I’m integrating a file-sharing capability into this site. For it and posts, I would like to implement a hierarchy of topical categories. A structured set of terms (taxonomy) will make it easier for us to categorize new content and find existing content. If you are aware of existing taxonomies we might borrow from, please provide links in comments to this post. I propose we start with a relatively high-level taxonomy of categories (limited to two or three levels) and use less-formal tags for highly-specific and infrequently used labels. If we need to amend or grow the taxonomy of categories later, we can easily do so.
If you were not aware, web content platforms like the one (WordPress) this site is built on use two methods for labeling and organizing content items.
The more formal method is a hierarchy of pre-determined categories. When creating posts or uploading files or media, authors select relevant categories from a list. A category hierarchy might include the following, for example:
- genetic engineering
- group selection
- natural selection
The content author could choose any or all of the relevant categories but usually would select at least the lowest (most embedded) category from the hierarchy. Once content is associated with a category, it’s possible for search tools and grouped, sorted, and filtered views to improve the findability of topical content.
The informal method is tagging (also called folksonomy). Authors associate terms with their content in a more ad hoc way. Tags usually display under a web article’s title and in interactive tag clouds like the one on the right side of our site’s pages.
Some taxonomies we could consider:
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Below is a summary of recent topic suggestions to consider for the next meeting.
Paul – We should revisit, at some point, dfn’s of consciousness, components of consciousness, and what human style consciousness is for, i.e., its evolutionary adaptive function(s).
Edward – Since human development is a key to understanding higher consciousness, I suggest a new topic for discussion: developmental cognitive neuroscience.
Nomalanga – Media effects. Brain behavior and Media. How do media selections and information processing shape our perceptions and responses to news?
Michael – The concept of memes – a term of course first articulated by Dawkins in the Selfish Gene in 1976 just as an analogy for how genes work and are spread.
Brent – Promoting brain health from a neuroscience perspective. Degrading brain health is a perpetually increasing problem. Dementia projections (and the associated costs) for US citizens are ominous at best. Neuroscientist Lisa Genova stated to a Ted Talk audience: imagine we are all 85, look at two people in the audience one will have alzheimers…and you will be a care giver. Frightening prediction.
I regret that I’ll probably miss next two meetings. I’ll be in Costa Rica July, and Shrewsbury, UK, August. Best to All, Paul
Another study adds weight to findings that mental health declines as Facebook usage increases. The effect is thought mainly to result from involuntary judgments we make about ourselves in comparison with others whose social media presence is carefully curated and filtered to paint unrealistically positive pictures of their lives. Another possible contributing factor is that online usage (averages over one hour per day for Facebook users) detracts from time available for in-person socializing, which is known to contribute mental health.
There will be no meeting in December, due to low availability of members.
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 17 January 2017. Three spots are left. You can sign up (RSVP “Yes”) at the following page:
A NY Times article reports on research conducted by Keith Stanovich and others that (a) finds intelligence and rationality are different qualities, (b) they are only weakly positively correlated, and (c) one’s rationality can be improved through targeted training but not one’s intelligence. Moreover, Stanovich proposed a rationality quotient (RQ) and that standardized tests be devised to assess one’s RQ.
Read more: Clever Fools: Why a High IQ Doesn’t Mean You’re Smart
Ten energetic folks met last night at Albuquerque’s North Domingo Baca Multigenerational Center to discuss the malleability of memory and its implications. Research findings increasingly indicate that our memories are not explicit copies of the events they represent.
Research increasingly indicates that our memories are not explicit, unchanging recordings. Sensory-perceptual processes filter what is initially stored. Each time you recall a memory, it is modified. Counterintuitively, frequently recalled memories—especially those we compare with others’ tellings and media representations—change over time.
Resources we had reviewed before the discussion included the following:
The following questions guided our discussion:
- Are there memorable events you and others experienced when you were young that the others remember significantly differently than you do? Is your memory more accurate (less biased or altered) than theirs?
- Have you ever encountered evidence that one of your long-held memories was inaccurate? Can you share an example?
- What, if any, evolutionary value might there be to having a highly malleable memory?
- If illusory memories are so common, what implications might there be for
– criminal justice, eye-witness testimonies, etc.?
– personal relationships?
– self-perception (of current vs remembered selves, for example)
Welcome to the community site of the Albuquerque Brain, Mind, Consciousness and Artificial Intelligence (BMCAI) discussion group!