2 ms·

> "The final non-predictive variable was semantic congruency or integration difficulty. This speaks to the debate whether effects of predictability reflect pred

> "The final non-predictive variable was semantic congruency or integration difficulty. This speaks to the debate whether effects of predictability reflect prediction or rather post-hoc effects arising when integrating a word into the semantic context. This can be illustrated by considering a constraining context (‘coffee with milk and … ‘). When we contrast a highly expected word (‘sugar’) and an unexpected word (e.g. ‘dog’), the unexpected word is not just less likely, but also semantically incongruous in the prior context." Seems like reading a string of random words vs. reading a text the listener was very familiar with, or had even memorized previously, would have been the obvious test to see if there was a clear difference. Perhaps taking the familiar text and swapping some words, too. Otherwise, the conclusion is that people anticipate the familiar and get surprised when the familiar behaves abnormally? PNAS... kind of an odd little club, that journal.

notacoward 4y ago
> PNAS... kind of an odd little club, that journal. Ironically, you're kind of illustrating the point made in the text you quote. You expect things to be written in a style and jargon familiar to you. That was written in a style and jargon from a different specialty, thus it's unfamiliar. Often these seemingly-odd phrasings are the result of authors trying to be very precise about what they are or are not claiming - especially they are not making the more general, ambiguous, and seemingly obvious claim. They use terms that have very specific meanings in their own field for that purpose. But instead of considering that, you just cast aspersions on the entire organization or specialty. Congratulations, you've done yeoman's work for the Anti Science Brigade.
- em500 4y ago
  That, or maybe they're just publishing junk? Who can tell? I know PNAS mostly from Andrew Gelman's blog often making fun of them for publishing jargon laden pseudo-science https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/10/04/breaking-pnas-changes-slogan/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/10/04/breaking-p...
- aydyn 4y ago
  Whether their findings are novel or not, it is clearly laden with technobabble. It seems you are the one less familiar with academic writing?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The National Academy of Sciences is a rather odd club (notably Feynman refused membership and there's a general suspicion they spend most of their time deciding who else to elect to the membership). That's not 'anti-science', although it might be 'anti-august-institution'. In particular don't members get to skip the normal peer review process with their publications? See: Dear Prof. Handler: My request for resignation from the National Academy of Sciences is based entirely on personal psychological quirks. It represents in no way any implied or explicit criticism of the Academy, other than those characteristics that flow from the fact that most of the membership consider their installation as a significant honor. Sincerely yours, Richard P. Feynman

notacoward 4y ago

> PNAS... kind of an odd little club, that journal. Ironically, you're kind of illustrating the point made in the text you quote. You expect things to be written in a style and jargon familiar to you. That was written in a style and jargon from a different specialty, thus it's unfamiliar. Often these seemingly-odd phrasings are the result of authors trying to be very precise about what they are or are not claiming - especially they are not making the more general, ambiguous, and seemingly obvious claim. They use terms that have very specific meanings in their own field for that purpose. But instead of considering that, you just cast aspersions on the entire organization or specialty. Congratulations, you've done yeoman's work for the Anti Science Brigade.

em500 4y ago
That, or maybe they're just publishing junk? Who can tell? I know PNAS mostly from Andrew Gelman's blog often making fun of them for publishing jargon laden pseudo-science https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/10/04/breaking-pnas-changes-slogan/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/10/04/breaking-p...
aydyn 4y ago
Whether their findings are novel or not, it is clearly laden with technobabble. It seems you are the one less familiar with academic writing?
photochemsyn 4y ago
The National Academy of Sciences is a rather odd club (notably Feynman refused membership and there's a general suspicion they spend most of their time deciding who else to elect to the membership). That's not 'anti-science', although it might be 'anti-august-institution'. In particular don't members get to skip the normal peer review process with their publications? See: Dear Prof. Handler: My request for resignation from the National Academy of Sciences is based entirely on personal psychological quirks. It represents in no way any implied or explicit criticism of the Academy, other than those characteristics that flow from the fact that most of the membership consider their installation as a significant honor. Sincerely yours, Richard P. Feynman