Why teaching cursive still matters

Standard

Daniel Montano:

I think researchers interested in embodied cognition, musculature-based memory, and other topics could contribute to the advocacy of handwriting, hand note-taking.

Originally posted on Library musings:

The gig is up — children should still be learning cursive in schools. According to an article written last June in the New York Times by Maria Konnikova, children that formed letters in their own handwriting vs. typing or tracing them show connections to broader educational development. In other words, “it’s not just what we write that matters — but how.” Studies are showing that children who write by hand learn to read faster, show an increased vocabulary, and retain what they learn better. “There is a core recognition of the gesture in the written word, a sort of recognition by mental simulation in your brain,” says Stanislas Dehaene, a psychologist at the Collège de France in Paris. To me, it’s kind of like a body memory when you train for something over and over; in a stressful situation, your body knows how to react faster than your…

View original 343 more words

Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking

Standard

From National Public Radio Blogs:

“We all know a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Research increasingly supports a related proposition — that easy knowledge can be a dangerous thing. More specifically, having knowledge at our fingertips, as smartphones and intelligent search algorithms increasingly allow, might have negative consequences for human cognition.

This idea isn’t a new one, but it has received new life this week as media sources have turned to a paper by psychologists at the University of Waterloo provocatively titled, “The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking.”

Read more at NPR Blogs: “Easy Knowledge Can Be A Dangerous Thing (Maybe)” by Tania Lombrozo

The ethical blindness of algorithms

Featured Image -- 3993
Standard

Daniel Montano:

Glad to see people asking good questions and taking a critical look at data, its gathering process, its analysis and the way it’s correlated loosely to arrive at theoretical conclusions that are often treated as facts.

Originally posted on Quartz:

Can an algorithm be racist? It’s a question that should be of concern for all data-driven organizations.

From analytics that help law enforcement predict future crimes, to retailers assessing the likelihood of female customers being pregnant (in the case of Target, without their knowledge), the increasing scale of computer cognizance is raising difficult ethical questions for business.

Witness the controversy that the crime app SketchFactor caused in launching its crowdsourced service in the US. The app works by allowing users to report, in real time, how subjectively “sketchy” a particular neighborhood may be, enabling an algorithm to determine the apparent safety of the area for pedestrians. Inevitably, the app has drawn accusations of racism, with some commentators labeling it a service that literally color-codes neighborhoods.

Of course, marketers have always targeted racially defined customer-bases—typically to adjust price ranges along socio-economic lines. But with ever more data becoming available, the risk…

View original 698 more words

Critical thinking

Standard

Daniel Montano:

I’m glad someone else is noticing this troubling and risky trend in our society.

Originally posted on Q Logic:

There’s simply nothing you should just accept at face value. You should always do your own homework.

Critical thinkers rarely take something they read or hear as fact. Critical thinkers will seek out other perspectives. The reflex action of a critical thinker is to assume there’s another side to whatever story they’re told.

What alarms me is how often you see people take a premise at face value with no questions.

There was a time in the late 60s and early 70s when the phrase “question authority” was a well-known and popular refrain.

Fast forward to 2015, and we’re getting emails from the current administration’s “Truth Team.” (The official organization is the “Organizing for Action Truth Team.”)

As a marketer, I would have cautioned any politician from having a self-described “truth team.” It just screams 1984 and Russian and German propaganda, to me.

But what really rubs me the wrong way about…

View original 112 more words

We will usually pick anecdotal stories and narrative over data and evidence

Standard

Daniel Montano:

We should be aware of this cognitive bias and make sure to review storytelling with the same rigor as data and evidence.

Originally posted on Facts about Religion:

storytelling-bainLet me tell you a story. Today during lunch I did what I always do, I read an article by people who are supposed to be much smarter than I am. Surprisingly what I read explained my interactions with other people, especially when it comes to their disdain for data and preference for personal stories.

As I processed this article, I began to realize that there is a biological reason for why we prefer to believe the anecdotes our friends tell rather than cold, hard, facts. It turns out we humans are hardwired to prefer narrative.

Apparently a bunch of really smart scientist-people at Emory University did some tests and they discovered that hearing a story releases a chemical called oxytocin (don’t get excited, that’s different than oxycodone) and as it happens, this is the chemical released by breastfeeding mothers that illicits bonding.

“Paul Zak, director of the Center…

View original 171 more words

Structure in Threes: Business Design and Reengineering

Standard

Daniel Montano:

From the blog: Brian’s Blog

Originally posted on Brian's Blog:

The last round of brainstorming tightened up my thinking around the methodology.  Like all engineering endeavors I needed to identify the beginning point for creating the enterprise.  Most of the business model approaches are just that.  They document the existing and while that is necessary, is that sufficient?  When I’ve attended workshops focused on business models, often it ends up around optimization rather than innovation.  The strategy and planning methodology I devised and fielded for other corporations was purposely limited, because at that time these corporation’s business models were deemed untouchable.  Even though several people could see its useful life was coming to an end.  Secondly, reengineering a business model it difficult for most in management positions…their mentality is around optimizing the status quo.  Not a blame, it how they were successful and how they are managed in most corporations today.

The brainstorm I had the other day was along the lines I…

View original 187 more words