I don't want to do thing.

I've always written everything by hand before typing. Staring at a blank word document doesn't inspire the words to come.

But a blank paper and a blue pen and the words come at a steady pace.

aaaand here's a link to the paper :)

There's a pretty damning commentary on this paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1517235/full

In short:

• they didn't actually measure changes in learning; they measured theta waves which don't have a clear link to learning
• They evaluated adults, not children
• They didn't have participants do any encoding activities; they were mindlessly typing the same thing over and over
• They didn't allow participants to actually type; they had them 'type' with one finger of their right hand, when there's plenty of evidence that using both hands while encoding information leads to increased brain activity.
• They couldn't see what they were typing (no visual feedback), so any error-correction processes the brain would usually run were impaired
• The handwriting part of the experiment was completely normal and representative of using handwriting to record information.
• They didn't actually report the raw data or conduct any statistical analysis for the two parts of the experiment individually; only the differences between the two groups.

Honestly, that is....shockingly bad. Like I'm surprised this passed peer review and it makes me wonder about the journal. Of course educational science is a joke of a field anyway with little scientific rigour over the last 50 years, so maybe that's not surprising. But this sure as hell sounds like this researcher walked into this project already convinced that handwriting is better for children's learning than typing and screens, and then rigged an experiment to support that bias. If I were the editor I would retract the paper, not just include a link to the commentary.

For each trial, participants were instructed to either (a) write in cursive with their right hand the presented word with a digital pen directly on the screen, or (b) type the presented word using the right index finger on the keyboard. Before each trial, the instruction write or type appeared before one of the target words appeared, and the participants were given 25 s to either write by hand or type the word multiple times, separated by a space. EEG data were recorded only during the first 5 s of each trial. To prevent artifacts produced by head and eye movements caused by shifting gaze between the screen and the keyboard, typed words did not appear on the screen while the participant was typewriting.

lmao wow

Why are people not reading these parts. Like they're reblogging posts that have criticism of a paper and saying "This is why I always use notebooks!" Trust me, if you can't even bother to fully read something you're gonna say you agree with, be it an entire paper or a freaking tumblr post, you are not smarter than anyone just because you use pen and paper.

I'm not even against the idea that writing is better for your brain than typing, but this experiment is objectively bad and does not prove anything.

Beating a dead horse reblogging this post a third time but generally speaking anytime you see a headline about a study proclaiming that the good ol' traditional way of doing [thing] is better for your brain and makes you smarter and cooler and doing it with newer technological tools doesn't Activate Your Brain™ as much and makes you dumber and lazier that should start ringing your alarm bells to go check if there's Some Bullshit going on with the methodological design, because this such a common type of "someone clearly went into this with their mind already made up about the results they wanted and deliberately designed the study to support those preconceptions" study.

Like it's something you should always be doing, but especially for stuff like this, and *especially* if the conclussion just so happens to play nicely into the confirmation bias that old method = more effort = good.

ALT

pov you're posting to spacetumblr after getting dm'd instructions on what to do during the rescue you didn't know was coming (1: hang on to me. 2: nothing else) purely because the uptight sanctmoon wiki mod has noticed that you're not posting new episode summary articles anymore.

still figuring out designs (farthest right is my favorite) but yea i’m so normal about this series

contemplating secunit respiration/ circulation considering it mentions that it just doesn't work the way humans do and I am a specbio nerd.

I think it works more like insect/ fish respiration does, with spiracles lining the rib casing to send O2/CO2 in and out of the air sacs where gills allow gas exchange. Therefore, it technically does have one lung with one airway that connects to its mouth if it ever wanted to eat something?? the air sacs are technically sectioned off from the rest of the lung cavity so it could work? but would be kinda yucky.

Anyways. I think it would make sense if the lungs were unable to expand that it uses the entire thorax for space and the heart is located below the diaphragm and closer to the battery that is situated where a digestive tract would be in a human. So if it had a heartbeat it would be closer to the stomach and not the leftside chest lolol. The heart is also closer to the center because there's nothing shunting it to the side (such as an esophagus or trachea).

While it can inhale and exhale actively, it takes more effort than it really needs. Secunits end up being more soft-spoken than one would think because they don't have much breath support for their external voices. It's not like they were really designed to talk much, so I think companies actually consider it a bonus. On the feed they can sound however they want, though. They also can't really laugh for the same reason, unfortunately.

i think if your kid is precociously good at an adult hobby like cooking or sewing or whatever and you try to monetize it by turning them into a three-year-old influencer you should be locked in a funhouse until you change your mind

I'm against capital punishment even in my tumblr posts #consistency

I've always written everything by hand before typing. Staring at a blank word document doesn't inspire the words to come.

But a blank paper and a blue pen and the words come at a steady pace.

aaaand here's a link to the paper :)

There's a pretty damning commentary on this paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1517235/full

In short:

• they didn't actually measure changes in learning; they measured theta waves which don't have a clear link to learning
• They evaluated adults, not children
• They didn't have participants do any encoding activities; they were mindlessly typing the same thing over and over
• They didn't allow participants to actually type; they had them 'type' with one finger of their right hand, when there's plenty of evidence that using both hands while encoding information leads to increased brain activity.
• They couldn't see what they were typing (no visual feedback), so any error-correction processes the brain would usually run were impaired
• The handwriting part of the experiment was completely normal and representative of using handwriting to record information.
• They didn't actually report the raw data or conduct any statistical analysis for the two parts of the experiment individually; only the differences between the two groups.

Honestly, that is....shockingly bad. Like I'm surprised this passed peer review and it makes me wonder about the journal. Of course educational science is a joke of a field anyway with little scientific rigour over the last 50 years, so maybe that's not surprising. But this sure as hell sounds like this researcher walked into this project already convinced that handwriting is better for children's learning than typing and screens, and then rigged an experiment to support that bias. If I were the editor I would retract the paper, not just include a link to the commentary.

For each trial, participants were instructed to either (a) write in cursive with their right hand the presented word with a digital pen directly on the screen, or (b) type the presented word using the right index finger on the keyboard. Before each trial, the instruction write or type appeared before one of the target words appeared, and the participants were given 25 s to either write by hand or type the word multiple times, separated by a space. EEG data were recorded only during the first 5 s of each trial. To prevent artifacts produced by head and eye movements caused by shifting gaze between the screen and the keyboard, typed words did not appear on the screen while the participant was typewriting.

lmao wow

Why are people not reading these parts. Like they're reblogging posts that have criticism of a paper and saying "This is why I always use notebooks!" Trust me, if you can't even bother to fully read something you're gonna say you agree with, be it an entire paper or a freaking tumblr post, you are not smarter than anyone just because you use pen and paper.

I'm not even against the idea that writing is better for your brain than typing, but this experiment is objectively bad and does not prove anything.

Beating a dead horse reblogging this post a third time but generally speaking anytime you see a headline about a study proclaiming that the good ol' traditional way of doing [thing] is better for your brain and makes you smarter and cooler and doing it with newer technological tools doesn't Activate Your Brain™ as much and makes you dumber and lazier that should start ringing your alarm bells to go check if there's Some Bullshit going on with the methodological design, because this such a common type of "someone clearly went into this with their mind already made up about the results they wanted and deliberately designed the study to support those preconceptions" study.

Like it's something you should always be doing, but especially for stuff like this, and *especially* if the conclussion just so happens to play nicely into the confirmation bias that old method = more effort = good.

WTF this is masterful, 10/10.

Other people have said this in notes, but the Bulwer-Lytton contest involves writing the most absurd opener you can think of and submitting it to the contest. It's not a judgment like the Razzies or the bad sex in books award or something; it's a game. Diana Murtaugh of Baltimore is to be congratulated for this win.

Pro-censorship wattpad refugees drama is so funny to me because when I started using ao3 as a kid I was a devout mormon and I thought that reading anything even remotely pornagraphic was a sin and would ruin my life. So when I was 13 and found ao3 I went "oh awesome I found a fanfic website with a filtering system so I won't ever randomly stumble into porn. This is great! I was really worried about seeing something I didn't want to see on the other platforms." I didn't read any smut online until like three years later. If a mormon 13 year old can figure out 'don't like don't read' wattpad users can too cmon you guys i believe in you.

[ID: a reply from @/tacticalatkgoose that says:

"you're less internet savy than a 13 year old mormon" is a diabolical thing to say to someone, I support it

End ID]