-
Super Bowl and Super Fans: Why We Care So Much
TIME: We’re not talking about the casual fan who watches the Super Bowl every year because he just really likes chicken wings, and all his friends are doing it. And we’re not talking about the fan who occasionally goes to a game if the opportunity presents itself, but doesn’t know the names of all the players. We’re talking about the real fans who never miss a game and know every player’s stats without consulting their smartphones. ...
-
How do we know what/when young kids are ready to learn?
The Washington Post: How do we really know when young children are ready to learn specific material? Here to explain is cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham, professor and director of graduate studies in psychology at the University of Virginia and author of “Why Don’t Students Like School?” His latest book is “When Can You Trust The Experts? How to tell good science from bad in education.” This appeared on his Science and Education blog. ... In truth, it’s a bad question because the answer depends on the type of abstraction.
-
For Kids With Low Self-Esteem, Excessive Praise Has Unintended Consequences
Pacific Standard: When we sense a child is feeling insecure, our tendency is often to shower him or her with effusive praise. It’s a lovely, compassionate impulse, but it’s also one you may want to resist. Newly published research suggests that, for the kids most likely to receive it, exaggerated acclaim may do more harm than good. “Inflated praise, although well-intended, may cause children with low self-esteem to avoid crucial learning experiences,” writes a research team led by Utrecht University psychologist Eddie Brummelman.
-
The changing face of psychology
The Guardian: In 1959, an American researcher named Ted Sterling reported something disturbing. Of 294 articles published across four major psychology journals, 286 had reported positive results – that is, a staggering 97% of published papers were underpinned by statistically significant effects. Where, he wondered, were all the negative results – the less exciting or less conclusive findings? Sterling labelled this publication bias a form of malpractice. After all, getting published in science should never depend on getting the “right results”. You might think that Sterling’s discovery would have led the psychologists of 1959 to sit up and take notice.
-
Do the Poor Have More Meaningful Lives?
The New Yorker: Jonathan Safran Foer, in the first chapter of “Eating Animals,” recounts a conversation he once had with his grandmother, in which she described the combination of fear and hunger that haunted her in Eastern Europe as the Second World War drew to a close. When she became so hungry that she couldn’t imagine living through another day, a kind Russian farmer gave her a piece of meat: “He saved your life.” “I didn’t eat it.” “You didn’t eat it?” “It was pork.
-
When Doing Good Means You’re Bad
TIME: Want to know a sure way to be seen as immoral, unethical and unlikable? Raise $1 million for charity. Want to know how to have people think a lot more favorably of you? Raise nothing at all. If you think that’s entirely irrational, you’re right. Welcome to the human condition. The key to being thought of as a louse for helping the sick or the poor is not the act of giving by itself, but the act of benefiting from it. That million dollars looks a little less princely if, for your troubles, you kept 10% of it—even if you made that intention clear from the start and even if $900,000 still went to the folks who need it most. Fork it all over or don’t expect any applause.
