Friday, 16 May 2008
Ambiguous pronouns
Posted by
Will
at
23:33
0
comments
Labels: essay writing
More on writing
Nicely put.
Posted by
Will
at
23:31
0
comments
Labels: writing
To the Psychoanalysts
Posted by
Will
at
01:25
0
comments
Labels: "online hub", psychoanalysis
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
What to do this week?
Exams are suddenly no longer just around the corner. Nerves are creeping in; you lot are (anxiolytically?) checking the blog more often per day than you were this time last week. As people feel time pinching up, the questions have taken on a common theme: how to use it most effectively in the coming days.
My answer to these questions is this:
1) Pace yourself - There is a temptation to up the pace now the hours are getting tighter, to pack more in to each one and to work more of them. This is fine but don't lose sight of the reason for all this work - the exams. If you are not fresh (fed and rested) for them all that hard work is pointless.
2) Learn by plans - If you were told to commit to memory all the characters in The Godfather films, how they relate to one another and their individual journeys through the plot, which would be better technique: learning them off a list or watching the films? I think the films, which is why I am a fan of learning references by planning essays; the arguments become the important bits and the refs are easily picked up collaterally. So, instead of just writing out references again and again blend them into arguments. The nice thing about this is that if references are absorbed in context, when it comes to wringing them out all the related references drip out too. In cognitive speak, one reference can act as a cue to activate the others, and before you know it you have a paragraph in the exam.
3) Get social - Get out of the cubicle and chat. This is good because it forces you to test your knowledge without the crutches of your notes, thus sweeping away the self-deception that is so rife with individual study. For some reason, it is also a whole lot easier to learn those references by chatting them over.
Posted by
Will
at
23:39
0
comments
Labels: relaxation, revision tips, social
Signposting
Personally, I find them helpful at the start of new paragraphs. They help provide the zip line for reader to glide down as they read. They're just another way of being an altruistic writer.
A signpost might take the form of something like this: "Having discussed how deprivation negatively affects linguistic and communication skills, why deprivation causes these effects will now be examined."
Posted by
Will
at
00:35
0
comments
Labels: essay writing
Monday, 12 May 2008
The original hub, updated
password: i/l/i/k/e/s/h/a/r/i/n/g
[remove all the "/" - this is to avoid bots]
MediaMax have refused to restore any of the old data. Thanks to everyone who has uploaded again. You are all stars!
Posted by
Will
at
19:14
0
comments
Labels: "online hub"
Anxiety: all in the mind?
Posted by
Will
at
18:47
1 comments
Labels: neuropsychiatry
On quantity
The marker will be unimpressed by a bloated, descriptive, unfocused answer. So, write a concise, persuasive, focused answer and completely forget about how many pages you fill in an exam.
Posted by
Will
at
18:35
0
comments
Labels: essay writing, exam technique
Comparisons
Another thing I picked up on from the essays before MediaMax imploded: be careful with comparisons, which inevitably crop up all over the place.
Saying "Females performed worse for Condition A" is meaningless because what other group did they perform worse than? The monkey wizards?
While we're talking about "Condition A", I should mention I don't like refering to conditions by a letter because it is as clear as a brick to the reader. Give it some meaninful name.
So all together, "Females performed worse in the Banana Magic condition than the Monkey Wizards.
Posted by
Will
at
18:06
0
comments
Labels: essay writing, writing
Chunks. Not spread.
If last year is anything to go by, right now is an anxious time. You are far enough into your revision and close enough to exams to doubt whether you have enough covered and in proper detail. This puts space between where you are and where you want to be causing stress (and maybe even some out-of-body library experiences.)
The first thing to say is that you can't know everything in a course. For those of you fretting over this, stop. Trying to know everything means you'll end up floundering because unless you started back in January you will spread your butter too thinly. It's best for everyone - both people who have left it too late and the diligent - to have several nice big chunks of butter. Concentrate on areas you've cherry picked to come up and craft arguments you can deploy in exams.
For those who have left it too late, your best bet is to be ruthless in this cherry picking. You need to redress your poor planning with riskier strategies. Hone down on, maybe, four areas that have the best chance of coming up. This happened to me in second year on the Individual Differences course after I spent far too much time doing Klaus impersonations and pretending the course didn't exist.
For third years, concerned about that general question, know that you can answer a general question with information from your specific topics; you just need to be solid on the course themes (blueprints). You do not need to have a understanding of every single topic to answer general questions.
For those of you who have had more foresight, you will likely have your cherries picked. Don't be distracted by trying to go beyond that. If you made a decision a while a go to do, say 6 topics for a module, stick with it. Take the topics you have covered and learn them until you wake up mumbling references.
It is better to be solid in lots areas than OK in all of them. Now is the time for fashioning arguments and learning them and their supporting evidence. It is not a time to embark on new stuff.
Posted by
Will
at
17:36
0
comments
Labels: revision strategy, revision tips
Wrong apostrophe's
1. The possessive apostrophe denotes belonging, like in "Tesco's fruit" or, if the word ends in an 's' "Ross' hair" (it's ok to stick another 's' on if you like, but I don't, e.g. "Ross's".)
However, there are a few exceptions including,
It's and its
'Its' is possessive but lacks the apostrophe because 'it's' [it is] usurps it. For example, 'It's impossible its wings came off".
2. The contracting apostrophe
This simply eats up letters (e.g., don't [do not]). You should never need to use this in academic writing. Therefore, if you find yourself writing "it's" and "who's" in essays, don't: either you'll have used the wrong possessive or you are making an unnecessary contraction.
Posted by
Will
at
17:00
3
comments
Labels: essay writing, grammar
Saturday, 10 May 2008
The first bite of an essay
If you start poorly your essay will have to work damn hard to improve the marker's opinion of it. Send them reeling with a confusion blow from the start and they don't really recover. On the other hand, a punchy, crisp and explicit introduction will elevate the marker's opinion of you such that occasional weaknesses are excused and any confusion you bestow upon the reader is lessened because they still have the thrust of your argument ringing in their ears from the introduction.
I think the perfect introduction has four parts and is super-concise (fewer than 150 words)
- A sentence to introduce the general area.
- A sentence or two to introduce the specific issue at hand.
- An idea of the route you are going to take or any definitions that need settling
- A punchy statement of where you are going to end up.
(1) Hand-to-hand combat between psychology lecturers is common (2) Yet, the question of who is the best fighter at the University of Bristol remains largely unspecified. (3) By evaluating a large corpus of fight data and accounting for the heavy bias in Stollery's (2007) meta-analysis (towards Stollery) (4) it will be argued that although Hood (weapon: short-sleeved shirt), Scott-Samuel (weapon: the bitingly acerbic comment) and Mike from CSG (weapon: dangerous mugshot) were strong, Bowers emerges as the clear winner with his ability to 'seriously confuse from fifty feet'.
Or more seriously:
So, remember the reader's first taste of your essay is very important. Given that they will probably have read lots of essays before getting to yours, 'Tango slap' your reader into sitting up and paying attention to your sharp, punchy start.
Posted by
Will
at
12:44
0
comments
Labels: essay writing, introductions, writing
Casual language
I wrote a post about keeping your words and style simple a few days ago. I want to refine this by making sure that you don't get too relaxed. Avoid contractions (e.g. aren't), slang (e.g. there are loads of criticisms of this study), empty phrases (e.g. 'of course' or 'obviously' - it is 'obvious'?) and weak modifiers (e.g. basically etc).
Posted by
Will
at
11:21
0
comments
Labels: essay writing
Friday, 9 May 2008
Offensive words

Scientists don't 'prove' anything: they use data to support or falsify a theory.
'Believe'
Without evidence science is a fundamentally agnostic endeavor. Therefore, something in science can only be believed once there is evidence for its existence. And when that happens there are more appropriate words to use than 'believe', like 'support', 'indicate', 'demonstrate' and so on.
This can take several forms: the singular noun (e.g., 'There was bias'), the plural noun (e.g., 'There were biases'), and the verb (e.g., 'The data were biased'). If you get confused swap in the word 'colour': 'There was colour'; 'There were colours' and 'The data were coloured'.
'Phenomenon' and 'Phenomena'
Singular and plural respectively. 'The phenomenon intrigued the farmers' and 'The phenomena had been observed over two months on the farm.' 'Phenomenons' would not really be used in scientific writing.
Which of these three words shouldn't you use in scientific writing? The middle one. Data are never insignificant in statistical terms, they are non-significant or they fail to reach significance.
In Evolutionary Psychology although it is instructive to talk about genes wanting to replicate this implies some sort of intention and it will upset evo. nerds.
The rule is 'fewer' if you can count the items (i.e. plural), 'less' if you can't (i.e singular). Supermarkets perennially get this wrong at their checkouts, ad campaigns (e.g. Tesco's "Use less bags") and even corporate material (like on this J Sainsbury plc page where "use less bags" is also used).
Salting and peppering your writing with emotional adjectives is not needed.
Posted by
Will
at
18:15
0
comments
Labels: essay writing, grammar, vocabulary
Hedges
This is a classic Guardian ad. In the first eight seconds we conclude from the evidence the man is running away. After the next eight seconds the conclusion is that he is stealing a bag. In the last part we see that he saves the man from some falling masonry.
Now let us imagine that the middle part were the only part we had seen. Scientifically, it would be imprecise to say 'The man is stealing the bag'. This is because there may be (and indeed is) an alternative explanation.
It so happens that you know there is an alternative explanation because you have seen the ad through to its end. However, in scientific life there isn't the luxury of having all the points of view - they are still to come. You must still acknowledge that. Therefore, any conclusions made must nod towards the contingency of knowledge, they must leave room for uncertainty, they must anticipate the reader's possible rejection; in short, they must always hedge.
To infuse your writing with tentativeness and possibility, you will need to salt and pepper your language with words from the hedging arsenal, things like 'may', 'might', 'could', 'suggest', 'indicate', 'seems possible', 'implies' 'if', 'possibly' and so on.
In the Guardian Points of View ad, instead of "The man is stealing the bag" good scientific writing would say "The man may be stealing the bag", "The man could be stealing the bag", "The evidence indicates the man is stealing the bag" etc.
Hedging makes scientific writing fuzzier, but it makes it a whole lot more precise. You are saying. 'Hey there reader, based on the info I have it is likely that this is what is going on but just want to let you know that there may be other causes so please don't kick my arse if you later find out I'm wrong.'
(Hedging also acts as rather nice padding for criticisms. It may feel weird taking down guys whose job it is to think about this sort of stuff. So, instead of coming out with a categorical 'You're wrong', the introduction of a little 'may' leaves room for future discussion and fewer enemies.)
Posted by
Will
at
00:25
0
comments
Labels: essay writing
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Question Spotting Collection
Neuropsychiatry
Language, Thought & Modularity of Mind
Language
Consciousness
Evolutionary
Human Factors
Developmental Disorders of Communication
Vision (no longer a course)
Posted by
Will
at
15:55
1 comments
Labels: question spotting
Developmental Disorders
Discuss the view that language is domain-general with reference to developmental disorders of communication.
People with learning disabilities can have problems with language. Does this provide evidence for the cognition hypothesis of language development?
Nativists, such as Pinker (1994), believe that humans have an innate predisposition for language. Is this true and why?
A child who has been reared in isolation without verbal input is discovered at the age of 7. What are the prospects for their subsequent language development?
Why are cases of temporary language deprivation of particular interest to those studying the development of language, and what do they show?
How important is early input for the development of language?
What evidence is there for a critical period of language development. What implications does this have?
You are presented with three children who have been deprived of verbal input for 3 years, 6.5 years and 14 years. Discuss how you would prioritise efforts to teach each child language. Justify your answer.
Discuss how otitis media is of interest to developmental psycholinguists.
How far does research into DS support or reject the cognition hypothesis?
What can we learn about language from studies of DS individuals?
Why might there be a language delay in sufferers of DS?
With reference to data from DS individuals, how far would defend or reject a modular view of the mind (with specific focus on language)?
SLI
How do children acquire the past tense of verbs? Discuss with reference to evidence from developmental disorders.
Do Williams Syndrome and Specific Language Impairment constitute a double dissociation? Discuss the theoretical implications of your answer.
How does SLI speak to the issue of innateness of language?
Does SLI provide evidence for a domain specific or domain general problem in language?
Is there a gene for language?
Is the acquisition of past tense in Williams syndrome any way support of Pinker’s Words and Rules account?
Brock (2007) has suggested researchers no longer use Williams syndrome as an example of the modularity of language? Why might he have said this?
How intact are the language abilities in Williams syndrome? What theoretical implications does this have?
Does Williams syndrome support the view that language abilities are innate?
Evaluate Williams syndrome in terms of connectionist modelling.
Does language development depend on cognitive development. Discuss with reference to Williams syndrome.
How central is a theory of mind impairment to the psychology of autism?
Evaluate the possible explanations for autism.
Why do individuals with autism have difficulty understanding lies, metaphors and irony?
Do autistics have a domain-specific or domain-general impairment?
Can the triad of problems in autism be explained by ‘mindblindness’?
What are the theoretical implications of output disorders? What can they tell us about the view that language is modular?
Evidence from studies on the effect of speech disorders on subsequent language ability indicate that speech production is modular. Discuss.
Posted by
Will
at
15:31
0
comments
Labels: developmental disorders, question spotting
Evolutionary Questions
GENERAL
Why do humans reproduce sexually and not asexually?
Why do humans have two genders? What implication does this have on behaviour?
How can evolutionary theory help us to understand human behaviour?
Contrast the EP and HBE approaches in the study of human behaviour and psychology, with emphasis on their strengths and limitations.
How can traits that reduce viability and survivability be favoured by evolutionary processes?
Good genes models of sexual selection can only explain why males evolve sexually dimorphic traits. Discuss.
Why is parental investment theory of such value to modern evolutionary psychology?
Males are polygamous; females are monogamous. Discuss the accuracy of this statement and explain why this might/might not be the case.
What have the solutions to the problems of mate choice produced in terms of different sexual strategies?
There is disagreement as to whether human mating is solely designed for long term mating or for short-term promiscuous mating. Why might contemporary evolutionary psychologists consider this dichotomy incomplete?
Discuss the different mating strategies available to humans and couch them in a theoretical framework.
Why might women typically dislike casual sex?
Humans are designed to operate pluralistic mating strategies. Discuss.
How does balancing genetic quality and parental quality in mate choice manifest itself in human sex differences?
What are the differences in jealousy between the sexes? Why might this be?
Are humans polyandrous?
What can the study of human faces tell us about mating strategies?
Discuss the trade-off between quality of offspring and quantity of offspring.
In what ways are mating strategies context-specific?
Account for risk proneness in males using theories of sexual selection.
In evolutionary terms, what might homicide as an extreme index of aggression and risk taking tell us?
What risk factors increase the likelihood of homicide? Justify your answer with evolutionary logic.
America and Canada both allow their citizens to have guns and yet the homicide rate in America is significantly more. One of the major differences between the two countries is the income inequality. Discuss from first biological principles why this might be the cause of this gross homicide discrepancy.
Infanticide is an evolutionary adaptation. Discuss.
Who is more likely to kill their offspring: genetic parents or stepparents? Why?
Discuss how evolutionary psychology bears upon infanticide.
How can our genetic relatedness to a person determine whether we will help them altruistically?
Social exchange reasoning is a domain-specific, cognitive adaptation that allows us to detect cheaters (Cosmides & Tooby, 2005). Discuss.
Are there modules for social exchange?
Are people altruistic to non-relatives? Why?
Are the classical theories enough to account for human altruism?
Will it be necessary to look at group selection to account for some human behaviours?
What is strong reciprocity and is it useful?
Posted by
Will
at
14:49
0
comments
Labels: evolutionary, question spotting
Reviews: LTMM
Language, Thought, Modularity of Mind
- Bloom, P. & Keil, F. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind and Language.16, 351-367 (copy here)
- Kay, P., & Regier, T. (2006). Language, Thought, and Color: Recent Developments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 51–54 (copy here) (also see the rest of Kay & Regier's recent publications)
- Boroditsky, L. (2003). Linguistic Relativity. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, (pp.917-922). London: Macmillan (copy here) (be careful though because she has been shown to be wrong about a few things; see Chen, J. -Y., [2006] and January and Kako [2006])
- Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. MIT Press Cambridge, Mass. (this chapter)
- Bates, E. (1993) Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. Technical Report 9305. Center for Research in Language, UCSD (copy here)
- Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341-423 (copy here)
Posted by
Will
at
14:25
0
comments
Reviews: Human Factors
Human Factors
- Parasuraman, R. (2003). Neuroergonomics: Research and practice. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 5-20. (copy here)
- Fundamental Human Factors Concepts, Civial Aviation Authority (copy here)
- Chalmers, P.A. (2003). The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, (5) (copy here)
- There's also a great chapter or paper from 2007 by Christopher Wickens called 'Aviation' or something like that. Even with the full force of the Google machine I can't find it again though. It's great because it covers so much of the course material with nice examples from aviation. The only snippet of original info I have from it is a quotation, "how they should be carried out, and when they should be done.” and the ref (Wickens, 2007, p.375). Good luck searching for it...
Posted by
Will
at
13:40
0
comments
Labels: human factors, reviews

