Group items tagged

Meditation has been shown to increase cognitive thinking skills, perhaps because it enhances concentration and focus.

Working on a creative outlet like art or music

try something new.

Think of your brain as a muscle like any other. Just like you have to up your reps to get the same results when you workout, you have to increase the challenge level to keep your brain working out and getting stronger.

every so often you do something the hard way. Use a map instead of a GPS when you go somewhere new, do long division with paper and pencil instead of using a calculator

Social interaction, especially of the non-virtual variety, is another way to stimulate and challenge your cognitive thinking skills

Attend inexpensive college courses online or through iTunes U.

Stephen Pinker writes that if everyone could have only one ‘tool’ for improving their thinking skills, it should be practice with scientific thinking. Understanding the scientific method—how a hypothesis is developed and tested—can help you think critically about everything you read and see, making you a more informed customer and a better critical thinker.

as you read and take in new information, you create a web of knowledge that can make it easier to remember new information and apply it to creative problem solving.

Stress can inhibit cognitive function, so relaxation techniques such as massage or meditation can help you reach your full potential of intelligence.

Caffeine boosts mental performance, but studies show that it works best when it is taken in smaller doses over a longer period of time.

The key to reducing information overload is to more efficiently find the data you want among the information that you don’t care about.

at about the blogs where one in five or one in 10 posts are relevant for you?

the real magic is in filtering.

My favorite filtering tool is Yahoo Pipes

which lets me filter an RSS feed using various criteria: URL, author, date, content and more. 

and my some blogs filtered for just the best posts using PostRank.

The best thing about PostRank is that you can get an RSS feed of just the best posts from a particular publisher, and that feed then includes the PostRank score,

you can do even more hacking on the PostRank RSS feed using Yahoo Pipes.

Another technique that helps me to consume information more efficiently is to modify the format of many of my RSS feeds

By bringing more details into the title, I can avoid spending time clicking to get more information.

The final trick is to use Web APIs to gather additional data

isten to the audio from my session

Walpole tried to illustrate the concept of serendipity with other examples, but basically failed to do it in an unequivocal way.

It was in the 1930s that Merton first came upon the concept-and-term of serendipity in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here, he discovered that the word had been coined by Walpole, and was based on the title of the fairy tale, The Three Princes of Serendip, the heroes of which “were always making discoveries by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of.”

As Rob Norton (2002) recognizes: “The first and most complete analysis of the concept of unintended consequences was done in 1936 by the American sociologist Robert K. Merton.” In this way, the combined etymological and sociological quest began that resulted in The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity.

it was to serve as a propedeutic to Merton’s seminal work – On the Shoulders of Giants, acronymised to OTSOG and published in 1965.

Merton provides interesting statistics to illustrate how quickly the word had spread since 1958. By that time, serendipity had been used in print only 135 times. But between 1958 and 2000, serendipity had appeared in the titles of 57 books. Furthermore, the word was used in newspapers 13,000 times during the 1990s and in 636,000 documents on the World Wide Web in 2001.

The Italian version was published in 2002, after Barber’s death. Two years later and a year after Merton’s death, we could welcome the appearance of the original English version.

 Now let us focus on an analysis of the content of the book and its theoretical consequences, that is, on the history of this term-and-concept and its significance to the sociology of science.

The first few chapters elucidate the origin of the word, beginning with the 1557 publication of The Three Princes of Serendip in Venice.

 In a letter to Horace Mann dated January 28, 1754, Walpole described an amazing discovery as being “of that kind which I call Serendipity.”

in 1833, Walpole’s correspondence with Horace Mann was published.

As Mario Bunge (1998: 232) remarks, “Merton, a sociologist and historian of ideas by training, is the real founding father of the sociology of knowledge as a science and a profession; his predecessors had been isolated scholars or amateurs.”

Serendipity was used in print for the first time by another writer forty-two years after the publication of Walpole’s letters.

Edward Solly had the honor

Solly defined serendipity as “a particular kind of natural cleverness”

he stressed Walpole’s implication that serendipity was a kind of innate gift or trait.

Walpole was also talking of serendipity as a kind of discovery.

The ambiguity was never overcome and serendipity still indicates both a personal attribute and an event or phenomenon

the word appeared in all the “big” and medium-sized English and American dictionaries between 1909 and 1934.

authors reveal disparities in definition

To avoid both the ambiguities of the meaning and the disappearance of one of the meanings, Piotr Zielonka and I (2003) decided to translate serendipity into Polish by using two different neologisms: “serendypizm” and “serendypicja” – to refer to the event and the personal attribute respectively.

 Even if Merton waited four decades to publish his book on serendipity, he made wide use of the concept in his theorizing.

 It is worth now turning our attention to the theoretical aspects of serendipity and examining the sociological and philosophical implications of this idea.

“Everything of importance has been said before by someone who did not discover it.”

 It is true that the American sociologist studies mainly institutions of science, not laboratory life and the products of science (e.g., theories). But he never said that sociologists cannot or should not study other aspects of science.

His attention to the concept of serendipity is the best evidence

Some scientists seem to have been aware of the fact that the elegance and parsimony prescribed for the presentation of the results of scientific work tend to falsify retrospectively the actual process by which the results were obtained” (Merton and Barber 2004: 159)

“Intuition, scriptures, chance experiences, dreams, or whatever may be the psychological source of an idea.

Colombus’ discovery of America, Fleming’s discovery of penicillin, Nobel’s discovery of dynamite, and other similar cases, prove that serendipity has always been present in research. Merton (1973: 164)

Indeed if you are clever enough to take advantage of the opportunity, you may capture a fox thanks to accidental circumstances while searching for hares.

This descriptive model has many important implications for the politics of science, considering that the administration and organization of scientific research have to deal with the balance between investments and performance. To recognize that a good number of scientific discoveries are made by accident and sagacity may be satisfactory for the historian of science, but it raises further problems for research administrators.

If this is true, it is necessary to create the environment, the social conditions for serendipity. These aspects are explored in Chapter 10 of The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity.

The solution appears to be a Golden Mean between total anarchy and authoritarianism. Too much planning in science is harmful.

Whitney supervised the evolution of the inquiry everyday but limited himself to asking: “Are you having fun today?” It was a clever way to make his presence felt, without exaggerating with pressure. The moral of the story is that you cannot plan discoveries, but you can plan work that will probably lead to discoveries:

If scientists are determined by social factors (language, conceptual frames, interests, etc.) to find certain and not other “answers,” why are they often surprised by their own observations? A rational and parsimonious explanation of this phenomenon is that the facts that we observe are not necessarily contained in the theories we already know. Our faculty of observation is partly independent from our conceptual apparatus. In this independence lies the secret of serendipity.