Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Forest plots in R


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Some notes on writing

Discussion sections.  I usually hate writing discussions.  However, I find they are extremely useful for two things.  First, for each result (affirming and disconfirming) sincerely asking oneself why the results occurred.  Then for each why question, generate explanations and consider the ones I believe the most in detail.  Try to find other evidence or ideas that relates to these explanations.  This process allows surprises to emerge, changing our questions and explanations, but also allows us to build stories around the evidence.  These stories can be used to push the theory further.

Future Directions.  Future directions should be based on understanding the processes and theory, pushing them forward, rather than trying to find new contexts.  Process rather than context driven.

For prescriptions.  The prescriptions should either refine existing proposals based on the results of the experiments (descriptive research), distinguish among existing proposals, or develop new ones.


Trust and self-serving biases

Bicchieri and Mercier

Self-serving biases and public justifications in trust games

Could be useful for trust and communication of scientific results.

Sunday, September 23, 2012


Could be a useful test

Thinking about methods

Thinking about methods:

When I do new experiments, I want to include 5-10 participants in each condition who do think-alouds, then do protocol analysis on the think-alouds.  It probably wouldn't be to hard to ask MTurk participants to record their voice as they go through the task.  Otherwise, just bring people into the lab.

Verbal Reports as Data

I also want to be sure to do normative analysis prior to descriptive work, along the lines of Anderson's rational analysis.

The Adaptive Character of Thought

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Trial Preregistration

Horton R, Smith R: Time to register randomised trials. Lancet 1999, 354:1138–1139.

Horton R, Smith R: Time to register randomised trials. The case is now unanswerable. BMJ 1999, 319:865–866.

Tonks A: Registering clinical trials. BMJ 1999, 319:1565–1568.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Visualization and Illusion of Explanatory Depth

Might be useful to take advantage of this for teaching/explaining:

"People also seem to use misleading heuristics to assess how well they understand a system. Most notably, if they can see or easily visualize several components of a system, they are more convinced they know how it works. Thus, the more easily visible are parts in a system, relative to hidden ones, the stronger the IOED (Rozenblit & Keil 2002). Visual influences of this sort may be related to the appeal of visual “mental animations” in constructing and evaluating explanations of devices (Hegarty 1992)."

From Keil, 2006; Explanation and Understanding

Explanation as a learning strategy

Tamar: This would be an easy manipulation in the sim.  Compare feedback vs. feedback and explanation.

An effective meta-cognitive strategy

Meta-analysis, Similarity, and Hierarchy

Kind of interesting.  Generalization can be based on hierarchies (categories) or similarities.  I've thought about trying to come up with some similarity metric for meta-analysis, where studies are obviously more or less similar to each other, but not categorically related, or at least the hierarchies are extremely sparse (most categories have zero instances).

Properties of inductive reasoning

The structure and function of explanation

Explanation during IHD simulation

Tamar: Fonseca and Chi: if they explain themselves during a learning task they learn better than those who think out loud, especially going beyond presented material. Might be neat for IHD sim.  Might need to come up with tests that are `far transfer'.

"Instruction based self-explanation"
 Handbook of research on learning and instruction