Email: support@essaywriterpros.com
Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

Implicit social cognition:

David Rumelhart clearly explains connectionism in mathematical terms. At the SCiP meeting in San Francisco in 1991, David Rumelhart gave an invited ad-dress to what I recall was a standing room only audience. He started out by saying that too many people viewed connectionism as mysterious. He reasoned that we, as psychologists, understood the mathematics behind re-gression and that connectionism could be made less mys-terious by understanding the similarities and differences between least squares regression and parallel distributed processing. For almost an hour, he gave a mathematical talk both lucid and enlightening, at times even riveting. I still believe that connectionist models have too many free parameters for my comfort, but I walked away from that address convinced that Rumelhart had a mind of the highest order, and that the approach he was taking is math-ematically sound.Stevan Harnad and a panel debate “freeing” the journal literature by making it available online. In the year 2000 in New Orleans, Stevan Harnad gave a very different talk and debated a panel about “freeing” the journal literature by making it available to everyone at no cost online. Harnad’s basic argument is that scholars and scientists create the journal literature, peer review the lit-erature, and edit the literature free of change. We are then held hostage by the publishing companies who demand copyright and make us, and our institutions, pay for the privilege of accessing that literature. The journal editors and representatives on the panel generally did not agree. They pointed out that the companies publishing journals contribute a lot more than typesetting, and that these busi-nesses often provide valuable services to academics at the margins of financial viability. I think everyone came away with a better appreciation of the complexities of the issue. It may be that the technology, the industry, and the academy itself are too much in flux right now to make meaningful predictions or grand pronouncements about the future of the literature.The Presidential Address. Previous SCiP presidents have set the bar high for those of us faced with the daunt-ing task of delivering a presidential address. I honestly do not think I can remember a bad address, and some af-forded excellent opportunities to learn about fascinating areas outside the scope of my own research. Two come im-mediately to mind. John Krantz (2000) gave a talk called “Tell Me, What Did You See? The Stimulus on Comput-ers.” Computer monitors are ubiquitous, and using them to present stimuli is a reasonable temptation. However, issues of consistency, calibration, and the like are serious matters for those studying perception and cognition. Krantz talked through the problems and solutions with great aplomb and I recommend his BRMIC piece to anyone using computers for these purposes.Past President David Washburn may be the only per-son in history to create video games strictly for monkeys. In “The Games Psychologists Play (and the Data They Provide),” Washburn (2003) outlined what we can learn from games. He related the story of how he was faced with the problem of enriching the environment for the primate colony at Georgia State and came across video games as a way to mentally engage the primates. Over time, he adapted the hardware and then wrote the code for new games that were more in line with the cognitive and per-248 WOLFEceptual abilities of this special population. He found solid measurable improvements in the health and well-being of these animals as a result of their interactions with these games. Of course, a layperson might be tempted to believe that the monkeys were karmically absorbing IQ points lost by Homo sapiens playing games on Homestar Runner; but we psychologists know better.ObservationsA small conference becomes more intimate. SCiP has always been a small conference, but it has not always been warm and friendly. I became involved in the gover-nance of the organization after I opened my big mouth at the business meeting. I had given a talk at one of three concurrent sessions, and the audience barely exceeded the number of presenters. Yet the session and conference were run as if we were speaking to a full house. At the business meeting, I noted that as a tenured professor I did not need to come halfway across the country to speak to an empty room. I felt that we had assembled some of the best people working at the intersection of computers and psychology, yet we were not interacting with one another. Those pres-ent on the steering committee agreed, and we began to think of ways to increase interactions among conference attendees. Some approaches, such as SCiP lunches and putting the refreshments with the posters, have worked very well, but they are possible only if the conference hotel is conducive. There is discussion of building inter-est group lunches into the conference, which sounds like a good idea to me. I think that most of us have come to see the small size of the conference as a virtue, and in recent years, the atmosphere at SCiP has become much more open and intimate