ClappingTree's Web 2.0 » Psychology

How gay is Twitter vs Cognitive Daily?

J.K. — Thu, 21 May 2009 08:59:14 +0000

28% OF TWITTERERS ARE GAY, 5% mostly gay, 12% mostly straight and 54% straight, according to Bruce Wagner’s “Are You Gay?” twtpoll:

IN CONTRAST, 9% (not 28% as above) are gay, 3% are mostly gay, 6% are bisexual, 19% mostly straight, 61% straight and 2% others, according to a similar poll by Dave Munger on his “Cognitive Daily” blog:

According to “Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002” (cited by The Neurocritic but link is broken now):

Sexual orientation

In response to a question that asked, “Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or something else?” 90 percent of men 18-44 years of age responded that they think of themselves as heterosexual, 2.3 percent (not 28% or even 9% as above) of men answered homosexual, 1.8 percent bisexual, 3.9 percent “something else,” and 1.8 percent did not answer the question. Percents for women were similar.

Is there a selection bias, as claimed by The Neurocritic (linked above)?

selection bias

Selection bias comes in two flavors: (1) self-selection of individuals to participate in an activity or survey, or as a subject in an experimental study; (2) selection of samples or studies by researchers to support a particular hypothesis.

If so, how much of a bias is there?

Is this also an indication that more gays and bisexuals are active online (as compared to straights), especially on Twitter (a simple microblogging tool), as compared to Cognitive Daily (which carries daily posts on psychology, a ‘heavier’ subject)?

ANYWAY, HOW RELIABLE ARE ONLINE POLLS? According to Slate, online polls are NOT an accurate measure of public opinion because of the following reasons:

Respondents are not randomly selected. Poll organizers mailed ballots to people on a list of names.
Socioeconomic bias. Many have criticized online polling because Internet users tend to be wealthier, more educated, and more male than the population at large.
Questions and answers are always given in the same order. Pollsters speak of both the “primacy effect” and the “recency effect,” meaning that the first and last choices are more likely to be chosen, particularly when there is a long list of possible answers. In addition, the order in which questions are given can affect the respondents’ answers.

Other factors could include:

Anonymity and Voluntariness. This means that some people can easily choose to vote more than one times. This can be done even if there’s IP tracking, e.g. by using different machines or by going to different locations.
Yahoo! Answers > Sample size. “A scientific study of 1000 people can give accuracy to within 3% for any number of people. The key is the word Scientific. Rasmussen and Gallup are the only ones that are really valid, and you’ll see that they are always pretty close to each other.”
Yahoo! Answers > Subjectivity. “People who are passionate in a given subject will generally vote in the poll… this can skew the polls. There have been instances where a person trails in a poll by 5% then wins the election by 20%.”

And just two more questions: “How gay is Facebook?” and “How gay is the Internet?”

What Type is My Blog?

J.K. — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:34:53 +0000

IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR (2008), my blog was supposed to be “ESTJ – The Guardians”:

AND NOW (JANUARY 2009), my blog is supposed to be “INTJ – The Scientists”:

SEE ALSO: Willowspillow’s “My Alternate Personality“.

Generation “We” for Singapore Malays

J.K. — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:35:16 +0000

ARE YOU MALAY, a Millennial (born between 1978 and 2000), and a New Media expert, entrepreneur, innovator, researcher, practitioner or student? Why not join this new media group for Singapore Malays set up by Hazman Aziz?

The group exists as a platform for discussion, advocacy and action to uplift, improve, and perhaps solve Singapore Malay issues using New Media.

For more details on Millennials (a.k.a Generation “We”), check out this thought-provoking American video:

It’s interesting to see how problems (in this case, various crises in the USA such as the 9/11 incident, Hurricane Katrina and the recent subprime financial crisis) can be effective triggers for deeper learning and a firmer resolve to unite and to collaborate among the young. It would be even more interesting to see if a Generation “We” New Media group could be set up across race and religions in Asia, and NOT just for Malays in Singapore. Hey, Hazman, would you be game to do this?

An extract from Sarah Burris’ blog:

GenWe was Greenberg’s project to help the Millennial Generation empower itself against much scrutiny. The book also makes the case that Millennials are:

Dedicated to improving the common good over individual gain, a sentiment that crosses all racial, ideological and partisan lines.
Reject fundamental principles of modern conservatism – primary focus on individual rights and trickle down economics.
Welcome innovation and are eager to establish a new paradigm.

An anthropological introduction to YouTube

J.K. — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:02:54 +0000

WHAT IMPACT DO YOUTUBE and other social media have on human behavior today? Check out this 55-min video presentation at the Library of Congress, June 23rd 2008, produced by Dr Michael Wesch and his anthropology students. More info at MediatedCultures.net.

VIDEO NOTES BY DR WESCH:
0:00 Introduction, YouTube’s Big Numbers
2:00 Numa Numa and the Celebration of Webcams
5:53 The Machine is Us/ing Us and the New Mediascape
12:16 Introducing our Research Team
12:56 Who is on YouTube?
13:25 What’s on Youtube? Charlie Bit My Finger, Soulja Boy, etc.
17:04 5% of vids are personal vlogs addressed to the YouTube community, Why?
17:30 YouTube in context. The loss of community and “networked individualism” (Wellman)
18:41 Cultural Inversion: individualism and community
19:15 Understanding new forms of community through Participant Observation
21:18 YouTube as a medium for community
23:00 Our first vlogs
25:00 The webcam: Everybody is watching where nobody is (”context collapse”)
26:05 Re-cognition and new forms of self-awareness (McLuhan)
27:58 The Anonymity of Watching YouTube: Haters and Lovers
29:53 Aesthetic Arrest
30:25 Connection without Constraint
32:35 Free Hugs: A hero for our mediated culture
34:02 YouTube Drama: Striving for popularity
34:55 An early star: emokid21ohio
36:55 YouTube’s Anthenticity Crisis: the story of LonelyGirl15
39:50 Reflections on Authenticity
41:54 Gaming the system / Exposing the System
43:37 Seriously Playful Participatory Media Culture (featuring Us by blimvisible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yxHKg…
47:32 Networked Production: The Collab. MadV’s “The Message” and the message of YouTube
49:29 Poem: The Little Glass Dot, The Eyes of the World
51:15 Conclusion by bnessel1973
52:50 Dedication and Credits (Our Numa Numa dance)

Tibetan protest: Strike with hatred & journey to dark side completes

J.K. — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:43:39 +0000

SAD NEWS INDEED: At the recent olympic torch relay in Paris, pro-Tibetan protesters attacked a wheelchair-bound girl (an ex-paralympian fencer) who carried the olympic torch, with a blind boy pushing the wheelchair from behind. The good news: They didn’t succeed. Thanks to YouTube, I can see what happened:

Reminds me of “Star Wars: Return of the Jedi”, where Emperor Palpatine said to Luke Skywalker: “The alliance… will die. As will your friends. Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!”

I am… Yoda!

J.K. — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:48:18 +0000

MY RESULTS:

You are Yoda

Wise and all knowing you are…yes.
Tall, dark, and handsome?
Not so much I’d say.

Which Star Wars character are you?

Click here to take the Star Wars Personality Test (Update: Link does not seem to be there anymore.)

Photo credit: CC license by Orange Beard (metrojp).

Saying “No” To Say “Yes” (Web of Mass Distraction II)

J.K. — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:25:02 +0000

ONE GREAT IDEA that I took away from Nexus 2007 is what Nathan Torkington (O’Reilly) calls Continous Partial Attention. Not that the phenomenon is new, but because it describes succinctly what I’ve been (and still am) experiencing. Finally, I can name it.

This is a new design challenge in this age of information anxiety and abundance of meaning. More and more people, myself included, are doing many things at the same time. However, decades of research (and common sense) have indicated that the quality of one’s output and depth of thought deteriorate as one attends to ever more tasks. For example:

“We are under the impression that we have this brain that can do more than it often can,” says René Marois, neuroscientist and director of the Human Information Processing Laboratory at Vanderbilt University, quoted in a recent NYTimes piece about how multi-taskers max out their brains, creating neural network bottlenecks and causing confusion and mistakes (thanks, Susan Mernit).
When people try to perform two or more related tasks either at the same time or alternating rapidly between them, errors go way up, and it takes far longer–often double the time or more–to get the jobs done than if they were done sequentially, says David E. Meyer, director of the Brain, Cognition and Action Laboratory at the University of Michigan: “The toll in terms of slowdown is extremely large–amazingly so.” (thanks, DeedsDoing 2006)
“Kids that are instant messaging while doing homework, playing games online and watching TV, I predict, aren’t going to do well in the long run,” says Jordan Grafman, chief of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, quoted in a CNN report last year.

IN MY EXPERIENCE FOR EXAMPLE: During Nexus 2007 last Saturday, I found myself switching among three screens on my laptop most of the time. We were using Twitter.com for message sending, Campfirenow for chatting, and Nexus Live/Interactive to view Twitter messages from everyone. I could barely pay attention to the speakers/panel on the stage. Probably listened to only half the words. One possible way to reduce distraction could be better to replace Campfirenow with a shoutbox hooked onto Twitter via its API, the way Uzyn managed to hook Ping.sg shouts into pingsg_shouts on Twitter. Open Tweetbar on the sidebar and everyone would have two less screens to distract their attention — in other words, Let everyone look at just ONE screen.

Recently, Bjorn Lee twittered: “i have ADD, maybe i shld enrol in that china camp where they reform internet addicts.. oops, thats called NS in spore.” (ADD stands for Attention Deficit Disorder here, I think.)

What other solutions are there? Listen to former Microsoft VP Linda Stone perhaps (thanks, Mike Rohde):

“Continous Partial Attention (CPA) is different than multi-tasking, where the motivation is productivity: giving equal attention to many activities. CPA’s motivation is being a live node on the network, gaining meaning from the network, being ready for new opportunities at any moment…”

“But this always on, anytime, anywhere, anyplace era has has created an artificial sense of constant crisis. The adrenalized fight or flight mechanism kicks in. It’s great when we’re being chased by tigers. How many of those 500 emails a day is a tiger? Or are they mostly mice? Is everything really such an emergency? Our way of using the current set of technologies would have us believe it is.”

And learn from Jakob Nielsen (thanks, Beth):

Don’t check your email all the time. Set aside special breaks between bigger projects to handle email. Don’t let email interrupt your projects, and don’t let the computer dictate your priorities.
Don’t use “reply to all” when responding to email. Abide by the good old “need to know” principle… send follow-up messages only to those people who will actually benefit from the reply.
Write informative subject lines for your email messages. Assume that the recipient is too busy to open messages with lame titles like “hi.”
Create a special email address for personal messages and newsletters. Only check this account once per day.
Write short.
Avoid IM (instant messaging) unless real-time interaction will truly add value to the communication. A one-minute interruption of your colleagues will cost them ten minutes of productivity as they reestablish their mental context and get back into “flow.” Only the most important messages are worth 1,000 percent in overhead costs.
Answer common customer questions on your website using clear and concise language. This will save your customers a lot of time — thus making you popular — and will keep them from pestering you with time-consuming phone calls and emails.
User test your intranet. Clean it up so that employees can find stuff faster, and make the intranet homepage their entry point for keeping up on company news and events.
Don’t circulate internal email to all employees; instead put the information on the intranet where people can find it when they need it. (This obviously assumes that you’ve fixed the intranet’s usability.)
Establish a company culture in which it’s okay not to respond to email immediately. This frees employees from the pressure of incessantly checking email and lets them get more work done.

Finally, run 5 miles or do a spin class like Beth does. She explained:

“For some reason, vigorous cardio exercise helps clear out the information anxiety Maybe it is the just the stepping away from the reflected light dancing across my eyes coming from the monitor.”

Related Posts:

Web of Mass Distraction I

Why the French hates Wikis

J.K. — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:16:57 +0000

An interesting post by EE Kim, Why the French Hates Wikis :

At WikiSym last August, Ward Cunningham showed some regional trends comparing Google searches for “wiki” and “blog.” Overall, searches for “blog” (in red) steadily outpace searches for “wiki” (in blue), although the rate of growth is about the same for both… the phenomenon is reversed in Germany … [and] in Japan … At WikiWednesday this past week, PeterThoeny said that he had shown similar trends for a recent Wiki talk, and that he also showed the trends in France …

Whoa, Nellie! Apparently, the French don’t care much for Wikis. It was a shock for me to see this, as I know several stellar French members of the Wiki community and even more French-speaking members. Any thoughts as to why this might be the case?

My guess: Japanese and Germans are on the whole very cohesive people who tend to identify closely with their communities. The French, on the other hand, are generally known to be highly individualistic. Wiki collaborations are basically “corporate” or community-based. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most French people should “hate” wikis.

“All Marketers Are Liars”

J.K. — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:45:32 +0000

This is not new. Seth Godin, author of six marketing bestsellers (including “Permission Marketing” and “All Marketers are Liars: The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low-Trust World”), gave a great talk at Google in February this year. I watched the video only this month. Can’t help but be impressed by his astute analysis and concrete examples, and yet disturbed by our collective shallowness. So here it is (00:48:01):

Groups vs. Networks

J.K. — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:41:51 +0000

A succinct illustration by Stephen Downes last Monday (see this Google video for his verbal explanation) on the differences between “groups” and “networks”:

In Downes’ words:

“The drawing depicts the often unnoticed assumptions that inform our understanding of groups, inform our sometimes slavish devotion to groups, and shows how these contrast with my own understanding of how interaction ought to occur, in networks. It’s not just a web theory (though it is that), it is a theory about life and society in general.”

Those “High Bridge” Men

J.K. — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:08:57 +0000

IN Dutton & Aron’s Two Bridges experiment (1974), male participants were asked to walk across the Capilano Canyon suspension bridge in Vancouver. Others were asked to walk over a low bridge. Although the men were told that they were being asked about creativity and scenery, they were actually being tested on their emotions. The woman interviewing them subtly dropped them her phone number in the middle of the questions. The same woman did the interviews on both the low and high bridges. The end results: Among those who walked on the high bridge, 60% used the number and called the woman back. Among those who walked on low bridge, 30% picked up the phone.

ACTUALLY, none of us got the right answer, although I did come quite close (the answer is in the Dutton & Aron link above, just scroll to the middle of the page). The Capilano story was one of many concrete examples (and experiments) which Professor Henck Schmidt used during a talk at Republic Polytechnic yesterday, to illustrate six key principles of learning and teaching, namely:

Learning is basically construction of meaning, e.g. coherent theories about the world.
Activation of prior knowledge facilitates the subsequent processing of new information.
Elaboration of knowledge at the time of learning enhances subsequent retrieval. E.g. use of paired assocation.
Organization of Knowledge: E.g. “Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when news on 911 broke out?” (Note: Actually, I kinda puzzled by this illustration. Didn’t get to clarify my doubts though.
Contextual Dependence: Matching context facilitates recall.
Intrinsic Interest: External rewards does not steer the learning, in fact it may reduce intrinsic interest and make the subject matter studied less interesting.

We (the audience), including many instructional designers from various IHLs in Singapore, were asked many interesting questions in order to trigger more questions and activate critical thinking. Truly gratified to have attended a talk by a man who models what he teaches. And to leave with an adrenaline rush…

The Frame-work of Politics

J.K. — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:36:05 +0000

An extract from a very interesting article (with the same title) by Janadas Devan in The Sunday Times today:

The hottest concepts in American politics are not liberalism or conservatism, preventive war or globalisation. Rather, the concept which exercises professional politicians and their handlers most is framing.

According to Hatchet Jobs and Hardball: The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang, framing is “the attempt to define the debate so everyone knows what everyone else is going on about…” Known as framing, as in ‘framing the debate’, this sometimes occurs as a storm of criticism intended to kneecap adversaries rhetorically, to force them into inflexible political stances, or to goad them into reputation-damaging statements”.

A recent article in The New York Times Magazine gave the following example of framing from the last presidential election: The Bush campaign’s successful effort to portray Senator John Kerry as “flip-flopper”, “forever bouncing erratically from one position to another”.

President George W. Bush and his campaign “made sure that virtually every comment they uttered about Kerry during the campaign reminded voters, subtly or not, of this one central theme”.

Mr Kerry helped considerably in the effort by saying, of a Bill to fund US troops in Iraq, “I actually did vote for the US$87 billion before I voted against it.”

The Bush campaign hit the jackpot again when Mr Kerry allowed himself to be filmed wind-surfing, tacking left and right to catch the wind. The Republicans used the footage in an advertisement — “the smartest ad of the campaign”, said the Times.

“Democrates, on the other hand, presented a litany of different complaints about Bush, depending on the day and the backdrop; he was a liar, a corporate stooge, a spoiled rich kid, a reckless warmonger. But they never managed to tie them all into a single, unifying image that voters could associate with the President. As a result, none of them stuck. Bush was attacked. Kerry was framed.”

Storytelling in Research and Practice

J.K. — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:07:50 +0000

Sat in a very interesting module, “Storytelling in Research and Practice”, last night. We started by watching the recording of an excellent stage play called “Handle with Care”. An ethnographical performance based on qualitative research among women with metastatic breast cancer.

The theme seems to be “Fear blocks people’s ears”: Fear in the patient and fear among the patient’s relatives and friends. So marvellously executed. Constantly bombarding the audience with multiple points of views — a young woman, a middle-aged one, an elderly one; the whiner, the “never-say-dier”; the the mother, the daughter/son, the husband, the neighbour, the doctor(s); how others’ apparent concern and advice could be “smothering” or “just wanting to know ‘You’re feeling fine’ “; becoming “invisible” once perceived as sick; issues of “control” versus “no control”; “hope” for cure, less pain, longer life, emotional support…. Truly thought-provoking and ever so witty.

Spent time deliberating on the topics which each student will work on — doing literature review and making presentations — individually and in small groups. For example, “Using Stories to Teach English”, “Play Making with Children”, “Labovian Analysis of Narratives” (cheem)… Still wondering what I should do. Borrowed a practice-oriented book called “Stories: Narrative activities in the language classroom” by Ruth Wajnryb (2003). The stories in the book are based on Labovian analysis, the associate professor said. Revisited Toulmin’s model of argument… aha!

The evening ended on a splendidly inspiring note with an animation movie called “The Man Who Planted Trees”. Wow! What one man can do! Makes me wonder how hard I’ve tried to be part of the solution instead of the problem. How easy it is to destroy! How easily we forget about the creative prowess within us! And how easily we tend to give up! :-p

The Rise of Conference Wikis

J.K. — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:02:16 +0000

CONFERENCE-BASED WIKIS seem to be the “in” thing nowadays. Did a simple Google search on “conference wiki” and straightaway I get 35,600 English pages for “conference wiki”. :-p

Yes, perhaps not all will be the kind of conference wikis that I’m thinking of. But a quick sampling yields the names of many conferences:

X-Tech 2005 – May
Canadian Library Association (CLA) Calgary 2005 – June
ALA Chicago 2005 – ALA Chicago Wiki – June
“What The Hack 2005″ conference – July
OpenEducation2005 – OpenContentWIki – September
Web 2.0 Conference – October
WikiSym 2005 – October

AND THE LATEST conference wiki is — Learning 2005. Eliot Masie’s latest newsletter announced:

“A Program as a Wiki: We have placed our entire Conference Program in an interactive wiki. This means that every session is open for comments, extensions and even revisions by our attendees. Quite a difference from a printed traditional program. In the last few days, we have had hundreds of people start to extend the program, volunteer to co-facilitate and add their perspectives. This is evolving the program from an agenda
publication to a dynamic needs assessment and content evolution tool.”

Sure wonder which one was the first conference wiki of them all.

Personally, while attending the eAgenda 2005 conference organized by NTU last August, the thought of using wikis for conferences first crossed my mind. I was supposed to be a scribe for the two-day conference. Ended up bringing my own notebook PC and started entering personal notes on the conference into my wiki. And I couldn’t help thinking, “How wonderful it’d be if all attendees enter their comments/notes into a common wiki.”

And it is happening now — all over the world!

“We are Conversations… Iterating on Differences”

J.K. — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:47:48 +0000

Extracts from an interesting article on “Relativism and the Net” by David Weinberger:

Y’all know the relativist argument: Other people have views they hold as strongly as you hold yours. Those views are incompatible with yours. Thus, a sense of certainty is insufficient to guarantee truth. Therefore, we can’t trust certainty. Therefore, we have no way to decide whose views are right.

Good things come from this relativism, including a willingness to listen to others and maybe even a little humility. (That was, at least, until the Bush Doctrine declared humility to be unpatriotic.) But relativism contradicts a tenet of knowledge: To believe something is to believe that it’s true. Relativism wants to keep sneaking in a qualifier — “Of course, I might be dead wrong” — that seems to destroy the possibility of knowledge.

Worse, relativism can sap action: Since all sincerely held beliefs are equally valid, why go to any pains to defend yours?

THERE’S JUST something wrong with relativism…. it literally goes against everything we believe by telling us that we have no right to believe any of it. There’s something wrong with the setup.

I think the Internet is showing us what’s wrong with relativism.

Relativism works by pointing to the most extreme differences… There is an assumption — not a logical part of the argument but part of its appeal — that cultures live apart from one another, developing wildly different ideas and values… Neither has privileged access to the truth, or at least neither can reliably know that they have privileged access. So we’re all stuck in our silos of knowledge.

That picture explains why relativism is not just frustrating but depressing. It’s an isolationist’s view of the world.

But now we have a world that’s snapping itself together through talk and writing and conversation. In this world, relativism is much less important and appealing. You don’t have to sit alone and try to undercut your every belief in the name of a humble relativism. Instead, you can put your knowledge out into the world where it can talk with others who hold contrary views. Rather than being silos, we are conversations that — as conversations do — continuously and eternally negotiate agreement while iterating on difference.

…Relativism simplifies the world. It renders all views equal. The Internet complicates the world. All the world’s beliefs are in play as conversation engages us in the mutual quest of trying to find what’s right and wrong, what’s better and worse, what we can agree about and what we’d better leave alone.

In a connected world, relativism is just a way of giving up.

Thinkers vs. Feelers

J.K. — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:04:45 +0000

ATTENDED a Teaching, Learning & MBTI workshop two days ago. A good revision. Still same profile. But the mode of learning was fun. The workshop leader L. divided us into different ‘camps’ at certain points in time. For example, ‘Extraverts’ versus ‘Intraverts’, and ‘Thinkers’ versus ‘Feelers’. We were asked to list the strengths and weaknesses of the people in the other camps. Had a ball laughing at the positive and negative attributes. Some said thinkers are cold and merciless. Others said feelers, though compassionate and caring, can be quite illogical and unjust.

AS THE RECENT NKF saga unfolded, was rather surprised at my own actions, thoughts and feelings. Two nights ago, upon finding an online petition posting in the ChannelNewsAsia forum, i felt angry and outraged enough to go there immediately and enter my details for the petition for the resignation of TTD. A few hours later, i thought that i should be more merciful. “Who has never sinned?” So, i emailed the petition author to cancel my online signature. (This he did and informed me via email promptly.)

Come to think of this: Thinkers aren’t always cold and merciless; and Feelers aren’t always compassionate and caring. In following my feelings, i had called for ‘blood’. In following my thoughts, however, i had chosen to be more merciful.

More and more, it seems to me that Thinkers only seem cold and merciless to Feelers. Actually, both Thinkers and Feelers can be positive or negative, depending on the situation. And it seems to me that Thinkers are often positive or negative on an issue level while Feelers are often positive or negative on a personal level.

Are there research studies to confirm or negate these inferences of mine?

Wilderness in Information Age

J.K. — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:37:44 +0000

On 4 Feb 2005, Ulises compared the Las Vegas Strip with the Red Rock Canyon Park (”a mere 17 miles apart and yet two different planets”) and quoted Bill McKibben’s words in The Age of Missing Information:

“[W]hat sets wildneress apart in the modern day is not that it’s dangerous (it’s almost certainly safer than any town or road) or that it’s solitary (you can, so they say, be alone in a crowded room) or full of exotic animals (there are more at the zoo). It’s that five miles out in the woods you can’t buy anything. There’s no way to drive someplace and spend some money…”

I’m more inclined to think that “wilderness” in the Information Age looks like this: “It’s that five miles out in the woods you can’t sms, blog, “Del.icio.us”, “Furl”, “Flickr” or “Avantgo” anything. There’s no way to go some place and kill some time in cyberspace…”

How We Develop Preferences?

J.K. — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:01:20 +0000

From Elearningpost, June 27, 2005:

“This is a wonderful explanation for why we prefer some items over others. This can have some learning design implications. The finding: We prefer items that we ‘remember’, rather than that we ‘know’. So, what’s the difference between ‘remembering’ and ‘knowing’?

“When we ‘know’ something, we’re completely aware of its existence, but we don’t recall the specific instance when we learned of it. When we ‘remember,’ we’re recalling a particular occasion.”

“To put it simply, if we have story to tell about the item, we are inclined to prefer it. Not a bad marketing mantra if you think about it.”

Strange. Wouldn’t it be the other way round? When we like something, we are impressed by it and so we remember it? Could the researchers be inverting the symptom (remembering) and the cause (preference)?

GETTING lazy. Just quoting some interesting posts of others and then commenting on them. Originally wanted to post my comment on Elearningpost, but comments are not allowed for its news items.

From what i’ve learnt last semester, there is a concept in social psychology which suggests that the probability of liking someone or something increases with familiarity. This does not always happen, but it can happen quite often. Sometimes, “familiarity breeds contempt”. Remember this proverb?

But “we prefer something because we remember it”? This could become a convenient excuse for marketing folks to persuade advertisers to put in more money into their ads. But remember how we can get so very irritated by songs or products that are advertised incessantly? Maybe there’s an optimal balance in exposure somewhere.

In any case, i can think of songs which i ::like:: very much and whose lyrics/title i can’t remember. The reverse is true for me too — i can also think of songs which i ::dislike:: very much and whose lyrics/melody i can remember.

(Note: i read Elearningpost regularly because i’ve found the information there very interesting and useful most of the time.)

Dark Side of Obedience

J.K. — Sun, 15 May 2005 10:58:45 +0000

THE INFAMOUS MILGRAM EXPERIMENT began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist in Yale University then, devised the experiment to answer the question, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?”

Milgram (1974) summed up the experiment in the article “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”

LEARNT about Milgram’s work during social psychology class last semester. Was quite shocked and intrigued at the same time.

As Dr. K. pointed out, what we believe and how we actually behave can be miles apart. We never know whether we might do something that we would end up feeling ashamed about. It was a stark reminder that we shouldn’t judge others. On the other hand, the fact that 35-odd percent of people chose not to obey cruel commands is encouraging — a testimony to the human spirit, and perhaps the need to follow our “true north” rather than the “authority at hand”.

And a question: Are certain MBTI personality types more likely to obey authority than others? Conversely, are certain types very much less likely to do so?

(See also Milgram Experiment in Wikipedia and The Man Who Shocked the World by Thomas Blass in Psychology Today, Mar/Apr 2002.)

Jigsaw Cooperation

J.K. — Thu, 05 May 2005 09:22:24 +0000

An adapted extract from an article in Education World, 2001:

SIXTH-GRADE teacher Ellen Berg desperately wanted to show her students the true meaning of a fairy tale, but [how to] organize an activity that would encourage them to develop their own definition of the term, willingly? The “jigsaw method” provided the backdrop for the dynamic and engaging lesson that her students still recall!

Berg began by having her students divide into five equal groups, each with one fairy tale to read: “The Ugly Duckling,” “Snow White,” “Hansel and Gretel,” “Jack and the Beanstalk,” or “The Three Little Pigs.” Each was responsible for collecting information such as: Who are the characters in the story? Where does the story take place? What are the major events of the story? Are there any supernatural events? If so, what are they?

After the students read, discussed, and recorded the above information, one person from each fairy tale assembled in a new jigsaw group. Each spent three minutes to tell the other new members the story they read and researched. After that, every group created a poster and gave a presentation addressing two points: (1) What do all five stories have in common? (2) Using what you found in common, write your own definition for a fairy tale.

FIRST HEARD of the “Jigsaw Classroom” technique when somone mentioned it during a Social Psychology class. Encountered it again yesterday upon finding a ‘Group Dynamics” file at the University of Delaware PBL Clearninghouse site.

Aha! So, this is how it works. Just that the explanations are a little different. The ‘home groups’ illustrated here are equivalent to the ‘jigsaw groups’ in the story above:

Bright Side of Obedience

J.K. — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:57:43 +0000

“YOU CAN increase the chances of people helping you if you address them personally and tell them specifically what they are supposed to do,” Dr L. said during a social psychology lesson on Helping Behavior last semester.

“People are so obedient!” I couldn’t help exclaiming. Was reminded of the Milgram experiment, while listening to the results of various research studies.

“Reduce ambiguity, increasing responsibility. Personal appeals for help are much more effective than posters and media announcements (Jason, et al, 1984). Nonverbal appeals can also be effective when they are personalized (Snder, et al, 1974; Omoto & Snyder, 2002). So does reduction of anonymity (Solomon & Solomon, 1978; Solomon, et al, 1981).

“Guilt and concern for self-image. People who have been reprimanded for their transgressions are more likely to offer help than those who have not been reprimanded (Katzev, 1978). People who have given “door-in-the-face” responses are likely to agree to a smaller and more reasonable request (Cialdini, et al, 1975). Labeling people as helpful can also increase helpful contributions (Kraut, 1973).

“Teaching moral inclusion. Broadening the range of people whose well-being concerns us (Batson, 1983) and inviting advantaged people to put themselves in others’ shoes, to imagine how they feel (Batson, et al, 2003), helps.

“Modeling altruism. It’s better not to publicize rampant tax cheating, littering and teen drinking, and instead to emphasize – to define a norm of – people’s widespread honesty, cleanliness, and abstinence (Cialdini, et al, 2003). Norms for generosity could perhaps be cultivated by simply including a new line on tax forms that requires people to compute – and thus to know – their annual donations as a percentage of income (Ayres & Nalebuff, 2003). Modeling effects were also apparent within the families of European Christians who risked their lives to rescue Jews in the 1930s and 1940s and of 1950s (London, 1970; Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Rosenhan, 1970; Staub, 1989,1991,1992).”

(Citations extracted and adapted from Dr David Myer’s Social Psychology book published in 2005. See also Helpfulness in Wikipedia.)

Transformative Pain

J.K. — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:24:51 +0000

An adapted extract from The Three Dimensions of Learning – Contemporary Learning Theory in the Tension Field between the Cognitive, the Emotional and the Social by Professor Knud Illeris (2002):

“IN THE EASTERN RELIGION, Zen Buddhism, the goal is to achieve enlightenment. The Zen master attempts to bring about enlightenment in his pupil in various ways. One of the things he does is to hold a stick over the pupil’s head and say fiercely, ‘If you say this stick is real, I will strike you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will strike you with it. If you don’t say anything, I will strike you with it.’ ” (Bateson 1972, p.208).

“This is a clear double bind situation because all the proposed solutions are ruled out, yet it can be solved without schizophrenia or flight, if the pupil manages to take the stick from the master and thus transcend the constituent conditions of the situation.”

“ONE SPECIAL and very demanding type of learning may be termed as transformation or transformative learning. This type of learning occurs in crisis-like situations that can only be solved by transcending the premises of a problem or situation. It may take place through long and often painful adaptation or through shorter, intense processes. In both cases very strong motivation and the ability to raise considerable psychological resources is required.

“Structurally, transformative learning involves the simultaneous restructuring of several cognitive as well as emotional schemes. Functionally, it changes the learner’s self and thereby provides the learner with qualitatively new understandings and patterns of action.

“…Time and time again well-known American humanistic psychologist Carl R. Rogers points out that ‘…any significant learning involves a certain amount of pain, either pain connected with the learning itself or distress connected with giving up certain previous learning’ – ‘learning which involves a change in self organization – in the perception of oneself – is threatening and tends to be resisted’ – ‘all significant learning is to some degree painful and involves turbulence, within the individual and within the system.’ (Rogers 1969, p.157-9, 339).

“…Engestrom sums it up thus: “In [this type of learning], the subject becomes conscious and gains an imaginative and thus potentially also a practical mastery of whole systems of activity in terms of the past, the present and hte future. Individual manifestations of [this type of leanring] are commonly called ‘personal crises’, ‘breaking away’, ‘turning points’ or ‘moments of revelation’.” (Engestrom 1987, p.153).”

(See also Neither Death Nor Life.)

Attitude Is A Choice

J.K. — Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:32:59 +0000

“ATTITUDE IS A CHOICE,” a classmate said last Monday evening in response to a question from Dr W. on what “attitude” is, as differentiated from “motivation”. We were having a lesson on training methods and strategies for teaching attitude.

Was quite struck by the statement. It wasn’t new. But so it is. When we write learning objectives for a desired attitude in an earlier module (”MID801 Instructional Design Models & Practices”), we had been taught to write, “The learner will choose to behave [in a certain way].” Yes, regardless of whether s/he likes or dislikes that particular behavior. And often, when someone has a bad attitude, it’s not so much that s/he does not know how or does not have enough practice, but rather s/he is not convinced by the why.

OTHER VERBS often used for writing attitude-related learning objectives include: “accept, adopt, advocate, approve, assess, challenge, characterise, criticise, defend, evaluate, formulate, judge, justify, manage, model, persuade, recommend, resolve, select, specify, value, re-assure, empathise.”

An extract from Instructional Design, a book by Patricia Smith and Tillman Ragan:

“An attitude is a mental state that pre-disposes a learner to choose to behave in a certain way (G. Gagne, 1985). Gagne describes attitudes as having cognitive, affective and behavioral components that interact. Attitudes influence the choices that learners make. For instance, an individual’s dislike for math may cause him to choose to avoid all courses that contain a math component. A child who loves animals may choose to purchase a pet. Certainly attitudes play a strong role in learners’ motivation to initiate and persevere in learning. (p.68)

“… The basic idea of attitudes is captured in the idea of choosing to do something… they are generally “affective” in nature … [that is,] the “knowing why” … The most fundamental condition achievement of the affective component is provision of a role model … a respected person who demonstrates the desired behavior. (p.252)

“… Gagne (1985) underscores the utility of modeling as an instructional technique … [and] presents a four-step procedure for the use of human models in attitude learning:

a. Establish the appeal and credibility of the model.
b. Stimulate the learner’s recall of relevant knowledge and concepts.
c. Demonstration or communication of desired action by the model.
d. Demonstration or communication of reinforcement of the model as a result of the action taken.

“… According to Gagne, in addition to particular role-playing methods that may be employed, such as case studies and simulations, conventional group discussion is also a legitimate means for practice of a desired behavior. In a discussion, as each student contributes from the point of view of the attitude at hand, that student serves as a role model for the attitude. The discussion leader has the opportunity to provide reinforcement for the discussion participant/role model, and as the discussion progresses, the attitude may be expressed with more and more precision.

“… the most powerful reinforcers seem to be those that we can call “natural consequences.” The thanks from someone you have helped, the safe passage through a dangerous situation, and observation of the benefit gained from help you supplied are all much more direct and powerful reinforcers than praise or reward from a teacher. In fact, in many situations, praise and reward can be worse than no attempt to reinforce at all.” (p.256)

(See also Attitude Is A Choice II. By the way, according to research, “persuasive messages” and “dissonance” are two other fundamental sources of attitude change besides “modeling” (p.252).)

Crossing The Road II

J.K. — Sat, 24 Jul 2004 08:00:05 +0000

Extracted from a commentary in the last issue of The Sunday Times entitled “Web feat or just show-and-tell?”:

“A BLOG, OR WEB LOG, is like a paper diary except that you compose your entries on a computer and send them up to a website. You can make a blog completely private or limit access to friends. But if you really don’t mind having your innermost thoughts read by utter strangers, then you can write a public blog that anyone can go to by typing in the correct Web addresses.

“What suprises me is that lots of bloggers (or bloggettes?) actually relish opening a window to their lives this way…. Even more unexpected is that these bloggers really let things hang out when recording their personal dramas for general consumption… So, if you know a blogger — or a journalist — be careful of what you say or do to him. Otherwise one day you may find your dirty linen washed in public without you realising it, until it is too late. Then you will know what the view is like from the other side of the window.”

READ THE ABOVE COLUMN incidentally while scouring the local papers for interesting infographic snippets. Having attended a lunchtime talk by Maish Nichani on the same subject only yesterday, i couldn’t help but be struck by the immense gulf (a chasm!) that separates those who “know and do technology” from those who don’t.

If i had known nothing about blogs and read this column, i would have remained in my small world, brushing off new technologies as mere gimmicky avenues for baser instincts.

Fortunately, i have experimented with blogs and do know a little about what blogs can do. So, was quite surprised by the simplistic argument. To consider blogs as mere “personal dramas” flicks or “show-and-tell” gossip just because there are such blogs is as good as panning the usefulness of all publications just because there are gossipy printed material, writing off all TV programmes just because there are sensational shows, or scoffing at all websites just because there are porn sites.

Am reminded of people who don’t quite understand something, wouldn’t do the serious work needed for real understanding, and yet want to pronounce a negative judgement. Perhaps i’m guilty of this sometimes. Nevertheless, it’s attitudes like this that could block the rollout and adoption of useful initiatives in elearning (or other important field) today.

As Maish pointed out, according to Wikipedia, “A weblog, or simply a blog, is a website which contains periodic, reverse chronologically ordered posts on a common webpage. Such a web site would typically be accessible to any Internet user…. Individual posts (which taken together are the blog or weblog) either share a particular theme, or a single or small group of authors.”

There are many types of blogs: personal, collaborative, political, and so on. As Maish had explained and demonstrated during the talk, the ubiquity and uses of blogs today are mind-boggling. They have been used with great success worldwide in various fields: to enable reflective learning or teaching, to enable collaborative work and project management, to enable capture and sharing of tacit knowledge, as e-portfolios….

Listening to Maish, i see a world of possibilities and how i’ve been using my blog in quite a limited way. Baring my soul in a public website had never been my intention. Just thought that weekly blogging is a neat way of compiling assorted essays on my reflections on faith, work, learning, and etcetera. Was quite thankful recently to receive a compliment via email from a priest, “I enjoyed (… and am enriched) reading your reflections!”.

Still, how about summarizing what i learn through a daily News section? How about analyzing and synthesizing what i’ve learnt through a weekly or monthly Features section? How about learning from the experts in my field on a regular basis through an RSS aggregator that pulls insights from their blogs? How about adding an interaction box to maintain persistent and relevant conversations? How about encouraging my students to express themselves and collaborate with one another through blogs? …

The usefulness of blogs is limited only by our openness and imagination. The question is: How many of us would actually choose to “cross the road”?

What De-motivated and Still De-motivates?

J.K. — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:42:42 +0000

NO APRIL’S FOOLS JOKE. Posted the following de-motivating factors for me as a learner on the discussion forum (DF) on 1st April:

“1. Prior Commitment.
I have work-related matters and eh, a week-long holiday to attend to. [Then, it was SARS-related quarrantine for almost 2 weeks. Later, a week for spiritual renewal.]

2. A ‘Push’ Factor. I feel a certain revulsion, or to put more mildly, plain inertia. Just one week away from the DF and “My Goodness! How the messages have multipled!” The thought of having to plough through all these messages (now seen as “readings”, as Iris called them during last wed’s virtual chat) is enough to put me off. In other words, the volume and the textual nature of the discussion makes learning rather unattractive.

3. Weak ‘Pull’ Factors (especially ‘emotionally’). Sure, my motivation is high – i take up this course to gain knowledge and to get a qualification. i also think discussion with my tutors and peers is necessary to gain deeper insight. However, if i compare my rate of participation in this learning forum with that in another forum (which is not related to work or study) which i feel emotionally tuned in, reasons (1) and (2) are not enough to stop me from making time to take part in the latter forum. In a way, members of a community need to ‘buy in’ emotionally to the idea of belonging to this community before they will become active and contributing partipants.”

After the post, E. very sensibly pointed out the flipside to relying on emotional commitment as motivation, “…if someone is very emotionally involved in something else that is happening in their life (or, more generally, in the world), it is difficult to stay as focused on one’s work or study. There are some periods in my life when some major concern I have seems to use up all my emotional energy and ‘drains’ me so that I can’t focus as well on other things that are also important. No amount of telling oneself to ‘pull yourself together’ seems to help sometimes.”

i think in a very true sense, this probably sums up another key reason why my usual drive to study flew out of the window these few months. i had been emotionally distracted by a relationship issue, and E. said it all. So, this is how some (or is it many?) of our students feel like! And the heavy textual nature and the required rigor of authoritative references in an academic program like this one doesn’t help.

(imported from Blogger.com)

What Motivated and Still Motivates?

J.K. — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:21:14 +0000

THE ANSWERS are many and obvious:

1. Personal Interest. When i first started on the course in early March, i was highly motivated and raring to go. i’ve paid for the Teaching Online course fees out of my own pocket. Had been teaching a tertiary subject part-time for a year. And due to an on-going project on a knowledge portal for instructional designers, i’ve also been researching on the subject on my own for almost two years.

2. Professional Need. At work, a second run of the School ID program has also started. Will be helping to moderate some of the online discussions. So, skills acquired from the Teaching Online course will come in just handy. i also wanted the qualification: a Masters’ degree in educational technology will help open doors to better job opportunities, i hope.

3. Prior Experience. i was one of the 20-odd staff on a 4-month customized School ID program last year, put together by an Australian u. to help teaching staff handle design, facilitation and evaluation issues of Flexible Learning in our polytechnic. Enjoyed the online discussion with the students and tutors, especially Dr G. So noted with pleasure that he is the key facilitator for the course.

3. Class Dynamics. Initial rounds of self-introductions by course participants on the forum was most promising. There’s Mila from Argentina and Jo C. from Japan — so exceptionally warm and friendly! Ah, there’s Andrew B. from Bangkok and LKM from Hongkong. i would like to meet them when i get there in a few weeks’ time. Then, there’s David S. from Jerusalem who travels to Prague thrice a year. How exciting! And many many others from all over the world — Australia, Canada, USA, Saudi Arabia, Spain, UK, Netherlands…. so mind-boggling — such an international group of students with such impressive experiences and credentials!

Thirteen weeks into the program, almost all the above factors still apply. Another plus was the responsiveness of tutors like G. and B. Got a week’s extension for Assignment 1 and then a two-week extension for Assignment 2 quite readily. Now, this IS Flexible Learning.

So, how did i let myself be side-tracked?

(imported from Blogger.com)

Struggles of a Wayward Hare

J.K. — Thu, 05 Jun 2003 06:11:31 +0000

IT’S WEEK 13 OF “Teaching Online: Strategies and Tactics”. Another five weeks to go before the course ends. Still struggling with Assignment 2 which is due end of last week!

In a twist of fate, yours truly (normally highly motivated and studious) is now behaving like a proverbial unmotivated lazy student in our institution.

First, went on a long-awaited six-day holiday (this is for family bonding) in Hongkong and Bangkok in mid March. Came back in the midst of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) scare. Was confined to work at 56kbps at home (and up to 10 hours per month) instead of 100Mbps at office (unlimited!) for six days in Week 4 (bcos i just returned from a SARS-inffected country) and Week 5 (bcos a student was down with SARS).

LOST SOME momentum there, but managed to squeeze out Assignment 1 with a one-week extension after the official deadline. Then, went on a long-overdue four-day retreat (this is for spiritual renewal) at the local Ignatian centre in Week 12. Felt wonderful upon my return, but for a week or two was most reluctant to get into study mode.

Quite an experience! i’m beginning to understand how an unmotivated lazy student might feel as untouched learning material accumulates with the rapid passage of time while other activities beckon so enticingly. Almost wanted to give up! :-p

And quite an irony! Just a few months ago, i had put the finishing touches to a Blackboard course entitled Top e-Learners’ Study Strategies — specifically designed for students in our polytechnic. Got great reviews from boss, colleagues and varsity tutors earlier. Now, i can’t even apply them myself — these strategies have become Strategies That Don’t Work.

But wait! i chose to take this course, i wanted to learn to set effective online teaching strategies and tactics, and this skill is useful in my work. So, okay, grit my teeth and hang on!

And inspired by blogs shared by an online classmate Adam L. and ex-classmate A.O., i hereby start mine….

(imported from Blogger.com)

What caused this great discrepancy? Is it:
	Nature: The men acted according to “who they are”. Those who walked on the high bridge are single, adventurous men while those who took the low bridge are attached, less adventurous men.
	Context: The men responded according to “where they are” – “high bridge” suggests adventure and romance while “low bridge” suggests otherwise.
	Hormones: As the men on the high bridge are in a dangerous situation, they had an adrenaline rush, [got into a state of high arousal] and so are in a more romantic mood.
	Hope: The men on the high bridge were more suicidal. Approached by an attractive woman, their mood changed to “hope” and so…
Quimble

ClappingTree's Web 2.0 » Psychology

How gay is Twitter vs Cognitive Daily?

What Type is My Blog?

Generation “We” for Singapore Malays

An anthropological introduction to YouTube

Tibetan protest: Strike with hatred & journey to dark side completes

Top posts in Ping.sg & Tomorrow.sg – one year later

I am… Yoda!

Top Posts in Ping.sg & Tomorrow.sg Reveal That…

Saying “No” To Say “Yes” (Web of Mass Distraction II)

Why the French hates Wikis

“All Marketers Are Liars”

Groups vs. Networks

Those “High Bridge” Men

The Frame-work of Politics

Storytelling in Research and Practice

The Rise of Conference Wikis

“We are Conversations… Iterating on Differences”

Thinkers vs. Feelers

Wilderness in Information Age

How We Develop Preferences?

Dark Side of Obedience

Jigsaw Cooperation

Bright Side of Obedience

Transformative Pain

Attitude Is A Choice

Crossing The Road II

What De-motivated and Still De-motivates?

What Motivated and Still Motivates?

Struggles of a Wayward Hare