Back to the #SoCIA18 livetweeting game! Now is "The Importance of Answering the Major Questions of Astrobiology" by Jim Schwartz.
This is about the public's attitudes - how do they feel about extraterrestrial life, astrobiology, etc?
Interestingly 50-90% of people say "religion is somewhat/very important to our views about evolution," - 90% of creationists but even 50% of people who believe in natural selection.
(Relevant here because beliefs-about-evolution are better studied than beliefs-about-ETLlife.)
None of those belief groups (natural selection, intelligent design, creationisms) rely primarily on science to drive that belief. Most say "common sense," though creationists mostly say religion is the reason for their beliefs.
Space exploration, however, is quite popular. Not many people think NASA is doing a poor job, stable over time (1990-2007)
Most people (~2/3) claim to be interested in space exploration. But people are about split on whether NASA gets too much money vs. the right amount. (Only 13-20% say not enough.) Gotten slightly more pro-NASA in recent years.
That means, probably, lots of people who "are interested in space" don't want to give NASA more money.
Religiosity (and other factors) affect beliefs in amount of $ spent on space - more often you attend services, more likely you are to think NASA gets too much. But note that "service frequency" is tied to which religion.
If all this stuff extends to Search for ETLife, it looks like most people are pro the idea, but don't actually want to give it money.
Only 4 surveys ever directly measuring public support for astrobiology (largest sample in 2011; others were targeted specifically at students).
The big survey is also the only one that has distinguished between life and intelligent life. Religion was given as main reason why people said "no" to "is there life on other planets?"
When people were asked what KIND of life would be out there, responses went: bacteria > more advanced > human-level.
Lessons include: "people think ETLife exists" doesn't extend to "people are interested in searching for it" doesn't extend to "people care what science thinks about it" or "should spend money on it"!
Lessons also include "we don't really know enough about public attitudes toward the search for extraterrestrial life, and we need better surveys!"
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Handedness comes in two groups, "right handed" and "not right handed." Most people use their right hands for almost all precision movement, but the other group is a broad spectrum from weakly-right to strongly-left. baen.com/handedness
The way we describe and define handedness creates the effect @CStuartHardwick rightly notices. Culture defines how we talk about it - but the behavior is mostly genetic. The % of righties has remained constant across continents and milennia.
Hand dominance is a more squirrelly thing than most people realize. For example, righties are better at *some* things with their left hand... and *some* of these asymmetries flip in lefties. Take a few minutes on #LeftHandersDay to learn more!
But you should read and learn from the #BlackSpecFic report anyways! The missing data is due to idiosyncrasies of the @EAPodcasts model, and has no impact on any other magazine's numbers.
Long story short, we treat reprints very differently from other magazines. For @escapepodcast specifically, they were ~45% of our 2017 stories, and our editorial process has one unified pipeline for originals + reprints together.
Regretting organizing my two Worldcon panels this year. It means I'm not free to throw up my hands in frustration and give up on programming. The last 24hrs have been the last worst icing on a bad cake that's long been baking.
I mean, my panels will be awesome. But if you're skipping programming because you don't trust the con, you've made a sensible choice.
There are always more people who want to be on programming than can fit. There's no way to make everyone happy. I get that. But this weekend's screwups come in the context of a long chain of trust-erosion.
So glad this one came out! "After Midnight at the Zap Stop" by @ouranosaurus is an awesome story - full of late-night grease, and the luckless & the worthy. But also because it's a #neuroscience teaching opportunity. Might even be a #NeuroThursday!
One offhand line explains a technology as "stimulating a particular set of mirror neurons." Which works as a story element just fine. It sounds plausible and authoritative! But as a neuroscientist, I have strong opinions about #mirrorneurons. I don't think they're real.
To be clear, mine is a controversial opinion. Many neuroscientists would disagree. But it's a hill I'm willing to fight on, especially given how often "mirror neurons" crop up in popular science.
This phenomenon - when you look away from a moving thing, and you briefly see illusory motion in the other direction - is the "Motion Aftereffect," and it comes from some very basic brain maneuvers. Who wants to join me on going full #NeuroThursday here? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_af…
Most neurons in the brain (and elsewhere) do this thing called "adaptation," where they accept whatever's going on as the new normal. For example, if you sit down with your laptop on your lap, you'll soon stop noticing the weight.
This can arise from the crudest single-cell level: some ion channels in the cell membrane have negative feedback loops that self-dampen.