Metacognition Week 3 - Reflection

What I found particularly interesting this week was learning about all of the experimental techniques in more detail. I find myself frequently wondering how psychologists validate their models. As I worked my way through the text, I found that the objections I had were frequently answered by the section which followed. One question I have is how the FOK tests are validated/calibrated. It seems like they are ripe for distortion. I've participated in a few psych experiments at this point, or taken my children to participate in them, and one thing I find myself dialing in to is trying to get some sense of consistency or pattern from the test itself, so that I can make better predictions. All of the experimenter's assumptions are on display in a test like this -- familarity with some of the old-school pictures used for phonics instruction, like putting an 'igloo' for 'i'. Or that they still call native Alaskan and Canadian peoples 'Eskimos' instead of Inuit, Inupiat, Yupik, Aleut, etc. Or that they know to call a 'potbelly stove' a stove. Alternately, what if the answer is made obvious by the alternatives presented, or what if the answers are all so clever and close that they introduce new possibilities to the mind of the subject? For example, if we ask, 'Who was the first person to orbit the moon?', and the answers were ridiculous ("Joe Banana, Suzy Spaceship"), surely everyone would get it right -- and if the test was composed primarily of ludicrous answers, eventually their FOK would climb rather high in response. If the experimenters then switched to very difficult items, the FOK would suddenly appear overconfident (and so on). If the answers presented were all very plausible and some introduced new interpretations (such as including Russian cosmonauts as well as Americans, perhaps introducing confusion to anyone who had been thinking about the topic from an Americans-only point of view), or if each question was a close variation of the one that preceded it (for example, if there's a series of questions about capital cities, a person might score more highly on later ones because they are increasingly dialed in and focused on that type of knowledge). Developing a set of tests that can be validated and then used longitudinally must be incredibly challenging, but I suspect there must be ways to analyze the test itself. I'd like to learn more about how this is done. I don't feel as clear about what exactly a FOK is, biochemically or neurologically. If it's not in the temporal lobe, what does that mean? It seems like a kind of inter-sensory perception, give its location in the brain. I'd like to learn even more neuroscience to combine with the psychology studies we're doing. The Epistemology reading -- as we discussed in class, this was a challenging read. I tried to plow through it a few times with limited success. I'm going to interpret it as being mostly an exercise and circle back to it if it turns out we needed to extract more meaning from it. It's interesting to me that although on my first reading I identified the issue as being a lack of organization/structured ontology/connective tissue in the article, it actually has a decent outline and a readable introduction. But the first paragraph immediately establishes four abstractions/abbreviations (S, p, TK and NTK). The next paragraph adds one more abstraction to the mix (JTB). In addition to requiring constant translation from the reader, they're not necessary at all for what the author wants to say. For example, the sentence: "Finally, S's being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck." could just as easily be written: "Finally, a person's correct belief in a proposition might merely be a matter of luck." -- but it would be more clear if written like this: "Correct beliefs might be held only due to luck." or "A person may hold correct beliefs only due to luck." if the passive voice is unwanted. The writing is not rich and flowery, but it seems to manage to be flabby anyway because it shortchanges clarity. A mix of diagrams and clearer writing would have helped this author immensely. The mind tools section this week was on information skills, covering note-taking and reading techniques. Mind mapping is a technique that I have used before, but not as a way to take notes in a text -- usually I've used it as a way to convey information when one of the most important things I want to convey is the relationship between the pieces (this begets this, or this is composed of this), or to explore the territory. I've done a lot of group facilitation/whiteboarding where this style of note-taking was part of the picture. But I don't find it as useful in reference notes -- I'd rather work with those in a grid or a paragraph. Right now my approach is to read material all the way through, then go back a second time and take notes, answer the questions, do a reflection (etc.). I think after those steps, I could probably make a fairly effective mind map, but I'm not sure I could do it as part of a first read. When doing research, I can see using it as a technique to give myself broad reminders about certain relationships and links between things. I suspect this is a technique that works differently for different brains. The speed-reading/rapid absorbtion techniques sections were all interesting. I think that SQ3R is probably what I'm already doing, but perhaps being more conscious of this technique will help me to utilize it more fully. I definitely want to practice the skills in this area. The learning styles summary is very useful, although I find myself either in the middle of the road or alternating in my preferences depending on the material. I also tend to switch up my style in response to my environment -- with a bunch of reflective thinkers, I'm going to feel active -- and mixed among global thinkers, I'm going to feel procedural. I don't see a section for contrarians! So, for example, when I learn math, I need to hear a problem explained, and I really have to hear the theory, but I also want to work through examples. In some contexts it can be an advantage to be a switchup learner, but it also encourages me to be somewhat demanding (and contrarian) in learning situations. I want a full rainbow blast of information!