physical condition because you’re often with your friends. But there’s also a benefit to being a part of a group that has a shared goal. And sports like baseball/softball, soccer, and football have multiple problem solving components too. Each play in a baseball game requires fast decision making and might depend on a quick access to the probability of various outcomes (and don’t get me started on the physics of baseball). Team sports offer the potential to work on social skills, like how to achieve things with people who might not be like you. And of course, how to win and lose effectively and with some dignity.

The downsides

There are some down sides to many team sports, however. Risk of injury in general and concussions in particular are a major concern. I played youth football from the late 1970s through late 1980s. Ten years of getting hit on the offensive / defensive line. If a player sustained a bad hit, the coach might say “it’s just a concussion, shake it off”. I remember those words, just a concussion. We now know that this is a major concern for long term brain heath. Growing up in Western PA in the 70s and 80s, the Steelers were a huge presence. Mike Webster, one of the greatest centers to play the game, suffered greatly because of the severe brain damage he sustained as a result of playing the game. It’s a truly harrowing story. I don’t think I’d let my own kids play football because of the risks to brain health.

Lack of access

Team they are not available to everyone, including people with limited mobility. There are financial constraints for club sports, though many organization subsidize the participation. Some sports, hockey in particular, can cost several thousands of dollars per year for competitive players. High school sports programs offer a way to reduce that disparity. By using school funds, which are essentially public, the cost to play can be lower. Of course, in some regions, funding for school is inequitable and so the disparity is still there. It’s why I cringe when I hear that a school or a district has to cut funding for some of their athletic programs, especially low cost sports like soccer, track, or wrestling.

Wrestling as a unique sport

Wrestling was one of the many sports I tried in high school. It was not my best sport (that was football) but I recognized it as being a terrifically demanding sport and one with incredible transformative power. Wrestling is somewhat unique among youth sports. For one, it’s very low cost. It’s available to individuals from diverse backgrounds, and it also a sport in which people of many different ability can compete. I once wrestled against a boy without legs who might not have been able to complete in baseball, football, or track but was able to compete in wrestling in the same divisions as everyone else. Wrestling is one of the most egalitarian sports I know.

It’s also brutal to lose a wrestling match. There’s a technically a team (your school and the people you train with) but when you compete it’s just you and the other person. It’s not a team loss when you lose the match. It’s just you losing. And when you lose, it’s not just a matter of not scoring enough points, or failing to get a goal, it’s that you were beaten by another person. Most sports can teach you how to lose. Wrestling can teach you how it feels to be beaten. It’s not a good feeling. You can’t shift the blame.

I was talking with my dad the other day, about my daughters on their softball and hockey teams and he mentioned that he loved watching me play football but could not bear to watch me wrestle. I won a few matches, but mostly had a losing record. It’s not fun to watch your son struggle against another boy, only to be pinned down. Of all the sports I’ve participated in those 3 years as a wrestler probably affected me the most. The intensity, the competition, and the combativeness are things I still remember even 30 years later.

I only wrestled for a few years, and did not compete much my senior year. I started running in university (a habit, by the way, that I developed as an offshoot of wresting conditioning practice) and decided that the individual nature of running middle and long distance appealed to me most. I still run, almost every day. It’s a sport that can be competitive or not, solitary or with friends. I can dial back the competitive aspect or ramp it up as things change.

Conclusion

The sports I played, football, wrestling, running, softball, were only a small part of what I did growing up. But I’m glad I had the opportunity. It’s why we encourage our girls to participate, now. It’s why I still run. It’s why I volunteer to coach and convene programs.

In my view, the benefits outweigh the costs, and as improvements are made in safety protocol, the costs can be reduced further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cause and Effect

Correlation does not imply causation” is a well-worn phrase, an expression used to explain things, and (often) to smugly shut down an argument. There’s a meta effect in which the phrase has some causal power: it can cause an argument to be discarded.

Of course, though, correlation often does imply causation. Cause and effect are most definitely correlated. Pearson even designed his correlation coefficient as an index of the strength of causation. It’s just that correlation is not enough to allow a valid causal inference to be made.

Causality and the Cat

Sometimes, even direct causal links are not even enough to infer causation. My cat has an annoying habit that illustrates this.

Peppermint, our cat, looking smug after she’s woken me up in the morning.

Every morning at around 5:00am, without fail, she carries out a complicated routine in my bedroom. She starts by meowing loudly and then begins picking at the door to the closet. This reverberates loudly, enough to wake me. She will rattle the window blinds and sometimes open and slam the door to the room, and then start picking at that door. These are all loud enough, and unrelenting enough to cause me to get up, at 5:30, and head downstairs where I feed her. And today, she might have even caused me to write this essay.

These events, picking at the door and me getting up, are highly correlated. But are they causally linked? I like to imagine the cat thinks they are. That somewhere in the recesses of her dusty little cat-mind, she believes that she and she alone caused me to get up and feed her. This, I believe anthropomorphically, causes a sense of independent agency in the cat. She has purpose. She has power. Certainly, there is strong behavioural association and that’s why she continues to engage in the behaviour.

What is the candidate for causality?

Did the cat actually cause me to wake up, though? That’s not clear. There are many mediators that are outside her control that are also candidates for the cause. My own desire to wake up early is a cause. The motivation is already there and in fact I’d probably wake up around the same time anyway (though without the irritation that may have been caused by her routine). Another candidate is my desire to stop her from making noise that would wake others in the family. And I have to use the washroom. And I want to make coffee.

So the question I asked this morning was: Did she cause me to wake up or did she simply contribute to a larger causal model?

Or, did I actually cause her behaviours by getting up and reinforcing her actions, thus establishing and contributing to the symphony of slamming, picking, and pestering that seems like the cause but is actually the effect of my early rising habit? There really is no simple answer.

We are all creatures of habit

Casual reasoning, thinking about cause and effect and attempting to determine the cause, is not easy to do but yet we tend to do it anyway, almost without trying. Even in a fairly mundane scenario like the cat waking me up (or me waking up while the cat does behaviours) it’s easy to think about what is causing things, but it’s hard to establish casualty.

Like my cat, we too are creates of habit. We have a habit to look for causality in the world. These tendencies are reinforced by the correlations we observe. And because of that, we can’t stop from believing in causes that are correlated and easy to observe.

The Language of Sexual Violence

GettyImages_1043787558.0

Women’s March leaders address a rally against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in front of the court building on September 24.
 Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The language we use to describe something can provide insights into how we think about it. For example, we all reserve words for close family members (“Mama” or “Papa”) that have special meaning and these words are often constrained by culture. And as elements of culture, there are times when the linguistic conventions can tell us something very deep about how our society think about events.

Current Events

This week (late September 2018) has been a traumatic and dramatic one. A Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh was accused of an attempted rape 35 years ago. Both he and the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford were interviewed at a Senate hearing. And much has been written and observed about they ways they spoke and communicated during this hearing. At the same time, many women took to social media to describe their own experiences with sexual violence. I have neither academic expertise nor personal experience with sexual violence. But like many, I’ve followed these events with shock and with heartbreak.

Survivors

I’ve noticed something this week about how women who have been victims of sexual violence talk about themselves and the persons who carried out the assault. First of all, many women identify as survivors and not victims. A victim is someone who had something happen to them. A survivor is someone who has been able to overcome (or is working to overcome) those bad things. I don’t know if this is a conscious decision or not, though it could be. It is an effective way for a woman who had been a victim to show that they are a survivor. I think that many women use this term intentionally to show that they have survived something.

Part of The Self

But there is another linguistic construction that is even more interesting. I’ve noticed, especially in the news and on social media, that women say or write  my rapist” or “my abuser”,  or “my assailant”.  I don’t believe this is intentional or affected. I think this is part of the language because it’s part of how the person thinks about the event. Or maybe part of how society thinks about the event. The language suggests that women have internalized the identity of the perpetrator and that the event and the abuser has also become part of who they are as women.  It’s deep and consequential in ways that few other events are.

Of course a sexual assault would be expected to be traumatic and even life changing, but I’m struck by how this is expressed in the idioms and linguistic conventions women use to describe the event. Their language suggests some personal ownership. It’s more than a memory for an event or an episode. It’s a memory for person, a traumatic personal event, and also knowledge of the self. Autonoetic memory is deeply ingrained. It is “Indelible in the hippocampus

All of us talk this way sometimes, of course. If you say “this cat” it’s different from saying “my cat”. The former is an abstraction or general conceptual knowledge. The latter is your pet. It’s part of your identity. “My mother”, “my car”, “my smartphone” are more personal but still somewhat general. But “my heart”,  my child ‘, “my body” , and “my breath” are deeply personal and these things are just part of who we are.

Women don’t use this construction when talking about non sexual violence. They might say “the person who cut me off” or “the guy who robbed me” . Similarly, men who have been assaulted don’t use this language . They say “the man who assaulted me. “ or “the guy who punched me”, or even “the priest who abused me” . And men do not use this language to refer to people that have assaulted (e.g. “my victim“). You might occasional hear or read men refer to “my enemy or “my rival” which, I think, has the same deeper, more profound meaning as the terms used by women for sexual violence but not as traumatic. So by and large this seems to be something that women say about sexual violence specifically.

Deep and Personal Memory

So when a woman, says “my rapist“ it suggests a deep and personal knowledge.  Knowledge that has and will stay with them, affect their lives, and affect how they think about the event and themselves. Eyewitness memory is unreliable. Memory for facts and events—even personal ones—are malleable. But you don’t forget who someone is. You don’t forget the sound of your sibling’s voice. You don’t forget sight of your children. You don’t forget your address. You don’t forget your enemy…and you would not forget your abuser or your rapist.