Saturday, February 18, 2006

Do not think

Science 17 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5763, p. 935
DOI: 10.1126/science.311.5763.935

News of the Week

PSYCHOLOGY:
Tough Decision? Don't Sweat It

Greg Miller

Buying oven mitts and buying a car demand completely different types of decision-making. Most people would scarcely think about the mitts and agonize over the car. That's exactly the wrong way to go about it, according to a provocative new study.

On page 1005, Ap Dijksterhuis and colleagues at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands report a series of experiments with student volunteers and real-life shoppers that suggests that too much contemplation gets in the way of good decision-making--especially when the choice is complicated. Conscious deliberation is best suited for simple decisions such as choosing oven mitts, the researchers argue, whereas complex decisions like picking a car are best handled by the unconscious mind.

"They're elegant experiments with a simple design and eye-popping result," says Timothy Wilson, a psychologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. The research should "stimulate some useful new thinking" among decision researchers, says Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University.

The problem with conscious thought, Dijksterhuis contends, is that you can only think about so many things at the same time. He hypothesized that decisions that require evaluating many factors may be better handled by unconscious thought processes.

To test the idea, Dijksterhuis and colleagues asked volunteers to read brief descriptions of four hypothetical cars and pick the one they'd like to buy after mulling it over for 4 minutes. The researchers made the decision far simpler than it is in real life by limiting the descriptions to just four attributes such as good gas mileage or poor legroom. One of the cars had more plusses than the others, and most participants chose this car. But when the researchers made the decision more complex by listing 12 attributes for each car, people identified the best car only about 25% of the time--no better than chance. The real surprise came when the researchers distracted the participants with anagram puzzles for 4 minutes before asking for their choices. More than half picked the best car. The counterintuitive conclusion, Dijksterhuis says, is that complex decisions are best made without conscious attention to the problem at hand.

To test the idea in a more natural setting, the researchers visited two stores: the international furniture store IKEA and a department store called Bijenkorf. A pilot study with volunteer subjects had suggested that shoppers weigh more attributes when buying furniture than when buying kitchen accessories and other simple products commonly purchased at Bijenkorf. The researchers quizzed shoppers at the two stores about how much time they'd spent thinking about their purchases and then called them a few weeks later to gauge their satisfaction. Bijenkorf shoppers who spent more time consciously deliberating their choices were more pleased with their purchases--evidence that conscious thought is good for simple decisions, Dijksterhuis says. But at IKEA, the reverse was true: Those who reported spending less time deliberating turned out to be the happiest.

Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, says the study builds on evidence that too much reflection is detrimental in some situations. But "it adds an important insight" by identifying complexity as a key factor in determining which kind of thought process leads to the best decision. Schooler isn't ready, however, to dispense with conscious thought when it comes to complex decisions. "What I think may be really critical is to engage in [conscious] reflection but not make a decision right away," says Schooler.

Dijksterhuis agrees. When an important decision arises, he gathers the relevant facts and gives it his full attention at first. Then, he says, "I sit on things and rely on my gut."

Friday, February 17, 2006

Last word

Kinda got bored with the journals Nature and Science so looked for something more mainstream. Found NewScientist. Check out this really cool segment that they put up on the web. Link --> here. This week's question: In films, a hero often evades bullets by jumping into a river or lake. How far below the surface do they need to dive?

Thursday, February 16, 2006

JGV 2006

The glycosylation site in the envelope protein of West Nile virus (Sarafend) plays an important role in replication and maturation processes

J. Li R. Bhuvanakantham J. Howe and M.-L. Ng

Flavivirology Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, 5 Science Drive 2, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597

The complete genome of West Nile (Sarafend) virus [WN(S)V] was sequenced. Phylogenetic trees utilizing the complete genomic sequence, capsid gene, envelope gene and NS5 gene/3' untranslated region of WN(S)V classified WN(S)V as a lineage II virus. A full-length infectious clone of WN(S)V with a point mutation in the glycosylation site of the envelope protein (pWNS-S154A) was constructed. Both growth kinetics and the mode of maturation were affected by this mutation. The titre of the pWNS-S154A virus was lower than the wild-type virus. This defect was corrected by the expression of wild-type envelope protein in trans. The pWNS-S154A virus matured intracellularly instead of at the plasma membrane as shown for the parental WN(S)V.

J. Gen. Virol., Mar 2006; 87: 613 - 622.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The Singapore 2005 Yearbook

One paragraph in the new Singapore Yearbook!!! But too bad no pictures, or names. But something better than nothing. Part of one of the 5 most important achievements from the NUS community.

Monday, February 13, 2006

lots of chocolate for me to eat

Prof got back from her annual OZ trip and with her......CHOCOLATES!!!
Feast your eyes:









Sunday, February 12, 2006

Random Pop

No Recipe for Superstardom

By Mary Beckman
ScienceNOW Daily News
9 February 2006

For all those parents wondering why their teens are so devoted to scantily clad pop stars, take hope: It's not really the music that they like. They just want to fit in, according to new research. The news isn't so encouraging for aspiring artists, though. While talent might distinguish good from bad, social pressure and pure dumb luck are also big influences on which bands gain the most fame, sociologists report in the 10 February issue of Science.

Music industry professionals would dearly love to figure out what makes some bands skyrocket off the charts while equally--or more--talented musicians wallow in relative obscurity. Obviously, they haven't been able to pin it down. (Neither have book publishers or movie producers, for that matter.) Duncan Watts, a sociologist at Columbia University, and colleagues wanted to know whether peer pressure contributes to which bands go platinum. Can science do a better job of picking pop idols than the cold calculations of capitalists?

Watts started by collecting 48 songs from unknown but real bands listed on a garage band Web site (including tunes such as Beerbong's "Father to Son") and creating an experimental music site. Visitors to the site were randomly assigned to a particular Web page. On one of these, they could listen to any of the rock songs and rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, then download them for free if they liked. Some songs were downloaded much more than others, and because all the visitor's judgments were independent, the researchers defined these as good songs.

Other visitors ended up on one of eight Web pages that looked the same except for numbers next to each song listing the number of times previous visitors to that page had downloaded the song. After tabulating the whims of 14,000 visitors, the researchers learned that there was some accounting for taste: Good songs always ranked high, and bad songs ranked low. But when visitors had access to information about what other people were downloading, they were much more likely to download songs with high download rates, even if they weren't the highest quality, and pushed the highest-ranked ever closer toward superstardom. This indicates that knowing what other people thought of the music influenced what people downloaded.

Moreover, success was random. Even though the eight Web pages started with the same 48 songs, different tunes hit the top 10 list in each. The researchers could not predict which songs would reach success in one Web page by examining the results of another. Stardom is indeed a crap shoot, Watts concludes. So if the independent rankings show that there actually is some accounting for taste, why does it lose out to popularity? "There's a social function to all of us liking the same thing," he speculates. "It's not the thing that's important, but having something to share."

Calling the experiments "pathbreaking," sociologist Michael Macy of Cornell University says the findings illustrate how a small advantage can snowball, making popularity hard to predict. Economist Robert Frank, also at Cornell, says the work shows "we're all susceptible to the herd mentality."

Related site

Columbia Music Lab

Ed: Quick click many many times on Flavilab make this site the most popular one and overtake Xiaxue and mrbrown. Muahahahahahah!!!!!