Flow (psychology) Concentrating on a task is one aspect of flow. In positive psychology, flow, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time. Flow shares many characteristics with hyperfocus. Just as with the conditions listed above, these conditions can be independent of one another. Ideas similar to flow have been recognized throughout history and across cultures. Flow theory postulates three conditions that have to be met to achieve a flow state: Schaffer (2013) proposed 7 flow conditions: Young child, painting a model If the operator is receiving data at too slow a rate, he is likely to become bored and attend to other irrelevant data. Flow may occur in challenging sports such as eventing.
Does a child die of hunger every 10 seconds? 17 June 2013Last updated at 20:48 ET By Ruth Alexander BBC News Every 15 seconds a child dies of hunger, says a campaign by charities urging G8 leaders to pledge more aid for the world's poorest families - or every 10 seconds, according to the latest version of the slogan. But does this paint an accurate picture? There is enough food for everyone, but not everyone has enough food, says the Enough Food for Everyone If campaign. "In every minute of every day, four children die of hunger," intones the comedian Eddie Izzard in one of If's promotional videos, before the 15-second figure was updated to 10 seconds on 6 June. The stat is a variation on another, used seven years ago in the Make Poverty History campaign - when a host of celebrities from the world of music, cinema and fashion appeared on a video clicking their fingers at regular intervals. Stats about deaths occurring every few seconds have been around for years. Continue reading the main story Child hunger “Start Quote
When John Boehner just sat there President Obama’s State of the Union speech showed that the progressive energy of his second inaugural address wasn’t just a man getting carried away by the moment. On Tuesday night, he outlined an ambitious second-term agenda: a commitment to universal preschool, raising the federal minimum wage, executive action on climate change, a strong jobs agenda, easing barriers to voting, tough new gun laws. The president won’t get everything he’s asking for, not even most of it, and some of the details of what he wants and how he’ll achieve it were sketchy, but it was rewarding to see him ask. And while Obama talked deficit reduction early in the speech, it was much less detailed and central than in most of his other big national speeches. “Deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan,” he said, stating what should be obvious, but often isn’t inside the Beltway. But the heart of the speech came during his remarks on gun violence. “They deserve a vote,” he said three times, and went on:
Obama Demands That Congress Do 'the Work of Self-Government' Share President Obama's 2013 State of the Union address. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) For those who doubted that Barack Obama would maintain his commitment to a gun-safety agenda that challenges the supposed political power of the National Rifle Association, and the political caution of Democrats who more than a decade ago decided for the most cynical of reasons to abandon the struggle to address gun violence, the president’s fourth State of the Union address provided the answer. Obama’s speech delivered a bold economic message—a rejection of the austerity threat posed by Paul Ryan and the Republican right in favor of a job-creation agenda—and it renewed the liberal promises of his recent inaugural address: fair pay for women, fair treatment for lesbians and gays, immigration reform, a return to seriousness with regard to climate change. That would have been enough in most years. And the president recognized that demand. “It has been two months since Newtown. Then the president went deeper.
www.psych.rochester.edu/people/reis_harry/assets/pdf/CarothersReis_2012.pdf Speak, Memory by Oliver Sacks In 1993, approaching my sixtieth birthday, I started to experience a curious phenomenon—the spontaneous, unsolicited rising of early memories into my mind, memories that had lain dormant for upward of fifty years. Not merely memories, but frames of mind, thoughts, atmospheres, and passions associated with them—memories, especially, of my boyhood in London before World War II. Moved by these, I wrote two short memoirs, one about the grand science museums in South Kensington, which were so much more important than school to me when I was growing up; the other about Humphry Davy, an early-nineteenth-century chemist who had been a hero of mine in those far-off days, and whose vividly described experiments excited me and inspired me to emulation. I think a more general autobiographical impulse was stimulated, rather than sated, by these brief writings, and late in 1997, I launched on a three-year project of writing a memoir of my boyhood, which I published in 2001 as Uncle Tungsten.1
Lies, Damned Lies and Big Data This is a guest post by David Hales, a fellow associate of the new complexity think-tank, Synthesis. David specialises in computational social science and here he provides a thought-provoking response to the rise in big data, and some of the more outlandish claims made about it. For a good example of the latter, see Chris Anderson’s piece ‘The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete‘. In this piece, David makes some very relevant points for development big data initiatives. Almost everything we do these days leaves some kind of data trace in some computer system somewhere. When such data is aggregated into huge databases it is called “Big Data”. What’s wrong with this? Firstly what is this “data” we are talking about? Given this level of generality, if someone tells you they are working on “big data” it tells you almost nothing. If no coherent answer can be produced to this question then any such project is at best directionless and at worst not conscious of its aims. Like this:
Money may be tight, but 'smart aid' to developing countries can really work | Larry Elliott | Business A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Britain hosted the G8 summit at Gleneagles in July 2005. Life was sweet when the leaders of the world's most powerful western economies pledged themselves to debt relief and aid to help poor countries. Growth was strong, asset prices were rising, and the financial crisis was two years away. In 2013 it will, once again, be Britain's turn to chair the G8, but the mood will be quite different when leaders meet at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland this summer. The talk will be of fiscal cliffs, the euro's struggle for survival, high energy prices and the struggle to ensure financial solvency. Back in 2005, the pressure on Tony Blair came from only one source: the Make Poverty History (MPH) coalition that saw Gleneagles as an opportunity to cajole the G8 into making binding pledges on development. The thrust of the argument from the anti-aid lobby is as follows: aid does not work because it traps countries in a culture of dependency. Here's why.
The Folly of Scientism Austin L. Hughes When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable. The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Modern science is often described as having emerged from philosophy; many of the early modern scientists were engaged in what they called “natural philosophy.”