Jamie Hale

Jamie Hale

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Emotion Influences Rationality

Rationality (critical thinking) has been a popular topic of discussion for many years.  There is a large body of literature-popular and scholarly-that addresses rational thinking skills.  Rationality is often misunderstood, and the word loses its importance when it is defined ambiguously. This confusion has contributed to a popular myth - emotional thinking inhibits rationality.

Cognitive scientists recognize two types of rationality:  instrumental and epistemic.  A simple definition of rationality is behaving in the world so that you get exactly what you most want, given the resources (physical and mental) available to you. The other aspect of rationality studied by cognitive scientists is termed epistemic rationality.  This aspect of rationality concerns how well beliefs are corroborated by actual evidence. Instrumental and epistemic rationality are related.  
 
Does emotion thwart rationality?  The claim that emotion inhibits rationality is not consistent with definition of rationality in modern cognitive science.  Instrumental rationality is behavior consistent with maximizing goal attainment.  There is no specific psychological process at work here.  Emotions may enhance instrumental rationality, or they may impede it. Emotions provide an approximation of the correct response.  If more accuracy than that is required, then a more precise type of analytic cognition will be required (Stanovich, 2009)  It is possible to rely too much on the emotions.  We can base responses on an approximation when what is really needed is a more precise type of analytic thought.  More often than not, processes of emotional regulation enhance rational thinking and behavior. 
 
Neurology of decision making 
 
People with damage to an area in the prefrontal cortex, the ventromedial area, are often irrational.  This is because their processes of emotional regulation are deficient (integration of cognition and emotion). Emotion is one of many tools of rational thought.
 
An emotion may be defined as a collection of changes in the brain and other parts of the body  triggered by a dedicated brain system that responds to one’s perceptions.  (Damasio 1994, 1999, 2003, 2005).  These changes range from modification of the internal environment and viscera that may not be perceived by an observer (e.g., endocrine activity, heart rate,  micro-sweating) to changes in the musculoskeletal system that may be obvious to an observer (e.g., posture, facial expression, specific behaviors such  freezing, aggression, voice variation and so on).  Humans have different types of emotional experiences. 
  
In the past 25 years, Damasio and colleagues have studied several patients with lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal (VM) cortex who showed impairments in judgment and decision-making.  The case of Phineas Gage spearheaded the way for the idea that the frontal lobes were associated with judgments, decision-making, social interactions, and personality.  There are reports of numerous cases of people with frontal lobe damage that show defects similar to those of Phineas Gage.  (As cited from Damasio, 2005- Brickner, 1932; Welt, 1888 ). 
  
“Patients with bilateral damage to the VM prefrontal cortex develop severe impairments in personal and social decision-making” (Damasio, 2005, p.337) .  They have difficulties planning their day, as well as difficulties in various types of social activities.  They do not learn from previous mistakes as reflected by perseveration of decisions that lead to negative consequences.
 
 VM patients generally produce average scores on  general neuropsychological tests, however, they have a decreased ability to express emotion and experience feelings in appropriate situations.  To reiterate, they demonstrate abnormalities in decision-making.  Emotions are key factors involved in the interaction between environmental conditions and decision making.
 
“The process of deciding advantageously is not just logical but also emotional” (Damasio, 2005, p. 368)
 
To learn more about rationality and scientific thinking refer to – In Evidence We Trust: The Need for Science, Rationality and Statistics (Hale, 2013).

  
 

 

 
 

Monday, June 23, 2014

All-Natural Mythology


Approximately 10 years ago I wrote an article discussing misconceptions about All-Natural Food.  Since then I have written numerous articles on the topic, and answered too many questions on All-Natural topics to discuss.  This will be my last article on the topic unless new research suggests findings that are incongruent with the current evidence.  That is, numerous, reliable, valid studies demonstrate the superiority of All-Natural.  It is time for Argumentum ad Naturam to R.I.P. 

Argumentum ad Naturam is a claim that something is better because it is natural or bad because it is unnatural.

Natural Toxins

Ricin, abrin, botulinum, and strychnine—highly evolved chemical weapons used by organisms for self-defense and territorial expansion- are just a few natural, but dangerous, toxins. Cicuta (Water hemlock)- another natural plant- is considered one of North America's most toxic plants, being highly poisonous to humans.  Every plant and microbe carries a variety of more or less toxic attack chemicals, and synthetic chemicals are no more likely to be toxic than natural ones (Silver, 2006; Hale, 2013).  Of course, many unnatural things are good- computers, medicines, vehicles, and so on.  The benefits that are afforded to us due to science and technology are often very unnatural.  I bet All-Natural proponents are not willing to give up these unnatural things.   

All Natural Inconsistency

The word natural is sometimes considered synonymous with the word good.   If one believes something is better BECAUSE it is natural, in order to demonstrate logical consistency one must assume natural is better than unnatural in each case.  Natural disasters or diseases are not your friends.  Nature is indifferent to you and I.  Natural diseases are often treated with synthetic treatments (unnatural treatments).  In many contexts (too many to mention) suggesting All Natural is better is considered absurd. Consider the following- When collecting water from a stream it is recommended that the water should be purified before drinking.  This purification of the water reflects chemical processes, and the water is usually purified using some type of tablet or water purifying device.  These processes change the natural condition of the water.  


Chemical Ignorance

The chemical reality is “everything is made of chemicals.”  Often man-made chemicals are safer than the so-called natural ones.  Every living molecule inside every living organism is created through chemical reactions. And the natural chemicals contained in organically grown coffee, pepper, mushrooms, apples, celery, potatoes, nutmeg, and carrots present a greater risk of cancer to people than DDT, DDE, or Alar, three pesticides that are banned in the United States and many other countries (Silver, 2006). 

You, your pet, your family, friends and so on are a combination of chemicals.  Consider the amount of chemicals making up a 60-kg person: oxygen- 39 kg, carbon- 11kg, hydrogen- 6 kg, nitrogen- 2 kg, and calcium- 1 kg (Timberlake, 1999).   Those chemicals make up approximately 98% of your body.  Oxygen is found in water, carbohydrates, fats and proteins.  Carbon is found in carbohydrates, fats and proteins.  Hydrogen is found in water, carbohydrates, fats and proteins.  Nitrogen is found in proteins, DNA and RNA.

The chemical reality is there is an extensive, systematic regulatory process involved with determining which chemicals can be used in foods, medicines, beauty products and other substances. 

Organic food

There is overlap between organic and All- Natural food concerns.  Would you be surprised to learn- aectaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzo (a) pyrene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz (a) anthracene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, furan, furfural, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol, styrene, toluene–are natural carcinogenic and DNA–damaging chemicals present in a cup of certified organic coffee. (Gold et al., 1992)?

The Institute of Food Technologists issued a Scientific Status Summary on the organic foods industry (Winter, 2006). Below are some of the key points from the Summary:

Organic fruits and vegetables possess fewer pesticide residues and lower nitrate levels than do conventional fruits and vegetables. In some cases, organic foods may have higher levels of plant secondary metabolites; this may be beneficial with respect to suspected antioxidants such as polyphenolic compounds, but also may be of potential health concern when considering naturally occurring toxins. Some studies have suggested potential increased microbiological hazards from organic produce or animal products due to the prohibition of antimicrobial use, yet other studies have not reached the same conclusion.

While many studies demonstrate these qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that either food system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition.

This review illustrates that tradeoffs exist between organic and conventional food production. Organic fruits and vegetables rely upon far few pesticides than do conventional fruits and vegetables, which result in fewer pesticide residues, but may also stimulate the production of naturally occurring toxins if organic crops are subject to increased pest pressures from insects, weeds, or plant diseases. Because organic fruits and vegetables do not use pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, they have more biochemical energy to synthesize beneficial secondary plant metabolites such as polyphenolic antioxidants as well as naturally occurring toxins. In some cases, food animals produced organically have the potential to possess higher rates of bacterial contamination than those produced conventionally since organic production generally prohibits antibiotic use.

Conclusion 

Natural is not safer or better than unnatural.  The belief that natural is better is a faith based belief.  Faith, implies belief in absence of evidence.  

Be sure to read the Recommended Readings given below.  I will probably receive a plethora of comments regarding this article.  However, as stated in the beginning of this article I plan on dedicating minimal time to addressing this topic further.  Please do not send comments such as:  I don’t care what anyone says All-Natural is safer than synthetic-  In fact, you do care what someone says, or why else would you believe this.  You really mean you don’t care about what science says, or what people that disagree with you say.  My opinion is- this is not an article dedicated to opinions.  Science is not always right- I agree, but it doesn’t claim to be.  My family member ate some  fruit (non-organic)  and it caused extreme sickness.  Causal claims can only be derived from experimental research, that has a high degree of internal validity, and even then those claims are not absolute.  Of course, members of the general public have no idea what internal validity is, nor are they expected to.  Researchers engage in systematic, painstaking research design in an effort to establish internal validity.  In short, causal claims based on personal experience are problematic and demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding the criteria required for determining causation.  

The plethora of current scientific evidence does not indicate All-Natural is better.    

Coming Soon! All-Natural Mythology Seminar 

References available upon request

Recommended Readings

The Preference for Natural  

Knowledge and Nonsense: The Science of Nutrition and Exercise 

Organic Food: The Real Story

Why Natural Is Not Always Better

Challenging Nature

Chemical Illiteracy

Myth of Hormone-Free Meat
 


Monday, May 5, 2014

Dialogue with the "Science Goddess"


It was my pleasure to speak with Joanne Manaster (A.K.A. the "Science Goddess") about her passion- Science. 

Do you have a favorite video you have done? 

I have several that I am glad I have done, but my "Blood Cell Bakery" series is one of my favorites for the material shared and the deliciousness of the cookies! I also had great fun filming "Cats in Sinks" as an exercise in describing basic concepts that scientists use, primarily that of using models in science to get to information somewhere between theory and direct experimentation. Involving my kids and one of the family cats at the time was also enjoyable.

Why does Joanne love science?  Why should others love science?  

My site was developed in a time when there were many challenges in my life and during a period of self-examination, I basically asked myself what would NEVER change, no matter the circumstances, and that was "Joanne Loves Science", because I always had, since I was young, found myself fascinated by the wonders of the world and universe. 

As far as others loving science, it certainly would be ideal, but others might contend that people should love "accounting" or "history" or just about any other topic. Even if you are not in a place to love a particular topic, you should have enough appreciation for how the topic works to make it useful to your life. 

What are your thoughts on the new Cosmos?  How does it compare with Sagan's version?

I watched Sagan's Cosmos in high school and really enjoyed it. There was a depth to Carl Sagan that was palpable, and something about him was worthy of looking up to and emulating. He really brought something smart to TV.

I've only seen the first two episodes of the new Cosmos. It is certainly beautiful and full of information. I've heard from science teachers about the enthusiasm it is stirring up among their students, so that is a positive sign!

What is the biggest (or at least one of the biggest misconceptions) misconception about science?

The biggest misconception I encounter is that "Only smart people can do science" or "Only smart people like science". Many people who hold this perception perhaps were surrounded by others (teachers, parents, friends) who didn't like science or felt they 'weren't good at science' when they were young. Kids pick up on reticence like that, especially from their elementary school teachers, many of whom have humanities leanings. These exposures color their view of science and leave them too intimidated to even attempt to engage in science, assuming they won't understand it. Very often, it takes the influence of someone who is interested in science and passionate about it to reverse other input from a person's early years. I think that is what most science communicators are trying to do.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

I would hope that I can continue traveling the world to do more science outreach. I am beginning to turn my eye towards promoting science as a force for good, much as The Gates Foundation is doing, and may even work on a video series showcasing how science is improving the lives of so many in the world, especially in the developing world, and the special challenges faced to implement scientifically sound ideas and technologies in those areas.

What projects are you currently working on?  Are you modeling any these days?

Modeling is way in the past. It is definitely a young person's field and I don't have time amidst my job and outreach to be hunting after modeling gigs. However, if I were offered an appropriately science themed commercial or PSA, I would consider it.

In addition to my position at the University of Illinois as a faculty lecturer for the Online Master of Science Teaching Biology program for high school and middle school teachers, writing for SciAm, and sharing very cool science with the public on social media, my latest project is one called "Read Science!" where my cohost Jeff and I interview authors of popular science books. Some of our notable guests include Mary Roach, Buzz Aldrin, E.O. Wilson, Temple Grandin and Chris Hadfield. It is such a pleasure to speak to these articulate and intelligent folks who reveal a lot not only about the topic they wrote about, but how to go about communicating to the general public the concepts of science that can be tricky to grasp at times. I am thrilled they will take time out to speak to us!


To learn more about Joanee check out her site Joanne Loves Science

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

You've Been Bamboozled!

Being bamboozled is synonymous with being duped, tricked, fooled, deceived, etc.   Everyone has been bamboozled and will probably continue to be bamboozled on occasion.  There is no foolproof way to avoid it.  However, learning to think scientifically, rationally, statistically, and accepting the fact that everyone is susceptible to cognitive errors may lessen the tendency to be bamboozled.      

This is the first in a series of articles highlighting popular examples of bamboozlement.   You have been bamboozled if you believe:
That low carb diets are superior to All other diets
Low carb diet enthusiasts claim their diet is supreme to other methods. They claim their diet offers a metabolic advantage-"metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many or more calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches" (Atkins, 1992). In addition, advocates claim overproduction of insulin, stimulated by high CHO intake, is the cause of obesity. Other claims include: low carb diets result in weight loss, fat loss, improved body comp, and improved health. Simply put, low carb dieting is superior to other forms of dieting, according to many low carb advocates.

Low carb diets have been shown to improve the conditions previously mentioned, but isn’t it true other diets offer some of the same benefits? And in some cases aren't low carb diets successful due to calorie manipulation and not some metabolic advantage? Or are low carb diets simply the way to go across the board
Low carbs and weight loss

Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill et al.,1993)

In all cases, individuals on high-fat, low-CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman et al. 2001)....
Homeopathy is a real medical treatment
Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, developed homeopathy in the late eighteenth century. He did so because of his dissatisfaction with the conventional medicine of his time.

Hahnemann suggested two key principles. First, he asserted that “like cures like.” In other words, a substance that produces certain symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure similar symptoms in a sick person. Second, he claimed that very small doses of a remedy would be effective. Hahnemann diluted the remedies in a process he named potentization. He would take an original natural substance and dilute it numerous times. Between each dilution, he would shake the remedy. Shaking supposedly released the cure’s healing energy....
 
Homeopathy: Less is More

When making decisions trust intuitive thinking
Intuition has its place in the world. But believing it is a reliable cognitive device in most situations that we should trust more often than not is sure to get you into trouble. Relying more often on intuition instead of reasoning is not something that I believe is supported by our current psychological understanding and research.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Nonsense Detection Kit

The impetus for writing the Nonsense Detection Kit was previous suggestions made by Sagan (1996), Lilienfeld et al. (2012) and Shermer (2001).  The Nonsense Detection Kit is referring to nonsense in terms of “scientific nonsense”.  So, nonsense as it is referred to here refer to “nonscientific information” that is often perpetuated as scientific, when in fact it is not scientific. 

The Nonsense Detection Kit provides guidelines that can be used to separate sense from nonsense.  There is no single criterion for distinguishing sense from nonsense, but it is possible to identify indicators, or warning signs.  The more warnings signs that appear the more likely that claims are nonsense.     

Below is a brief description of indicators that should be useful when separating sense from nonsense.  These indicators should be useful when evaluating claims made by the media, on the Internet, in peer-reviewed publications, in lectures, by friends, or in everyday conversations with colleagues.   

Nonsense indicator- claims haven’t been verified by an independent source  


Nonsense perpetuators often claim special knowledge.  That is, they have made specific discoveries that only they know about. Others lack know how, or do not have the proper equipment to make the finding.  These findings are often reflected in phrases such as, “revolutionary breakthrough”, “what scientists don’t want you to know”, “what only a limited few have discovered”, and so on.  These findings are not subject to criticism or replication.  That is not how science works.  When conducting studies it is imperative that researchers operationalize (provide operational definition- precise observable operation used to manipulate or measure a variable) variables so the specifics can be criticized and replicated.  Non-scientists are not concerned with others being able to replicate their findings; because they know attempted replications will probably be unsuccessful.  If a finding cannot be replicated this is a big problem, and it is unreasonable to consider a single finding as evidence.  It is also problematic when only those making the original finding have replicated successfully.  When independent researchers using the same methods as those used in the original study are not able to replicate this is a sign that something was faulty with the original research. 

Nonsense indicator- claimant has only searched for confirmatory evidence


The confirmation bias is a cognitive error (cognitive bias) defined as tendency to seek out confirmatory evidence while rejecting or ignoring non-confirming evidence (Gilovich, 1991).  Confirmation bias is pervasive, and may be the most common cognitive bias.  Most people have a tendency to look for supporting evidence, while ignoring or not looking very hard for disconfirmatory evidence (showing a dislike for disconfirmatory evidence).  This is displayed when people cherry pick the evidence.  Of course, when you’re a lawyer this is what you need to do.  You don’t want any evidence entering into the case that may be incongruent with the evidence you present.  However, as a scientist it is important to look for disconfirming evidence.  In fact, it has been suggested that a good scientist goes out of their way to look for disconfirmatory evidence.  Why look for disconfirmatory evidence?  Because when discovering reality is the objective it is necessary to look at all the available data, not just the data supporting one’s own assertions.  Confirmation bias occurs when the only good evidence, according to the claimant, is the evidence that supports their claim.  Often, perpetuators of nonsense may not even be aware of disconfirmatory evidence.  They have no interest in even looking at it.  

A study by Frey & Stahlberg (1986) examined how people cherry-pick the evidence.  The participants took an IQ test and were given feedback indicating their IQ was either high or low.  After receiving feedback participants had a chance to read magazine articles about IQ tests.  The participants that were told they had low IQ scores spent more time looking at articles that criticized the validity of IQ tests, but those who were told they had high IQ scores spent more time looking at articles that supported the claim that IQ tests were valid measures of intelligence.  

Scientific thinking is structured to minimize confirmation bias.  The late Richard Feynman (Nobel Laureate, Physics) suggested that science is a set of processes that detects self-deception (Feynman, 1999).  That is, science makes sure we don’t fool ourselves.   

Nonsense indicator- claimant does not adhere to the standard rules of reason and research 

A large number of nonsense advocates do not even know what the standard rules of reason and research is, let alone adheres to them.  They often lack any training in research methodology, and are ignorant to the accepted rules of scholarly work (Shermer, 2001).  Consider the following example provided by Shermer (2001, p.21). 

Creationists (mainly the young-earth creationists) do not study the history of life.  In fact, they have no interest in the history of life whatsoever since they already know the history as it is laid down in the book of Genesis.  No one fossil, on one piece of biological or paleontological evidence has “evolution” written on it; instead there is convergence, they have to abandon the rules of science, which isn’t difficult for them since most of them, in fact, are not practicing scientists.  The only reason creationists read scientific journals at all is to either find flaws in the theory of evolution or to find ways to fit scientific ideas into their religious doctrines.

…………………………….. 

Other Nonsense indicators featured in the Nonsense Detection Kit: personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusion, excessive reliance on authorities, use of logical fallacies, cannot be falsified, avoidance of peer review, overreliance on anecdotes, extraordinary claims, and use of excessive “science sounding” words or concepts. 

The complete Nonsense Detection Kit is featured in the book- In Evidence We Trust: The Need for Science, Rationality and Statistics.  

References are available upon request

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Review: The SharpBrains Guide To Brain Fitness

Arguably, the brain is the most complex structure known to science. Writing a book on the brain that is accessible to the general public is a daunting task.  Writing a book that is accessible for the general public and useful for students of the brain sciences is even more challenging.  I am happy to say the task has been completed with success.  The SharpBrains Guide To Brain Fitness is that book!

What scientists are saying about the book?
“The only book that I know of that seamlessly integrates latest information about cognitive health across the lifespan.” Arthur Kramer, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois
“One of those books you cannot ignore.  Insightful, to the point, actionable.” Dr. Tobias Kiefer, Director Global Learning & Development, Booz & Company
“An essential reference on the field of the brain fitness, neuroplasticity and cognitive health.” Walter Jessen, Ph.D., founder and editor, Highlight Health   
The book contains nine chapters.  The book begins (Chapter one) with a discussion on the general framework regarding the structure and function of the brain. Moreover, chapter one provides a discussion on neuroplasticity and why it is imperative to brain fitness.  Each of the chapters includes transcripts of interviews with world renowned scientists, and a section titled chapter highlights. 
As an example of chapter highlights, the following is an excerpt from chapter 3:
“Aerobic exercise can enhance a wide variety of brain functions especially executive functions supported by the prefrontal cortex (planning, task-switching, inhibition, etc.)” – p.82
Another example of chapter highlights, taken from chapter 8:
“Physical exercise, balanced nutrition, stress management and social and cognitive engagement provide a foundation for maximizing brain health and functions.  Cross-training your brain builds on and goes beyond that foundation by enhancing targeted capacities.” -183
The book contains an Appendix with “55 IMPORTANT BRAIN FITNESS FACTS”
Brain Fitness Lists:
Top 3 Brain Facts, Top 7 Smart News Reader Facts, Top 4 Brain and Physical Exercise Facts, Top 11 Brain and Nutrition Facts, Top 8 Mental Challenge Facts, Top 6 Brain and Social Engagement Facts, Top 6 Brain and Stress Facts, and the Top 10 Brain Training Facts
Once you read this book and understand how to properly apply the information provided you will be on the path to maximizing brain health.  If you have any interest in brain fitness you will benefit from reading this book.  “Without brain health, you do not have health.” (Sandra Bond Chapman Ph.D., p. 216).  Generally, when writing a book review I include a brief list of key points.  This book has to too many key points to make the list brief. So, below I have provided links that furnish additional information about the book. 
Recommended Websites
 
The SharpBrains Guide To Brain Fitness 
 
 

Monday, January 20, 2014

The Psychology of Science

The following interview was conducted with Dr. Gregory Feist.  Dr. Feist is the founding president of the International Society for the Psychology of Science and Technology and founding editor-in-chief of Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology.  In addition, he is an Associate Professor of Psychology at San Jose State University.

Why does the psychology of science need to be classified as its own discipline?
Because psychology can shed light on the personalities, developmental histories, cognitive processes of scientific interest, talent, and creativity that other disciplines do not. History of science touches these topics sometimes, but in case studies in a historical context. Psychology is the only discipline that studies these topics empirically. 

How is the psychology of science different from the philosophy of science and the sociology of science?
Psychology is the only study of science that combines an empirical perspective with a focus on the individual. It also is the only study of science that uses the experimental methods. Also psychology uniquely focuses on psychological factors such as personality, motivation, brain activity, and development of thought. Philosophy is mostly analytical, that is non-empirical and does not test its own hypotheses the way psychology of science does. Sociology ignores or even refutes the individual in a social context and focuses on sociological structures and forces. The individual doesn't really matter.

Does the psychology of science address the psychology of rationality? That is, rationality as defined by cognitive science (instrumental and epistemic rationality).
Psychology, or more specifically cognitive psychology, very much is concerned with rational and non-rational cognitive processes, often by comparing experts to novices and seeing what distinguishes the two groups in how they identify and solve scientific problems. Cognitive scientists like Paul Thagard, Herb Simon, and Kevin Dunbar have examined rationality; but to the extent that psychology weighs in against pseudoscience, anti-science, and social constructivism, it takes a stance on rationality and the scientific method being of value. A very good cognitive science perspective on science the edited volume by Carruthers, Stich, and Siegal (2002) entitled the cognitive basis of science. 

What books do you recommend to a lay audience if they are interested in learning more about the psychology of science?
There no trade books for a wide general audience, so my 2006 book (the psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind) would be one possible lay audience book (no stats in it).

What books do you recommend to the scientist that is interested in learning more about the psychology of science?
There are many books on the topic that might be of interests to scientists;
--the handbook of the psychology of science, edited by Feist and Gorman (2013) (springer publishing)
--creativity in science, by Simonton (2004)

What is your favorite book?
I assume you mean in the psychology of science. The books that for me have a special place were the two that inspired me to become a psychologist of science during graduate school, namely the edited volume by Gholson, Shadish, Neimeyer and Houts (1989) psychology of science: contributions to metascience and Dean Simonton's (1988) scientific genius: a psychology of science.

Where do you see the discipline- the psychology of science- in five years?
I would love to say that it would have PhD programs and research centers, but I think that is overly optimistic. More realistically, I think our society--the international society for the psychology of science and technology--will continue to have it's biennial conferences and have a small but loyal core group of scholars working and identifying themselves as psychologists of science.