You Really Don’t Know Who People Are Until You Make A Vicious Snap Judgment About Them

Eric DeKoenig writes: People can be tricky to read sometimes. Often, just when you think you’ve got someone all figured out, they throw you a curveball and you realize you don’t have a clue. I guess human nature is complex like that. So what are we to do? Well, if there’s one thing I’ve discovered over the years, it’s that you can never really know a person until you make a vicious snap judgment about their character.

“It’s only after you impulsively assign a fixed set of abhorrent traits to someone that you begin to understand who they truly are deep down.”

Believe me, getting to really know someone takes work. You have to make an effort to focus on one superficial aspect of their personality and then judge them for it—quickly and harshly. In an ideal situation, this should happen within the first few minutes of meeting a person and, if possible, before they even open their mouth. But once you do that, you’ll gain a much fuller picture of their psyche, their hopes, their day-to-day life.

“Simply put, you just don’t know what someone’s story is until you hastily make one up for them and dismiss anything they might do or say to contradict your initial impression.”

I myself can glance at almost anyone for a split second, make a brutal blanket assumption about them, and suddenly know everything that makes that person tick. Maybe it’s the sort of clothes they’re wearing, their body language, or the look on their face, but from that moment on, I just get them, you know? Their whole life makes sense.

I’ve actually become pretty good at gaining insight into people; in fact, I do it all the time. I’ll get introduced to someone at a dinner party, silently brand them as a trust-fund baby or an aging frat boy or a lazy burnout, and then, just like that, I’m able to understand where they’re coming from. Read the rest of this entry »

How Computer-Generated Fake Papers are Flooding Academia

'I've written five PhDs on Heidegger just this afternoon. What next?' Photograph: Blutgruppe

‘I’ve written five PhDs on Heidegger just this afternoon. What next?’ Photograph: Blutgruppe

More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences

 writes:  Like all the best hoaxes, there was a serious point to be made. Three MIT graduate students wanted to expose how dodgy scientific conferences pestered researchers for papers, and accepted any old rubbish sent in, knowing that academics would stump up the hefty, till-ringing registration fees.

It took only a handful of days. The students wrote a simple computer program that churned out gobbledegook and presented it as an academic paper. They put their names on one of the papers, sent it to a conference, and promptly had it accepted. The sting, in 2005, revealed a farce that lay at the heart of science.

But this is the hoax that keeps on giving. The creators of the automatic nonsense generator, Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, have made theSCIgen program free to download. And scientists have been using it in their droves. This week, Nature reported, French researcher Cyril Labbé revealed that 16 gobbledegook papers created by SCIgen had been used by German academic publisher Springer. More than 100 more fake SCIgen papers were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both organisations have now taken steps to remove the papers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Definitely–too good not to share. Good find!

A new gift idea for your loved ones: Graduate School Barbie (TM)


Graduate School Barbie comes in two forms: Delusional Master’s Barbie (TM) and Ph.D. Masochist Barbie (TM).

Is the Scientific Process Broken?


Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself

A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.

Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

Read the rest of this entry »