Natural Rationality | decision-making in the economy of nature

5/22/08

On Being a Postdoc - tips and advices

After two years of postdoc, I felt that my experience could be useful to others.


1. There's a good chance you're nobody.
Being a postdoc means that you're not really a student, and not really a professor (try to explain to your non-academic friends what exactly is a postdoc in one sentence). Don't be surprised if you miss a lot of parties: students see you as someone who can grade their work, i.e. a teacher, and professors see you as a trainee, an intern, or an advanced students. You're too old to be a student, and too young to be a professor. If you want to have a social life, you have to be pro-active and meet people, organize reading groups, attend to conferences, keep in touch with people. Another problem is your status in the university administration: you are not a regular employee, but you have access to most of the facilities. Sometimes it is tricky: for instance, you are probably spending a lot of time sending job applications or thinking about a career switch, yet in certain universities you cannot use the resources of the career centers (other than the library). So if you want to meet with a counsellor or need advice about your cover letter, you have to pay or forget it.

2. Finding a job is a part-time job.
If you want to work in academia, you need to devote a considerable amount of time to your job search. You need to:

  • Learn about the job market and academic jobhunting (the Chronicle of Higher Education is the best place to start; there are also plenty of books and blogs that can help you, see this and this), the selection process, the interview, etc. You need to acquire a lot of know-how, and you probably did not learn that during your thesis.
  • Seriously think about who you are, as a researcher and teacher, because in most job applications you have to write a research statement and a teaching statement.
  • Search for job applications (subscribe to mailing lists, browse the Chronicle of Higher Education career section, departmental websites, etc.)
  • Write a good cover letter that explain why you're the best candidate for the job you are applying to.
  • Have an up-to-date academic cv.
  • Ask 3 persons to write reference letters.
  • In many jobs application, you need to send a writing sample (choose your best peer-reviewed paper, or start writing one right now) a syllabus and student evaluations.
  • Network: you need to meet people and to be known by other researchers. Try contacting them, or put your papers online, start a blog, attend to conferences.
  • Learn about each of these steps
  • Be prepared to receive a lot of refusals. Departements often receive 200 hundred applicants. If you are lucky, you will have to give a job talk and go through an acaemic interview.
  • Think of a plan B: what will you do if you can't find a job in academia? Don't wait until the end of your postdoc, because non-academic jobs are not easier to find. See my post on What to do with a PhD outside academia?
3. Publish or perish.
Your main goal, research-wise, is to publish as many peer-reviewed articles as you can. So think, read, write, proofread and submit. Learn about the different journals, their status (certain publications are more prestigious than others), how to submit articles. Of course, you will need new ideas and knowledge, so try to find a good balance between learning and writing. You can't learn all the time (at one point you have to publish), you can't write all the time (at one point you have to browse the literature), so you have to do both (it's an example of the exploration-exploitation tradeoff). Use RSS feeds to be up-to-date in your field, and subscribe to journals and blogs feeds.

4. Mens sana in corpore sana.
There's a good chance you spent the last years sitting in front of a computer trying to finish your phd thesis 24/7. You are now about to be, or are already, a thirthysomething. You're last memories of doing sport go back to high school and somehow you always associate sport with those jocks who made you feel terrible during your teen years. Well, these days are over now: you're not getting any younger and you have no idea how physical activity can be good for you. It it good for relaxation, mental health, well-being, attention, etc. (I started karate last year and it's one of the best decision I ever made. I'm now purple belt and in a better shape, mentally and physically).

5. Adjust to pressure - be productive.
So you have to keep up with the literature in your field, publish papers, teach a class, speak in academic conferences and search for a job (and learn about all that). It's a lot. Multitasking, time-efficiency and productivity are important concepts in the academic world: you have to be organized, to allocate your time and energy to each of these tasks, to keep track of all your ongoing projects. A good start is to have a calendar and a to-do list, and to always have a pen and paper with you: any time you have a good idea or remember that you have to do someting, offload your brain on paper. It's also a good idea to have a work schedule: treat your postdoc as a job that begins at a certain time of the day and finishes at another one. Take week-ends off if you can. It's easier to have a social life when you work during business hours and it's rewarding to have some time off. Moreover, you might be more productive if you devote a definite amount of time per day to your work. You don't need to work all day and night to be productive (although sometimes you will be in a rush).

These tips are just the tip (if you'll forgive the pun!) of the iceberg: you have to learn about academic jobs, research, writing, teaching, public speaking, reviewing papers, making good powerpoint presentations, etc. Here is a couple of links to start with:


Blogs about academia and lifehacks
Journals:

Books:

Tips:
  • Finally, a good tips is to google anything you need about academic life followed by "tips".




5/21/08

Voting and low-information rationality

In this year of American Presidential election, I noticed that many political analyst referred a book by political scientist Samuel L Popkin, The Reasoning Voter. One of his point is that voters are not completely irrational, but rather behave as decision-makers under certainty. They use "low-information signals" such as appearances, character traits or "whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin" (from Time's Joe Klein column). In other words, political heuristics.



Here is a more detailed summary from Wikisummary.

Low information rationality

Popkin's analysis is based on one main premise: voters use low information rationality gained in their daily lives, through the media and through personal interactions, to evaluate candidates and facilitate electoral choices.

Political "Knowledge": Despite a more educated electorate, knowledge of civics has not increased significantly in forty years. According to Popkin, theorists who argue that political competence could be measured by knowledge of "civics book" knowledge and names of specific bills (i.e. the Michigan studies) have missed the larger point that voters do manage to gain an understanding of where candidates stand on important issues. He argues that education has not changed how people think, but it does allow us to better interpret and connect different cues.

Information as a By-Product: Popkin argues that most of the information voters learn about politics is picked up as a by-product of activities they pursue as a part of daily life (homeowners learn about interest rates, shoppers learn about prices and inflation etc.--thus, people know how the economy is doing). Media helps to explain what politicians are doing and the relevance of those actions for individuals, and campaigns help to clarify the issues. Voters develop affinity towards like-minded opinion leaders in media and in personal interactions.

Media and Friends: Interpersonal communication is seen as a way of developing assessments of parties and candidates. Information received from the media is discussed with friends and helps to create opinions. While voters do care about issue proximity, they also focus on candidate competency and sincerity and rely heavily on cues to make these evaluations.


Other related post:

A Neuropolitic look at political psychology





5/13/08

Announcing the 34th annual meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology

Announcing the 34th annual meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology
June 26-29, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Registration is now open; deadline Thursday, June 5 -- 12:00pm EST
Note that early registration is suggested, as the reserved hotel block is likely to fill quickly. http://www.ircs.upenn.edu/spp/


The 2008 conference will feature presentations by:

George Ainslie, Michael L. Anderson, Louise Antony
Peter Carruthers, Louis Charland, Anjan Chatterjee
David Danks, Felipe De Brigard, Michael Devitt
Marthah Farah, Evelina Fedorenko, Owen Flanagan,
Jerry Fodor, Kenneth R. Foster, Lila R. Gleitman (President of SPP)
George Graham, Bryce Huebner, Bertram F. Malle,
Barbara Malt, Christopher Meacham, Dominic P. Murphy
Thomas Nadelhoffer, Kenneth Norman, Mike Oaksford
Erik Parens, Nancy Petry, Jeffrey Poland
Zenon Pylyshyn, Sarah Robins, Paul Rozin,
Laurie R. Santos (the 2008 Stanton Prize winner)
Michael Strevens, Justin Sytsma, Kelly Trogdon
Charles Wallis, Deena Weisberg, Daniel Weiskopf
Fei Xu, Carlos Zednik. . . among many others

On topics including:

-Addiction and Responsibility
-Concepts and Categorization
-Consciousness
-Bayesian Inference and Rationality
-Foundational Issues in the Philosophy of Cognitive Science
-Language & Mental Representation
-Moral Psychology
-Neuroethics
-Theory of Mind

Note that this year the conference will be preceded June 25-26 by a workshop on experimental philosophy
http://www.socphilpsych.org/workshop.html

More information on both the 2008 SPP conference and the Experimental Philosophy Workshop can be found on the website http://www.ircs.upenn.edu/spp/



4/28/08

Dan Ariely on Understanding the Logic Behind Illogical Decisions

Found on the American Association Management website: a podcast on behavioral economics


Dan Ariely on Understanding the Logic Behind Illogical Decisions

An MIT professor discovers that people tend to behave irrationally in a predictable fashion.

April 18, 2008 / Podcast # 08-16

Dan Ariely

Irrational behavior is a part of human nature, but as MIT professor Dan Ariely has discovered in 20 years of researching behavioral economics, people tend to behave irrationally in a predictable fashion. Drawing on psychology and economics, behavioral economics can show us why cautious people make poor decisions about sex when aroused, why patients get greater relief from a more expensive drug over its cheaper counterpart and why honest people may steal office supplies or communal food, but not money. According to Ariely’s new book Predictably Irrational, our understanding of economics, now based on the assumption of a rational subject, should, in fact, be based on our systematic, unsurprising irrationality. Ariely argues that greater understanding of previously ignored or misunderstood forces (emotions, relativity and social norms) that influence our economic behavior brings a variety of opportunities for reexamining individual motivation and consumer choice, as well as economic and educational policy.



4/20/08

The Philosophy of Social Cognition - X - Game Theory

Here is the tenth and final chapter of "The Philosophy of Social Cognition", the free ebook-in-progress: Game Theory and Normative Social Cognition


INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: PHILOSOPHY AND THE OTHER MINDS

1. The Other Minds
2. Rationality and Interpretation


PART TWO: OUR EVERYDAY PSYCHOLOGY

3. Simulation and Theory-Theory
4. Embodied Phenomenology and Narratives
5.Experimental Approaches to Folk-Psychology: Moral Judgments and Pluralistic Accounts


PART THREE: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIAL MIND

6. Neurons that Mirror

7. Social Primates and the Evolution of Social Cognition
8. The Modularity of The Social Mind
9. Social Intelligence

PART FOUR: RATIONALITY, GAME THEORY AND SOCIALITY
10. Game Theory and Normative Social Cognition

CONCLUSION

Bibliography on Philosophy and Social Cognition



I will revise it one day and make it more coherent, but in it's current form it should be useful as an introduction to the Philosophy of Social Cognition.

I would like to thank Patrick Parslow, (OdinLab, SSE, University of Reading) for his help with the proofreading.