![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
http://www.unitseven.co.nz/
with a nod to Firefly fans (intentional? dunno): take a look at the top of the two smaller pictures. :)
with a nod to Firefly fans (intentional? dunno): take a look at the top of the two smaller pictures. :)
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/
As with a lot of factual/anecdotal about how the brain works (or doesn't), both fascinating and just a tad bit creepy. ("Creepy" in the sense that it's hard not to imagine what it's like to have kinds of brain disorders when one's reading such personal accounts of them.)
As with a lot of factual/anecdotal about how the brain works (or doesn't), both fascinating and just a tad bit creepy. ("Creepy" in the sense that it's hard not to imagine what it's like to have kinds of brain disorders when one's reading such personal accounts of them.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/
I think that the sample size is quite a bit too low to warrant much in the way of conclusions...but the investigation itself is interesting (and reminds me of a book I read recently, co-authored by Neal Stephenson (as half of "Stephen Bury"), called _Interface_).
I think that the sample size is quite a bit too low to warrant much in the way of conclusions...but the investigation itself is interesting (and reminds me of a book I read recently, co-authored by Neal Stephenson (as half of "Stephen Bury"), called _Interface_).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
Some of the more interesting bits:
* Denying an assertion makes it more likely that people will later remember that assertion as true.
* _Failing_ to deny an assertion _also_ has that effect.
* People are lousy at remembering where they learned something, and in particular the reliability of a source.
Apparently the most effective way to counter a falsehood with a truth is to assert the truth without referencing the falsehood. Which seems like cheating, especially (I would suppose) to those with scientific backgrounds.
*sigh*
Some of the more interesting bits:
* Denying an assertion makes it more likely that people will later remember that assertion as true.
* _Failing_ to deny an assertion _also_ has that effect.
* People are lousy at remembering where they learned something, and in particular the reliability of a source.
Apparently the most effective way to counter a falsehood with a truth is to assert the truth without referencing the falsehood. Which seems like cheating, especially (I would suppose) to those with scientific backgrounds.
*sigh*
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/21/
Daniel Tammet is a person that apparently possesses many of the special talents that 'idiot savants' have been observed to possess, while having few or none of the mental/social drawbacks. In particular, he is able to communicate what certain aspects of being a savant are like to him, which promises to be fascinating. This links to both his page and the 60 Minutes spot on him (with video clips, naturally).
This is at least in part a place-marker for me so that I'll remember to check this out later.
Daniel Tammet is a person that apparently possesses many of the special talents that 'idiot savants' have been observed to possess, while having few or none of the mental/social drawbacks. In particular, he is able to communicate what certain aspects of being a savant are like to him, which promises to be fascinating. This links to both his page and the 60 Minutes spot on him (with video clips, naturally).
This is at least in part a place-marker for me so that I'll remember to check this out later.
