After my book-question of last week, I'd now like to ask you something about scientific articles. My question is: what are the 2 or 3 scientific articles which have appeared in a peer reviewed journal you consider so important that they deserve a larger audience? It would be great if you could explain your choice too. What is it about those articles that makes them so great and important? How have they influenced your thinking and the way you approach your work? Hope to hear from you and, of course, after some time I'll share my list. 
July 1, 2009
What scientific articles deserve a larger audience?
After my book-question of last week, I'd now like to ask you something about scientific articles. My question is: what are the 2 or 3 scientific articles which have appeared in a peer reviewed journal you consider so important that they deserve a larger audience? It would be great if you could explain your choice too. What is it about those articles that makes them so great and important? How have they influenced your thinking and the way you approach your work? Hope to hear from you and, of course, after some time I'll share my list. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments, click here to add your comment:
I would so loved to participate in this list creation as well but... unfortunately, the number of "scientific articles which have appeared in a peer reviewed journal" I've read lately is very close to 0. (I don't say 0 because I might have read something by mistake)
However, research I've stumbled upon and found very very interesting includes:
Dan Ariely's work into irrational behavior
Dan Gilbert's research into affective forecasting
Ed Diener's research on subjective well being. Especially the parts related to the positive effect of a good social life and religion.
Thanks Peter!
Hopefully we'll get a nice list of great peer reviewed articles (although i realize this question is still harder than the book question and many people will not read a lot of scientific articles)
anyway, let's try and see what we'll get
Peter,
Hard to choose, since papers are not written to be read. They are constructions to be scrutinized. Ussually the important paper is an old one that opened the door a field of research, but the most intersting finds are not in that particular paper. But I'll do my best, and come back.
Peter: great choices! Love that stuff.I'l take the same papers. Everyone deserves to know about this.
(about diener. I agree and not, but that is probably because I don't use word "religion" in the same way. I'm allergic, you have to remove the peanuts first, then I can eat it. About your choice of papers: check also biswas-diener, Michael Steger, the lastest Tal Ben-Shahar on "The pursuit of perfect". There is something going on here. We have started to realize that value is, eh, valuable)
Michael,
The allergy to "religion" is curable.
And I think you should strive to cure yourself of it.
See it for what it really is. What it REALLY is! It is neither the "only way" as the gnostic-theists see it, nor the "brainwash" that a lot of the gnostic-atheists consider it.
Approach things from a more agnostic perspective and see the data, see the scientific research.
Hi Peter,
Unfortunately, it is the bi-products of religion I am "allergic" too. You have to remove the peanuts. I simply can't take the nuts, let alone nut-cases. But, of course, don't trow the baby with the nuts, I mean bathwater. A scientific approach is something very different, and in a way, This is what Dawkins suggests. B Alan Wallace is a another interesting example of a scientific approach from another surpising angle: maybe the equivalent of Galileos telescope is meditation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=983112177262602885&q=alan+wallace
And I have nothing but the deepest respect for this, Matthieu Ricard: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1424079446171087119
So. I agree about the look where I'm pointing - don't bite my finger idea, you have about religion. It is quite possible we point at the same, or similar things.
Agnostic, I can't be. I don't believe in non-knowing, which agnostiscism means, and even if not-knowing is supposed to be solution focused:) Unless non-knowing is a discipline in not being fooled be the "feeling of knowledge". That, I will fight against, and curiosity, or pleasant confusion is the way out. So I'm curious about a lot that is called "religion". I would say that I am an atheist buddhist. Does that make me religious or not?
There is something really bad about many aspects or religion, and there are some pretty cool things there too. I think science is the only way to save religion. (Odd idea, handing out "Darwin saves" pamphlets ourside the church). It's not a joke. I think science is the only way to save what is good in religion.
Best
Michael
Hi Michael, thank you. I know this question is hard and I think you're quite right with your point. So maybe we could list some door-opening articles. I think I have a few in mind precisely of that kind. Later articles indeed sometimes contain even more interesting elobarations..
Anyway, very curious what you come up with.
Michael, I happen to agree with you. Science will save religion. Or, the way I view it, if it conflicts with science, than it is part of what needs to go.
"Perfection is not when there’s no more to add, but when there’s no more to remove."
Coert, sorry for the off-topic.
Here is my list. It contains three door-opening publications.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual
test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
This article opened the door to a stream of fascinating research which prosmis to largely close the performance gaps between ethnic and gender groups.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role
of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological
Review, 100, 363-406.
This article opened a stream of research into the importance of deliberate practise which showed the very moderate role of talent and the hughe role of practise in achieving top performance.
Mueller, C. M. & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
This article (and several other articles by Carol Dweck led to insight about effective ways of complimenting: process directed compliments work better than person directed compliments.
Hi
Regarding your articles, Coert.
It occured to me that "deliberate practice" as similar to the concept of Kung-Fu. (Kungfu Wushu means something like: deliberate practice and mastery of martial arts
So coaching/therapy, as a deliberate practice would actually mean Kung-Fu-Coaching.
Is this what I shall call my new blog? "Kung-fu-coaching"
Michael
(BTW, since I'm in a kung-fu-science mode: I think that Qi could perhaps, at least partl be seen as the synchronisation, coordination, and entrainment between the bodymaps in the brain, prediction-action cycles in the brain and the mechanics of the body and the materials inside and outside: including fluids/non-newtonian fluids/solids/etc.)
Hi Michael, kung fu coaching seems like a catchy title. It might be sticky. So, from that perspective, it may be worth at try ...
By the way, talking about kung fu. Did you know that there are some interesting parallels between kung fu and SF too? Bruce Lee developed his own Kung fu style (maybe you already know this, but I'll tell it anyway for other readers) called 'Jeet Kune Do'. The principles on which this style is based are: 1. Research your own experience, 2. Absorb what is useful, 3. Reject what is useless, 4. Add what is specifically your own.
Very solution-focused don't you think?
I am not ruling out the possibility that Bruce Lee was partially influenced by Western thinking by the way because when he formulated these principles he was (in the 1970's) living in the US. The same time that SF started to develop...
Yes, it was Bruce Lee I was thinking about;)
Michael
Post a Comment