The Cellar - They actually had to research this?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - They actually had to research this? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=12496)

They actually had to research this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15835131/site/newsweek/

Quote:

Go Ahead, I Dare You

A new study asks why teenagers do stupid and dangerous things. The answers might surprise you.

Nov. 21, 2006 - In the popular 1955 movie “Rebel Without a Cause,” moody teenager Jim Stark makes a bad choice. He decides to drive his ’49 Mercury at high speed toward a seaside cliff in a game of “chicken” with his nemesis, the bully Buzz Gunderson. It’s actually a worse life decision for Buzz, who loses the game and perishes in the Pacific Ocean.

American culture has shifted dramatically in the half century since heartthrob James Dean starred in this cult classic. But some things have not changed, including the fact that teenagers make risky, and often life-threatening, choices. The deadly “chickie run” may be a cultural artifact, but it has been replaced by other risks, including widespread drug use and HIV infection, and adolescents continue to put themselves in harm’s way.

Why? As a parent of three boys, I want to interview the Jim Starks of the world. First I want to shake them by the lapels, but then I want to ask them these questions: What were you thinking? What precisely was going on in your reasoning process when you said to yourself, “Sure, racing my car toward a cliff is an OK thing to do”?

Surprisingly, behavioral scientists have actually done these interviews with hundreds of American adolescents. In order to explore really stupid behavior, they have asked what seem to be really stupid questions: Is it a good thing to set your hair on fire? Drink Drano? Go swimming where sharks swim?

The results are fascinating, and unsettling. While teenagers are just as likely as adults to get the answer right (the correct answer is “No”), teens actually have to mull the question over momentarily before they answer. As summarized by psychologists Valerie Reyna of Cornell and Frank Farley of Temple in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, teenagers take a split second longer than adults to reject such patently inane behaviors. And more of the teenage brain lights up, suggesting that they are actually going through some kind of deliberative calculation before concluding what the rest of us assume is obvious.

CONTINUED

Now can we only get someone to do research into why researchers research retarded things? Oh, wait... I know... it is because the focus in American universities isn't on teaching students, but rather on professors completing research for the university. I mean, that is a big way professors gain tenure and most of their time outside of class is spent doing research.

Looks like what adult brains have is that they've already calculated risks to rewards, and their decisions reflect previous choice.

Well I was going to say that age and wisdom generally go hand in hand, so it's not realistic to expect an adolescent to make wise choices, but then I thought about some of the stupid old farts I've seen in action and realized that this would be an unwise statement to make.

I don't think it's stupid to do research on these types of things. Maybe it'll save a life some day.

Shocker, it's amazing the amount of research lecturers have to do just to keep their job. Really, universities are such archaic institutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Looks like what adult brains have is that they've already calculated risks to rewards, and their decisions reflect previous choice.

And previous mistakes . . .

But the flip side of that is that we can get stuck there, which isn't good either.

So, the next time someone tells me I'm overthinking something, I'll just let them know I'm keeping my mind young. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I don't think it's stupid to do research on these types of things. Maybe it'll save a life some day.

But too much research can keep the gene pool from being flushed as nature intended.:lol:

Yes well, the world may always be better off without teenagers. If only they could skip from sweet kids to sensible adults, everything would be great.

Have you got something in your throat Ibram? lol

Quote:

Shocker, it's amazing the amount of research lecturers have to do just to keep their job. Really, universities are such archaic institutions.

It depends on the type of professor, there are graduate research professors but they rarely teach undergrad classes. New professors often don't do much research at all, they typically teach the classes that older and more well entrenched professors don't want to dedicate time to. Research isn't about keeping your job either, professors do research in their field because that is what an academic does. It isn't an additional hoop they jump through as part of the job, it's a major and absolutely critical component of it. The idea of a teacher whoes single responsibility is to just teach classes really dies out after highschool, if that's all the teacher can handle then they aren't qualified to work at the university level.

I'd love to hear your explanation about the 'archaic institutions' comment, but you may be refering to the sordid state of arts programs and the people who pass themselves off as professors in them. Arts education in America is archaic, I agree. But you're seeing the inevitable fate of anything which no longer serves its original purpose and has little residual value to the kids that learn it.

Actually, I have worked as a researcher in the Biology departments of two different Iowa universities, for over 5 years each, and both had very different attitudes toward research vs. teaching responsibilities. And even within a specific university, different disciplines might have completely different requirements regarding time spent in the classroom.

**Please do not generalize based on individual experience, if you have any.**

Shocker, if it weren't for scientists both in academia or the private sector doing research, the world would be quite a different place. A much less pleasant place IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

New professors often don't do much research at all, they typically teach the classes that older and more well entrenched professors don't want to dedicate time to.

Not here!!!!!!!! New profs are bustin' their asses getting preliminary data for grant $$ so that when their start up $$ runs out, they can continue having a lab.

Here, the profs not "at the bench" are typically ones with established labs full of undergraduates, graduates, reasearch assistants (me) and/or post docs. They aren't in the lab because they are in their offices preparing grants, writing papers for journal publication, mentoring their students, preparing for scientific seminars/meetings, prepping lectures, serving on various stupid committees, etc.

Even though they aren't 'in the lab' they are still up to date with everything going on in their lab, as well as in the scientific community as it relates to their field.

Over here every lecturer has to do research right up to professors. (the titles for university educators are different here than there) If you don't write a certain number of papers every year, you lose your tenure, so anyone who works under the title of associate lecturer or above is expected to write articles and do research right from the start.