Basically "Man, Quora sucks. Isn't there a more professional alternative?" and then they see the state of CogSci.SE, feel shunned by the name and the content and go back into isolation
@Krysta I considered that as well, but in that case I would not do them all at the same time. Probably would start with expertise, then scope, then site name.
That sounds like a good idea. lets start with question expertise indeed
But what should be discussed in each the proposal then?
I would say (1) the new idea, (2) how the new idea would tackle the summarized issues, and (3) the shortcomings of your new idea (e.g. what issues it doesn't tackle).
For expertise more specifically, ... I think the text blurbs for the FAQ etc should be included.
And the close reason (since it is quite clear A close reason will be needed) .... but depending on what expertise is defined, it might be more or less restricting.
@RobinKramer Yes, the stuff we can instantly change.
"Cognitive Sciences is a question and answer site for researchers, academics, students, and enthusiasts needing expert answers to advanced questions in the "cognitive sciences": I.e., cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about cognitive sciences."
@StevenJeuris I think that given each definition, there won't be too much discussion about the close-vote reason. It will be discussable in the comments at least.
Or, if there is a large discussion, we can start a new topic for the close vote reason, once the definition is agreed upon. But the proposal should include 1 anyways
This is a first step into an attempted reboot of this community: Rebooting Cognitive Sciences: a Suggested Approach
As messy as meta is, through an organized community effort I'm hoping to collect and structure the key issues which have been plaguing this site over the years, as well as constr...
Neural Stem Cells (NSCs) have recently attracted attention as an innovative way of the cell therapy. NSCs have a highly migratory capacity and are attracted to the site of a brain pathology. Because this property of NSCs applies to exogenously transplanted NSCs, they are said to be able to be use...
@StevenJeuris Thank you. I noticed that I did not have the time for it (have to hand in my thesis this wednesday ).
I did promote the CogSci facebook on the page of my bachelor's study (Human Movement Sciences) and we got 4 likes within the hour. Although this doesn't mean that we will get four active long-term members, it does spread the word a little bit. If you have such a group (and have facebook) could you post something on such a page? It would be greatly appreciated and will keep my motivation going for another while :)
@StevenJeuris The search for Psych.SE :D Basically, I'm here to figure out cogsci rationale behind why some people are lazy and procrastinate on college assignments due tomorrow.
I am on track sort of. In the beginning I was hoping to finish in July, but that was too ambitious with my project. So now my first version is due this Wednesday, then I'll be going on vacation, and then my supervisor is on vacation and then it's September when I hope to graduate :)
@StevenJeuris we could make it. HCI, BCI, human factors, the IO psychology. It's a way better fit here than on UX
We also call it cognitive engineering, has the word cognitive in it ;)
Cool. I like the second one, though it is still missing an answer about mental workload, which argues that we indeed work better under (a moderate amount of) stress/load
The more I look into this site (instead of finishing my assignment), I find that cosgci is similar to economics. The intricacies of the mind are hard to model with any one or two theories.
I am in university, and have been challenged in keeping on top of assignments and studying. It's tricky to juggle work coming from multiple directions, and things tend to get forgotten or pushed aside in the process. It hasn't become a problem for me yet, but I'd like to nip it in the bud before ...
Just found this definition that I like: Human Factors is actually the study (both qualitative and quantitative) of humans interacting with systems (where a system may be a piece of technology, other humans, an environment, or a combination of these), and the application of this knowledge to the subsequent design or re-design of said systems. http://www.ixda.org/node/23288
@RobinKramer If not, they should be the same thing. :) I see HCI a bit as this radical move away from cognitivism, but they overjumped it imho.
The result now is an atheoretical mess of different methods, no accumulated knowledge, and nobody seems to agree on anything, as a result there is no aim for the field at all. :)
(at least, not much more than what the name of the field implies)
@Nick Search around, I seem to recall we might have some questions on that topic already.
Either way, it is on topic, and you'd be welcome to ask. ;p
@RobinKramer Currently, if it is not related to cognition, it would be off-topic here. That leaves out quite a bit of topics, but I do feel we could have a vibrant 'sub-cogsci' pertaining to hci/hf here for sure. :)
Especially with all the latest interest in interruption studies and the likes.
@StevenJeuris Ah okay. That makes sense. Some people also think of the pure ergonomic like the height of chairs or the angle of a tool, but that's not really my cup of tea. I am interested in doing a task/risk analysis. Never worked with it
But I am also curious to your dissertation. Would like to have some insider info about the field. Maybe it could help me decide where to work ;)
@RobinKramer I can send you the current one which is in submission.
But my dissertation might not be the 'default' representation of the field at all.
I'm very much interested in the Xerox PARC-era of research. The rise of personal computers and the user interfaces that came with it.
I'm thus a bit stuck in the 80s. I kind of dislike the current state of the field with its focus on 'twitter studies', and its extremely high influence of social sciences.
haha, perfect! If only everybody preferred conciseness haha
was looking at master theses from my faculty and everyone had 80+ pages! And there I was with a 6 page proposal with Intro and Method al worked out haha.
Also, when looking at long theses I often see this insanely long related work sections.
Really ... they are boring. Why waste time on them?
Related work should be concise, refer you to the authorative sources ... well structured (provide an overview of what is related and why) .... and point out how it is related to what you do.
Nothing more nothing less.
If I'd want to read a summary of the research field, I'd rather read a book about that. :)
Not surprisingly, I wrote my RW section last, and it is probably the worst of the whole thesis, so be warned. ;p
I'll reach 35 probably, including appendices (one of which is a small validation study of an EEG system that I wanted to keep separate from the original topic)
Oeh, that would be really cool. I'll first make some adjustments before I send it. I saw some stuff that I did not like myself (it's amazing how easy it is to write badly :P)
true true. I once told my HF professor (who's american) that I consider my theses poetry. Then she just straight out laughed at me haha. Did not know professors did that haha (but, to be honest, it was quite a bad paper I handed in)
This is a first step into an attempted reboot of this community: Rebooting Cognitive Sciences: a Suggested Approach
As messy as meta is, through an organized community effort I'm hoping to collect and structure the key issues which have been plaguing this site over the years, as well as constr...
The Axon Terminal
The Axon Terminal