Journal: Reading science literature: I did a once-over browse of the TRENDS journals that have been published so far in this month, and have selected a few that I thought could be interesting. In TRENDS IMMUNOL I found an article that claims to review what’s known about the genetic implications for mechanisms of IBS. This is not something I’ll read now, but appears to be a reference for a topic that is of obvious personal interest. Then there were a couple of psychology-related reviews. First in TRENDS NEURO an article entitled “Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy”, and two in TRENDS ECOL & EVOL entitled “On evolutionary explanations of cognitive biases” and “The evolution of error”. Also in that journal, is a review article that promises to offer a better understanding of climate-change instigated plant migration, and asks the titular question, “Will plant movements keep up with climate change?”
As I look these over, I am overtly aware that I need to make a better effort in selecting what to read, especially if I spend the extra effort and time making notes on those readings. It is useful if I pause to consider these five titles. The IBS article is something I should certainly make an effort to read, since it offers information that directly relates to features of my existence and thus the most likely to (a) have some sort of practical effect (even if epistemological in nature), or (b) (possibly as a consequence) alter my world-view. Due to its density, however, for now, it remains unread, tagged “TBR”. The three psychology-linked papers offer descriptions of features of consciousness, and thus my interest in them. The features they lay claim to are: empathy, cognitive bias, and error. There is a difference between the first and other two; the latter seeks an evolutionary paradigm for their explanation. That is of particular interest, since not only might they offer a nuanced understanding of their phenomenon, but also by taking the evolutionary viewpoint, they also offer a novel mode of understanding them. If I were to rank them for reading, I would read about bias first, since it promises the most benefit. The climate-change paper was included due to my interest in climate change in general; I would like to have a better understanding of this momentous phenomenon that threatens to redefine the terms upon which human civilization rests. This paper isn’t particularly exciting, but at the very least it seems to deserve a single light reading.
Meta: Considerations about time-management: I’ll consider this in the context of what I’ve presently been doing, namely science reading. A couple of points have made themselves pertinent. (1) There is no real benefit to “preparing” reading, thus if I have readings prepared I will not gain anything by preparing more, unless perhaps I don’t like what’s available. Sometimes it might be worth considering that if I should be better off reading, and if not then perhaps I’ve done enough science reading for today. (2) Per the laws of diminishing returns and variety-in-life, it would be pertinent to set some sort of agenda regarding time-spent reading. It is difficult to immediately offer recommendations due to complexities, for instance relating to the density of the reading, or associated note-taking work. If pressed, I might say something along the lines of: aim for about 1 very dense, or 3 with light note-taking, and by the end of a day’s once-over selection of titles I should know which of those I would like to have read by tomorrow’s end.
Journal: Science browsing: Two articles of interest from NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY. One is about the success of lithium (over valproate) in reducing impulsivity in mice. The other is a meta-analysis of the ability of oxytocin to impact impression of emotions through facial recognition. The reason for interest is obvious. The first has personal links, and the second is an area of interest (viz. oxytocin).
Meta: Considerations about considerations: I don’t know that I have the confidence to justify “spending” over six hundred words writing, virtually at least, all about the process that is surrounding that writing. There needs to be more than the simple retort, namely that there is value to be found when re-reading these alleged abuses. One question that could replace the dialogue back onto the track is whether or how this writing data is to be kept as a whole and unified as its date. With that in mind, I offer a synopsis of today’s date’s data:
Synopsis: Offerings of science literature browsing, and considerations on time-management.
…Now. The former isolated and reposted would have limited value, and even less if actual notes on the literature were made – and not mere notes of intention. The latter has more lasting value, and thus it is both distressingly and aptly shorter.
