article 2
Does Thinking Fast Mean You’re Thinking Smarter?
time2
In 1884, at his specially built Anthropometric Laboratory in London, Sir Francis Galton charged visitors three pence to undergo simple tests to measure their height, weight, keenness of sight and “swiftness of blow with fist.” The laboratory, later moved to the South Kensington Museum, proved immensely popular—“its door was thronged by applicants waiting patiently for their turn,” Galton said—ultimately collecting data on some 17,000 individuals.
One measure that deeply interested Galton, who is recognized as “the father of psychometrics” for his efforts to quantify people’s mental abilities (and scorned as the founder of the eugenics movement because of his theories about inheritance), was speed. He believed that reaction time was one proxy for human intelligence. With a pendulum-based apparatus for timing a subject’s response to the sight of a disc of paper or the sound of a hammer, Galton collected reaction speeds averaging around 185 milliseconds, split seconds that would become notorious in the social sciences.
For decades other researchers pursued Galton’s basic idea—speed equals smarts. While many recent tests have found no consistent relationship, some have demonstrated a weak but unmistakable correlation between short reaction times and high scores on intelligence tests. If there is a logic to the link, it’s that the faster nerve signals travel from your eyes to the brain and to the circuits that trigger your motor neurons, the faster your brain processes information it receives, and the sharper your intellect.
Psychologist Michael Woodley of Umea University in Sweden and his colleagues had enough confidence in the link, in fact, to use more than a century of data on reaction times to compare our intellect with that of the Victorians. Their findings call into question our cherished belief that our fast-paced lives are a sign of our productivity, as well as our mental fitness. When the researchers reviewed reaction times from 14 studies conducted between the 1880s and 2004 (including Galton’s largely inconclusive data set), they found a troubling decline that, they calculated, would correspond to a loss of an average of 1.16 IQ points a decade. Doing the math, that makes us mentally inferior to our Victorian predecessors by about 13 IQ points. [381]
time3
The Victorian era was “marked by an explosion of creative genius,” Woodley and his colleagues write. There was, after all, the first world’s fair, the rise of railways, anesthetics and tennis. While environmental factors can surely boost specific skills (some researchers thank better education and nutrition for increases in IQ over the last few decades), Woodley appears to argue, from the biological perspective, our genes are making us dumber.
Critics, however, aren’t as quick to agree on our apparent downward mental trajectory. Whether or not we’re dumbing down, they argue, resurrecting old data from independent studies with different protocols is not the best way to find out. Reaction times are known to vary depending on how much a study emphasizes accuracy, whether participants practice in advance and the nature of the test signal itself. Some researchers now think that other measures of reaction times are more telling. They look at the variability in response time rather than the average, or they add decision making, so you react to a flash of light only if it is, say, red.
As a society we certainly equate speed with smarts. Think fast. Are you quick-witted? A quick study? A whiz kid? Even Merriam-Webster bluntly informs us that slowness is “the quality of lacking intelligence or quickness of mind.” But we also recognize something counterintuitive about accepting full-stop that people who react faster are smarter. That’s why, even though athletic training improves reaction time, we wouldn’t scout for the next Einstein at a basketball game. Intelligence probably has a lot to do with making fast connections, but it surely has just as much to do with making the right connections.
Even the perception of speed can be deceptive. When things come easily or quickly, when we don’t have to struggle, we tend to feel smarter, a concept termed fluency. In one study, Adam Alter and fellow psychologists at New York University asked volunteers to answer a series of questions typed in either a crisp, clear font (a fluent experience) or a slightly blurred, harder to read version (a disfluent one). The people who had to work harder ended up processing the text more deeply and responding to the questions more accurately. [383]
source:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/does-thinking-fast-mean-youre-thinking-smarter-180950180/#EWGX18xhszICcf4y.99
article 3
The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2014
From country music to herbal cocktails to horseshoe crabs to Rodin, our third annual list takes you to cultural gems worth mining
time4
1. Chautauqua, NYChautauqua, on a long, skinny lake in the southwestern corner of New York State, is the sort of bucolic place where folks like to go for slow-lane vacations, but there's much more to it than ice-cream cones and ferry rides. Something important happened here in 1874 that changed the way Americans think about leisure time—the first Chautauqua Assembly. Originally a training ground for Methodist Sunday school teachers, it went on to demonstrate the role of learning in the perpetuation of democracy. It was, President Theodore Roosevelt said, "the most American thing in America."
The leafy 750-acre lakeside campus of the Chautauqua Institution draws 8,000 people for its nine-week summer season, and thousands more attend art openings and performances of the Chautauqua Symphony Orchestra, the Opera Company and the School of Dance. Yet the classes and lectures are still the main attraction. Last summer Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discoursed on how the law is treated in opera. This summer: global hunger, the democratic future of Egypt and the filmmaker Ken Burns on American consciousness. "Our founders didn't see 'happiness' as a pursuit of material wealth in a marketplace of things," says Burns, "but a celebration of lifelong learning in a marketplace of ideas. Chautauqua is that marketplace."
A participant's summer day might start with coffee and a doughnut at Food for Thought café overlooking the pansy beds of Bestor Plaza, and then a walk out to the lake to hear "Rock of Ages" piped over the colony from Miller Bell Tower. The 10:45 lecture is a high point, held in the 4,000-seat amphitheater, an 1893 landmark outfitted in later years with a booming pipe organ. In the afternoon there's golf, swimming, a Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle book talk or a class on subjects such as the CIA, classical Greek or garden composting. Pack your slippers and take ballet. Though the gathering welcomes believers of all faiths and nonbelievers, too, credit the Methodists for the concept, which spread across the country, seeding "Daughter Chautauquas" as far afield as Pacific Grove, California. Thus "chautauqua," lowercase c, refers to any uplifting group instruction, preferably conducted under a radiant blue sky. [361]
source:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/20-best-small-towns-to-visit-in-2014-180950173/
article 4
Sugar doesn’t make kids hyper, and other parenting myths
time5
Baby shoes didn’t feature prominently into Baby V’s wardrobe for quite some time. Tiny Chuck Taylors are adorable, obviously, but I questioned their utility for a baby who didn’t use her feet except as wiggly pacifiers. So Baby V spent a lot of time barefoot — a fashion statement that I didn’t really consider until she started toddling around in public.
Well-meaning observers were quick to tell me that I needed to get that baby some nice stiff shoes. Hard soles will help her get the hang of walking and protect her delicate baby feet, I was told. But when I started looking into this advice, I actually found the opposite is true: These days, people recommend that babies learning to walk wear soft, flexible shoes, or better yet, go barefoot. The minimalist footwear allows the nascent walkers the most sensory feedback from their sweet little feet as they move across the earth.
I offer the shoe advice as just one tiny glimpse into the life of a parent of a young kid. Over the last year, I’ve come to learn that much of the advice I’ve heard, while well-intentioned, might just be wrong. Or at the very least, questionable. So here are my top five parenting myths (shoes didn’t make the cut), with a little dash of science. [233]
time6
1. Sugar makes kids hyper.
Lots of parents swear that a single hit of birthday cake holds the power to morph their well-behaved, polite youngster into a sticky hot mess that careens around a room while emitting eardrum-piercing shrieks. Anyone who has had the pleasure to attend a 5-year-old’s birthday party knows that the hypothesis sounds reasonable, except that science has found that it’s not true.
Sugar doesn’t change kids’ behavior, a double-blind research study found way back in 1994. A sugary diet didn’t affect behavior or cognitive skills, the researchers report. Sugar does change one important thing, though: parents’ expectations. After hearing that their children had just consumed a big sugar fix, parents were more likely to say their child was hyperactive, even when the big sugar fix was a placebo, another study found.
Of course, there are plenty of good reasons not to feed your kids a bunch of sugar, but fear of a little crazed sugar monster isn’t one of them.
2. Listening to Mozart makes babies smarter.
My colleague Rachel Ehrenberg busted this “Mozart Effect” myth in her 2010 feature. The original observation, that 10 minutes of classical music made college students briefly perform better on a paper-folding task, was twisted so out of context that the governor of Georgia used tax money to buy a classical music CD for every baby born in the state.
Many babies adore music, and there’s evidence that suggests music might help soothe babies. There’s also evidence that playing an instrument might be beneficial to brain development, as Ehrenberg points out. But scientists haven’t found that classical music makes your baby smarter. So play music to your child because she loves it and you love it, not because you’re looking to grub a few extra IQ points. [319]
source:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/sugar-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-kids-hyper-and-other-parenting-myths
|