Last week I competed in the UQ finals for the 3-Minute Thesis. For those of you who are unaware, the 3MT is a world-wide competition that asks post-grad students to communicate the thrust of their research in 3-minutes, using a single static slide, and in a way that an intelligent but non-expert audience can understand (click here for full criteria).
Getting to this level of competition is no mean feat. I won second place at the entry level of the competition (within the School of Psychology), then won first place at the second level (Faculty of Health and Behavioral Sciences). My university takes the competition pretty seriously, offering a 5K travel grant and entry in to the Trans-Tasman competition for first place, and a 2K travel grant for second.
Despite my preparation I did not persuade the judges. I did however feel good about my speech. I performed it as well as I could have hoped, even if my experience on the stage was that some of my ‘notes’ didn’t quite resonate with the audience. That said, I definitely needed to smile more. Here I am:
Below is second place, Shaun Chen, who also won People’s Choice. Shaun was my favourite speaker of the night, and a very worthy winner. I saw him present an earlier version of his work some weeks prior, and was very impressed with the changes he made – they were well considered and impactful. Shaun had good stage-craft, and committed to his bit well.
And here is Teegan Green, the winner. I’ll be honest, I was not particularly impressed. While her topic is fairly sexy, she rushed her speech in the last minute, and employed jargon and bafflegab (“Using construal theory, developed in 2003… and later refined in a 2010…”). That said, she used her voice quite well (when unrushed) and was able to hit a lot of notes. I suspect using audience participation was also a factor in the winning decision (as no-one else did it). I was not a judge, nor do I have any insight into the decision making process of the judges that night, but I do believe there were several stronger contenders (specifically, Alyce Swinbourne).
Nonetheless, a panel of judges must have seen something I missed, and I wish Teegan the best of luck at the next level (and excellent travels!).
I have to thank a number of people who offered me incredibly helpful advice and feedback during the 3MT process. Historically, people like Will Harrison, Matt Thompson and Wen Wu (all previous 3MT winners) have shaped how I approached the competition. More recently, people like Zan Saeri, Morgan Tear, Tim Ballard, and Rachel Searston (as well as a few others) offered very constructive feedback on several iterations of the speech. Here I offer a few insights that I was given / developed over the last few years.
If you want the cliffs-notes please watch the video, but if you want the reference or the full document, please follow this link or see below:
Kapitány, R., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Adopting the ritual stance: The role of opacity and context in ritual and everyday actions. Cognition, 145, 13-29.
Since the thrust of the paper is available in at least two modalities already, I won’t spend any more words explaining what I did and what I found. Instead, I’ll simply point you to the data hosted on Open Science Framework.
I’ll make one final comment. This story hasn’t yet ended. I have a manuscript in preparation that explores the limits of the effect, and I’m currently running an experiment to validate the effect behaviourally. Slightly more far-sightedly, I’m working on elucidating (and then testing) the mechanism by which this effect is bought about. Though for that discussion you’ll have to wait until the next manuscript is published.
I will make the stimulus available in the very near future (8/9/2015).
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or criticisms here.
Wow. The finalists for the 2015 Flame Challenge have been announced, and I have the honour to count myself among them. I’m incredibly flattered and humbled to be included, and would like to thank everyone who voted (and continues to vote!).
When I first submitted I wrote a post discussing my thoughts on the 2015 competition, in which I selected my top 5 entries, and made a few bold claims. Based on the other two entries that made the final list (both from my favourites!), I have to admit: I may have been wrong. At the very least… I have changed my mind. I argued that with such a time constraint, and with a particularly lay audience, videos that included a lot of ambiguity were at a disadvantage to those that presented a clear, authoritative answer without conceding the difficulty of the field [of sleep]. Well, credit to every 11 year old who judged! Both other entries go some way to making this concession, while at the same time covering a considerable range of information. That said, this question is qualitatively different from previous years, but my concerns are somewhat diminished.
I guess I should have been more generous, though. When I gave a presentation on Colour (last year’s topic) to 11-year-olds at a local primary school, they loved it, got on board with concepts I thought were particularly difficult, and asked a few tricky questions.
Presenting to 11-year-olds on the topic of Colour. This image features a contrast illusion in which, when the full image is presented, the same object can look black under some conditions, but white under others.
So, props to both Matteo Farinella and Eric Galacia [no link available]for winning the hearts and minds of the Flame Challenge judges. Their entries can be viewed at the 2015 Flame Challenge, or in my previous post. Best of luck to both them! It’s hard for me to pick my favourite – Galacia’s humour hits the spot and his knowledge of his audience is clear, but Farinella brings a broad range of information to his audience with a unique style.
And of course, GOOD LUCK to the JUDGES who, I hope one day, will becomes scientists, too!
If you’ve found your way to my website and would like more information, you can contact me here, or follow me on twitter (@psycasm).
I recently completed an exhausting and whirlwind work tour of the United States from the 17th to the 31st of March. It began with a conference in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), was interrupted by a brief (recreational) stopover in New York, and ended with a week long stay in Austin (Texas).
The conference ran from the 19th to the 21st of March and was hosted by the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD). This was my first conference as a graduate student, and I was travelling with both my Supervisor, Mark Nielsen, and a UQ colleague, Siobhan Kennedy. The conference itself is, by reputation, a monster: Over 4000 presentation items were jammed into the bi-annual 3-day event hosted in a convention centre that occupied an entire city block. It was awesome, and exhausting, and eminently valuable. We arrived a day and a half prior to the conference to acclimatize a little (both in terms of jetlag and the temperature) before diving head-long into the conference itself. I wasn’t presenting anything, which afforded me a lot of freedom to meet others and attend other people’s events. I spent easily more than half my time in the poster sessions, talking to fellow grad students and senior academics who were addressing a range of relevant and interesting questions. I met Jöern Klinger (University of Texas at Austin) who is looking at the role of cognitive opacity in overimitation in adults and children. While his methods differ considerably from mine, I too am looking at the role cognitive opacity plays in how we interpret social events, and I found his research very exciting. I met Kirsten Lesage (University of California) who is looking at whether children believe biblical events could actually happen as a function of their religious background and prayer as a causal mechanism. While not central to my primary interests, our conversations lead to other work which did seem very relevant, and I look forward to hearing about in the future. I don’t remember how I came to meet Adam Boyette (Duke University), but he and I shared a lot of higher-level thoughts on how to conduct research on the evolution of culture, particularly in a cross-cultural context. I found his insights uniquely thought-provoking given he has a background in Anthropology (not Psychology). Naturally I met dozens of other interesting early career researchers, too many to list. Though it is worth mentioning that I happened across Professor Jacquie Woolley (University of Texas at Austin), a big name when it comes to children’s understanding of Fantasy/Reality and the Supernatural, presenting her poster. Jacquie graciously and generously offered feedback on upcoming experiment of mine involving supernatural agents. I was fortunate later to again meet her at The University of Texas, where we discussed both her work and my own, and – again, graciously – offered to provide comments on my experiment when it was completed. And thanks to a mutual friend and colleague here at UQ, I met Thalia Goldstein (Pace University) for coffee, who does super interesting work in the field children’s understanding of supernatural agents. I was also afforded the opportunity to catch up with some old friends from UQ, Cam Turner (Durham University) and Jac Davis (Cambridge), who, along with their respective colleagues, helped while away the after-hours in a strange city.
From left to right: Jac, Siobhan, Me (Rohan), Mark, Cam. Background: the masks of our vanquished academic foes.
All that said, the absolute highlight of the SRCD conference for me was Professor Tetsuro Matsuzawa’s symposia. I thought I had a fairly good forest-level-view of this kind of comparative/primatology literature – but I was wrong. Everything about Matsuzawa’s work, from his data and methods, to his illustrations and concluding thesis, were mindblowing. The video below is not the presentation he gave at SRCD, but one he gave a year earlier in India, but appears to be highly similar.
After this Siobhan and I hurried, by train, from Philly to New York. What’s there to say about New York that hasn’t been said before? It’s big. It’s big in all the ways. I won’t linger on how I spent less than 48 hours in a city that has more words written about it than any other, except to say that I loved Central Park. It’s a phenomenal civic space. It’s huge, it’s beautiful, it has parks, and fields, and playgrounds, and baseball diamonds, and lakes, and places to get lost. The world would be a richer place if each city had a resource like Central Park.
Then I left for Austin to work with Associate Professor Cristine Legare and her lab at the University of Texas at Austin. A collaboration between Cristine, Mark (my supervisor), Rachel Watson-Jones (Cristine’s post-doc), and myself had been progressing slowly over the last year or so. While I had met Cristine and her lab at SRCD, here at Austin I really spent some solid hours with them. We worked our way through some pragmatic issues related to the experiment, built stimulus, toured facilities, and talked science. I was also very lucky to give a talk to her lab and the faculty of UT. I had gone on record earlier, in conversation with Rachel, that I hoped I was shredded – that my work was dismantled bit by bit. Back home, in Queensland, it’s really just Mark and me talking about these ideas; while I appreciate Mark’s insight into this problem at all levels of analysis, here was an opportunity to talk to a large group of people who knew, collectively, far more about the topic of ritual than I could imagine. I presented two experiments currently under review, and two in preparation, and proposed how I thought it furthered our understanding of the topic. It was well received, I think; people liked the ideas, there were a few questions, and no-one had any unanticipated issues with my claims. While I really wanted to be deeply challenged (even if it was public), I suppose the second best outcome is that everyone rather liked what I had to say :p
Picture: ACTUAL SCIENCE. Sometimes in developmental psychology you need to spend a half day building a dragon a lair. That’s just how it works.
While at UT everyone in A/P Legare’s lab, including Rachel, Nicole Wen, Jenn Clegg, Justin Busch, and Alex Etz, were incredibly hospitable, welcoming, and interested in talking theory and science. And also with filling me with food. Lots of food. And I must mention Dan Conroy-Beam, who, along with his partner and small dog, hosted me for the duration of my stay. Dan offered to take me in sight unseen, and very fortuitously, we got along famously. We had a great deal in common, from music to science, and I never once lacked for something interesting to do in Austin.
Science is freaken’ awesome. My supervisor was in a position to pay for my travel (Thanks Mark!), I met a group of like-minded interested people from all over the world at a 3-day conference, where I proceeded to follow some of them home. They then took me in, gave me all the opportunities they could, and listened to my ideas. I know also, given how few people in the world are studying what I’m studying, that I will be running into these same people at conferences, disagreeing with them (and being disagreed with), and learning from them for the foreseeable future. I look forward to this, and the future of a field with these people in it.
A momento left behind in Manny Brown’s (in Philly). Please note the correct (or nearly correct) APA formatting. Name order determined scientifically (i.e., by coinflip)
As promised in the heading, here’s my entry to this year’s Flame Challenge.
As you might have guessed this year the question was ‘What is Sleep?’. This was considerably harder than last year’s challenge, “What is Colour?” (see my previous entry here), mostly because the answer and the story were considerably less clear.
Sleep is a lot of things, but the one thing everyone can agree on is that it’s necessary. We, and pretty much all other animals (well, maybe), are obligate sleepers. There are plenty of observations which show how sleep benefits us, and how we slowly deteriorate without it. But we don’t have a grand unified theory of sleep, and this is, in my opinion, the sticking point. This is the very core of the question, and this is where I took my story. Evolution gave us sleep, and we’re not totally sure why.
I drove home in my answer one of the core missions of the Flame Challenge: to inspire 11-year olds. In science we can rarely deliver straight answers. A good scientist (the best, in my opinion) speak in carefully demarcated terms. Here’s what we know, here’s what we think, here’s what I think, and here’s my speculation. I love this. I tried to couch my explanation at the first two levels of explanation, and then make a call to action. We don’t know what’s going on, want to figure it out? As far as I’m concerned science is all about untangling these problems, and I have come to realise that ‘Sleep’is a hell of a problem.
Having watched all other visual entries I note there are others with much clearer stories, much funnier narratives and devices, and a more compelling style. I like to think I’m competing with the best of them, but only time will tell. I have made one observation, however. Questions from pervious years (What is time, flame, and colour) have all had clear answers. Complicated answers, yes, but answers which the scientific community generally agrees upon. ‘Sleep’ isn’t like these previous questions, but if you didn’t know the research you could give a single answer in an authoritative way (e.g., sleep is for cellular regeneration, or, sleep is for memory consolidation) and it would look like the field is united. This is not the case, and videos which try to tackle the ambiguity of the situation are at a disadvantage to those which tell an incomplete and partial story without conceding the mixed nature of the field. This is especially true when you consider who decides what the ‘best’ entry is. I see the value in non-expert judges, but I believe the Flame Challenge, in future years, must be mindful to balance depth and ambiguity, and compelling communication. It’s an excellent initiative to ask 11-year olds to judge these questions, but their lack of expertise may – in part – lead to a loss of rigour. I have no doubt the winner will be funny and a little bit silly (and hopefully scientifically worthy), but whether the winner is rigorous and concedes that the answer is far from resolved is an open question.
With that in mind, here are my top 5 Flame Challenge entries for 2015. These videos are a lot of things, and in my opinion they do everything a good video should and strike an excellent balance in content, delivery, and style (and stand to make my efforts look clumsy).
Number 1. I sincerely hope Alie Astrocyte makes it to the finals. This video has high production values, tackles ambiguity, has a bit of humour, and is totes professional. It also concludes well with a clear take-home message. Excellent entry.
Number 2.This video is gorgeous, and the creator, Matteo Farinella is a credible artist and scientists, and I encourage you to check out his other work. This style of explanations affords Matteo a really concise way to express dense ideas. I’d be surprised if this doesn’t make it to the finals.
Number 3.Eric Galacia nails it. I really hope he makes the finals. He doesn’t shy away from digging into seriously dense stuff, but he explains it with great gags and simple analogies and explanations. Killer entry.
Number 4. Adam Heyde has done a great job too. It’s a little bit pedagogical / PBS style (but then again, so is mine). In my opinion it’s possibly a little dense on some topics and veers away from the broader, more interesting question. That said, I think he totally hits the mark for 11-year olds.
Also, points for being Australian.
Number 5. I really like this video by Claire W, too. What gets me about this entry is her enthusiasm, and how she actually gets into the [raw] data, methods, and labs. I was a bit let down that there was no take-home at the end. After all the cool information she presented I was left to integrate it all myself. Very cool.
Nielsen, M., Kapitány, R., & Elkins, R. (2014). The Perpetuation of Ritualistic Actions as Revealed by Young Children’s Transmission of Normative Behavior.Evolution and Human Behavior.
I am the second author, and it is my first publication. Most of the experimentation involved in this study was conducted by Rosie Elkins, an honours student at the time. I became involved at quite a late stage, when my supervisor, Mark Nielsen, asked me to read the manuscript (as much for practice as anything else). He and I have been discussing the nature of ritual and overimitation for some time, and I offered my thoughts on the topic. Though I did not anticipate earning myself an authorship (after all, the majority of the work had already been completed), Mark considered my contributions to be of enough merit to include me – both as a contributor on subsequent revisions, and ultimately as an author. This was quite surprising, but very satisfying.
In order to communicate what it is exactly this research is about, I have created the following video (and intend to do so for all my publications). I have tried to pitch the video at a lay level, and so I gloss over specific methodologies and the nuance of the statistical analysis.
In February this year (2014) I was approached by a man name James Marshall, a Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University (Melb.), to mentor small groups of his students on their final year research and communication project. The project was entitled ‘Wicked Scenarios’, which involved the students producing a 3 – 5 minute documentary on a complicated, intractable, and multifaceted social problem. Solutions to such ‘wicked scenarios’ are never easy, never simple, difficult to execute, and usually only partially successful. Almost always solution to such problems are associated with unintended or unforseen consequences. James approached me to offer some topics on which I could mentor his students.
I suggested two topics I felt comfortable being an expert on. The first was ‘The Nature of Maladaptive Religious Beliefs’ and the second was ‘The Social Cost of Psuedo-Science’. Both topics were adopted by groups of students.
The first group, who opted to explore the nature of maladaptive religious beliefs, consisted of three students: Jessie, Dasty, and Hailing. There details are included below, but here is their final project (which I am proud to have been a part of)
This video is a product of great dedication and many hour of hard work by Jessie, Dasty, and Hailing. My physical input was limited to email correspondence, a number of skype meetings, and reviewing draft copies of various documents. However, I really tried to shape the way the students thought about the problem. What are the questions they haven’t considered? What are the underlying assumptions in their reasoning that need to be challenged? What constitutes a ‘maladaptive’ behaviour and when does it become so?
While the approach to building a documentary was very new to me, and the kind of information the students brought to the table was different from the kind of information I’m used to (as a research psychologist), I found their final product very even-handed, just, humane, and ultimately satisfying.
Jessie is a Digital Media student at Swinburne university, minoring in Communication Design and Design Management. Prior to her studies at Swinburne, Jessie studied Fine Art at RMIT where she created a number of video and animation projects, some of which have been screened in exhibitions and festivals in Melbourne.
Dasty came to Australia when she was 15 years old to continue her high school and higher education. Her passion in animation and photography motivated her to major in Digital Media design course at Swinburne university.
Hailing from Indonesia, Helsa is a digital media/multimedia design student currently living in Melbourne, Australia. She strives to deliver an engaging storytelling in her works, especially in her fields of interest such as animation, film, and illustration.
James Marshall is a Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University (Melbourne) and Deputy Department Chair of Communication Design and Digitial Media Design
Update: I have received Editor’s Choice for my entry (and notification that it was one of the top 5 video entries).
This is my entry into The Flame Challenge (orchestrated by Alan Alda at Stony Brook University). This is an entry for the 2014 ‘Flame Challenge‘. The challenge itself is for scientists to address a ‘basic’ scientific question to an audience of 11 year olds, who later judge the best entries.
This year the topic was ‘What is Color?’
First off, having to omit the ‘u’ from colour killed me. Over and over. Now that I have that out of the way let me go into a little more depth. To my own detriment I’m the kind of person who isn’t happy unless I have a project. Just before Christmas last year I realised that my other projects were wrapping up and I needed something new to get my teeth into. Through twitter I was alerted to this year’s Flame Challenge question and was excited to find it was the kind of question a psychologist could answer.
Step One: Learn about colour. I was able to obtain an ecopy of ‘Color: An Introduction to Practice and Principles, 3rd Edition‘ (Kuehni, 2012). If you want to learn about colour, its perception, the cognitive processes involved, and develop an understanding of the history and principles from a non-physics point of view this is where you must start. It’s fantastic. It’s well written, comprehensive, and concise (despite its heft). I spent a few weeks reading and digesting this book, taking notes as I went. I used a few other resources, both print and online, but none came close to being as useful or interesting as Kuehni.
Step Two: What does an 11 year old want to know? The Flame Challenge gets its questions by asking 11 year-olds what they want to know. Based on some videos of Alan Alda explaining this year’s question it became clear that ‘What is color?’ was not a question any child really asked – they asked things like “Why is the sky blue?” and “Do I see red the same way as my friend?”. This got me thinking. 11 year olds may have a curiosity about the world but they don’t have scientific training, they don’t know how to ask good questions. “What is Colour?” reminded me of a Feynman interview (video and transcript). He was asked “What’s the feeling between two magnets?“, and ended up discussing the very nature of enquiry and the form of questions:
…And you begin to get a very interesting understanding of the world and all its complications. If you try to follow anything up, you go deeper and deeper in various directions. For example, if you go, “Why did she slip on the ice?” Well, ice is slippery. Everybody knows that, no problem. But you ask why is ice slippery? That’s kinda curious. Ice is extremely slippery… You could either say, “I’m satisfied that you’ve answered me. Ice is slippery; that explains it,” or you could go on and say, “Why is ice slippery?” and then you’re involved with something, because there aren’t many things as slippery as ice. It’s very hard to get greasy stuff, but that’s sort of wet and slimy. But a solid that’s so slippery? Because it is, in the case of ice, when you stand on it (they say) momentarily the pressure melts the ice a little bit so you get a sort of instantaneous water surface on which you’re slipping. Why on ice and not on other things? Because water expands when it freezes, so the pressure tries to undo the expansion and melts it. It’s capable of melting, but other substances get cracked when they’re freezing, and when you push them they’re satisfied to be solid…
… and so on.
“What is Color?” is much the same. At what level of analysis would an 11 year old be most interested? I decided that somewhere between Electromagnatic Radiation and Qualia. In practical terms (and constrained by the 6-minute time limit) that story begins with the sun, moves through transduction, and ends with ‘awareness’. At every level we can ask a Feynman ‘Why’ (or in this case, a ‘what’): ‘What is radiation/transduction/awareness?‘. I thought it best to avoid details, and camouflage the specifics with a story. Thus, I asked “Would the sky still be blue if no-one could see or think about it?“. In so doing I was able to answer that question, “no“, and explain it very simply, “Colour is radiation we see“.
Step Three: Make a video. I’ve got a bit of experience communicating, as well as experience using audio equipment and video editing software (albeit not much). I was aware of creative-commons footage. This footage is basically free so long as you credit the authors in the manner they desire; you can get a ton of it from Vimeo, but there are other sources also. From this point it was simply a matter of spending hours and hours taking key words and concepts from my script and trying to find appropriate footage. I found a bit of free music here, and threw it all together in iMovie (which totally sucks – don’t use it if you can avoid it).
The rest is history. Like a good tyrant, however, I want to revise it. There’s a few things, seen with fresh eyes, that I’d like to change. But that is the nature of history I suppose.
The following list are ideas I had to drop, for the sake of brevity and conciseness, but which I’d explore further if given the opportunity:
– An Evolutionary History of Colour. When was light first detected and what was it possibly like? When could life discriminate between wavelengths, and which ones. How did colour – in the abstract sense – begin to be understood over the last 3.6 billion years? Which of our hominid ancestors saw like us; which didn’t? What else sees colour as we do, and what doesn’t? From humble beginnings to the incomprehensible present.
– The Colour Space in Mind. On what dimensions do we view colour? Can we map it into physical dimensions in a comprehendible way (answer: no, not really). Historically, how have we tried to do this? Who were the major players and how successful were they?
– How does Science Examine Colour. How do we understand colour as a sensation – how do we test its boundaries? This is not a question of neuroscience or qualia, but a question of experimental methods, optical illusions, and a history of hypotheses.
– How Colour Defies Us. How do we understand colour, despite the contrary information. For example, a red ball under a green light looks red, but if you remove environmental cues, it is no longer red but green. How do dimensions of colour, like its brightness, influence other factors.
I believe results are announced in June… so here’s hoping I get to put up a new post announcing a trip to New York to the World Science Festival.
In execution this experiment worked perfectly. However, the data were not supportive of the hypothesis. What’s a scientist to do?
I’ve had a lot of interesting feedback from my peers, colleagues, and facebook friends on this video. First off, almost everyone agrees this is a positive thing. Making science open (here’s my data, scales, and syntax), as well as making science accessible to those who are interested is a good thing. A thing we ought to aspire to. Obviously this is a thing I believe in. Strongly.
But I also received a certain degree of criticism. I’ll address the most common points below.
Who’s the video for?
On on a superficial level this is a question that makes a lot of sense. Who do I want to reach? Who am I communicating to? But I think this is missing the point. I’m not necessarily trying to reach anyone with this video*, I’m not inviting people in to the party, I’m merely leaving the door open. Some people suggested it’s too long for the layperson, OR, doesn’t have enough detail for the scientist. I’m not too concerned by either. I’m assuming anyone who watches this video is already interested in the topic and is willing to invest the 8 minutes it takes to watch it. Scientists will get enough detail (and have access to all the raw and cleaned material), and the non-scientist gets a full, unpolished run-down of the experiment. Naturally, future videos will become increasingly slick and practiced, but this is as it is, without omission.
The data do not support the hypothesis. This is true. As explained in the video, however, I suggest the experiment was a poor test of the hypothesis. It didn’t ‘tap’ the thing I was hoping to investigate. I fully accept that there is a possibility that I am wrong, and that this is a futile line of research. I am not convinced that this is the case, just yet. Future research is to be done.
But this is how science typically moves forward. Scientist believe a thing (based on research) and pursue it. Sometimes they’re wrong and they waste a lot of time pursuing it before finally letting their ideas die. Sometimes they’re right, and their first study is wrong. Sometimes they’re wrong and their first study incorrectly yields positive results. (And sometimes they’re right and nail it first time!). This is of the category ‘We-might-be-right-but-it-was-a-bad-study’. This was – to the best of my knowledge – a novel investigation of self-deception within this domain. More importantly, this was a description of the study and the process of the study. We acknowledge we could be wrong; but we’re currently assuming we’re right and trying our hardest to shoot the idea down. So far the scores is 0 – 1 against us. We’ll try again, zoom in on the interesting parts and report back. There’s no special pleading – this is how most research progresses.
My name is Rohan Kapitany. I am a PhD Provisional Candidate studying Psychology at The University of Queensland.
What Make Ideas Worth Believing?
My PhD is broadly focused on understanding the factors which help ideas spread. I am interested in which social, cognitive and biological mechanisms allow ideas to be refined, propagated, and integrated within culture. I hope to address both the proximal causes (what immediate casual factors influence the spread of an idea) and ultimate causes (what in our evolutionary history facilitated the spread of ideas) of this question. As my research progresses I will narrow the scope of enquiry and address a more limited and answerable subset of these questions.Current research is aimed at determining at what point in development children begin to understand the quality and implications of ideas as adults do, and at what point in our biological and cultural history such factors gained traction. My research will examine religious-like thought and ritual, but the principles underlying the uptake and spread of cultural elements ought to be universally applicable.
Science for All!
I believe strongly in open science and in science being communicated well. To that end I will list all published and unpublished data here, and make available all my data. I also hope to make videos explaining all my research (don’t worry, they’ll get better). Finally, I aim to communicate science – specifically psychological science – as clearly as possible. Check out the Science Communication section of this website – it includes past, present (and hopefully future) projects.
Please feel free to contact me regarding my research, media, data, or research interests. Click here.