jump to navigation

Waiting for the answer November 15, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in papers, research.
Tags: , ,
3 comments

I hate waiting on paper submissions.  Makes me insane.  You spend all this time hustling to get the paper out and then *bang!*, things settle down a bit and you wait.

Unless there’s another deadline right behind the first, I can’t necessarily make myself go into hyperfocus on a project.  That means I’m waiting while my mind has the ability to wander…and wonder.  I ponder what I did right and wrong, what things will the reviewers pick up on that I missed, etc.

I know some people feel better about getting the paper off.  Once it’s out of sight, it’s roughly out of mind.  I think it’s a much better approach to focus on that which you can control…but I can’t say I’m terribly good at it.

And in the meantime, I still have a week and a half to go.

How about you?

Why I really work with my husband October 31, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in family, grad school, papers, research, work, younger son.
Tags: , , , , ,
1 comment so far

This past week, I’ve been trying to get a paper ready to submit to a conference.  My husband is a co-author on the paper, so we spent a good chunk of the day cranking away at it.  I worked on the text while he fixed all the LaTeX issues we encountered.  This is my first time submitting a conference paper using this method, and I wasn’t acquainted with all the nuances of the IEEE style.  I guess I’ve lucked out because I either used Word (up until I finished my thesis) or let my co-authors deal with the issues that arose from LaTeX.  Either way, the paper was submitted at 5:30 p.m., a whole 5 1/2 hours before the deadline.

Then we came home.  He took the dog for a walk, and I went for a run.  He cooked dinner, I showered.  He took younger son trick-or-treating, I handed out candy while trying scarf down my dinner.  (Older son held back Gigadog so that she wouldn’t a) try to steal candy out of the dish and b) slobber all over the trick-or-treaters to show them how much she loves them.)  And now I can finally get to writing tomorrow’s lecture and grading while he gets the younger boy to bed.  Oh yeah…and Mike has work to do, too.

It’s a good thing I work with my spouse or I’d never get to see him.

The conservative white male effect August 3, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in papers, research, societal commentary.
Tags: , climate change, fox news, global warming
5 comments

ResearchBlogging.org

I had two very interesting things pop up in my Twitter stream yesterday, and they are rather related.

The first is a research paper that appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change titled Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States by McCright and Dunlap.  Unfortunately, it’s under a pay wall, so all you may be able to read is the abstract.

The authors present the notion that climate change denial is primarily caused by the intersection of two social aspects.  The first is termed “the white male effect”.  The authors explain it this way:

In their initial study, Flynn et al. (1994) found that the white male effect was caused by a subgroup of white males who reported high levels of risk acceptance—30% of the white males in their national sample. This subgroup of risk-accepting white males had an affinity for hierarchy, had greater trust in authorities, and opposed democratization of risk management, leading the authors (1994, p. 1107) to emphasize the need to “move away from gender and toward sociopolitical explanations.”

So the ‘white male’ aspect comes from the fact that white males were more likely than people of other races or opposite gender to accept that the people higher than them in the hierarchy were making the right decisions, and they were more willing to trust authority than democratic decision making.  This by itself, however, doesn’t account for *why* they believe this.   They cite another paper by Kahan:

The authors (2007, p. 474 [emphasis in original]) argue that white males with a hierarchical cultural worldview would be the most likely to downplay or ignore environmental risks, perceiving them as challenges to the existing social, political, and economic hierarchy:

… to the extent that assertions of environmental risk are perceived as symbolizing a challenge to the prerogatives and competence of social and governmental elites, it is hierarchical men—and particularly white ones, insofar as minorities are more likely to be disproportionately egalitarian in their outlooks—whose identities are the most threatened, and who are thus most likely to form an extremely dismissive posture toward asserted risks.

The gist of this is that white males with hierarchical views (giving them conservative leanings) are more likely to view themselves as part of the crowd of those making the decisions.  Thus, they are trying to protect the system which has traditionally worked well for them.

The study by McCright and Dunlap seems to verify this.

The top half of Table 2 reports the percents of conservative white males and all other adults espousing climate change denial views for each of our five indicators. Across the five items, significantly greater percentages of conservative white males than of all other American adults report denialist views. For instance, while 29.6% of conservative white males believe that the effects of global warming will never happen, only 7.4% of all other adults believe so. Also, 58.5% of conservative white males but only 31.5% of all other adults deny that recent temperature increases are primarily caused by human activities. The pattern for these first two items demonstrates that conservative white males are more likely than other adults to reject the scientific consensus on climate change—stated as early as the IPCC’s (2001) Third Assessment Report and the NRC’s (2001) Climate Change Science. Not surprisingly then, the pattern for the third item indicates that conservative white males are more likely than other adults to deny the existence of a scientific consensus (58.8% and 35.5%, respectively). Further, slightly more than twice as many conservative white males (65.1%) than all other adults (29.9%) believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated in the media. Finally, 39.1% of conservative white males but only 14.4% of all other adults do not worry at all about global warming.

So in every case, white male conservatives were at least twice as likely as all other groups together to deny climate change or it’s anthropogenic origin.

The paper goes on to say that, among those who are climate change denialists, conservative white males are more likely than others to claim that they understand well the science behind climate change.  The authors state that this is likely due to the stronger emotional and psychic energy expended to justify the status quo.

Going to the second item on my Twitter stream, I think I saw this very thing in action.  A lot of people were tweeting and retweeting the interview with Bill Nye on Fox News regarding the discovery of ancient volcanoes on the moon.  In the interview, the anchor, Jon Scott, asked if this disproved global warming.  (He didn’t articulate the question well.  After listening to the whole interview, though, I am going to posit that he was thinking that, if global warming were true, the moon wouldn’t have cooled down with all these volcanoes spewing greenhouse gases there.)  If you haven’t seen the video, Geekwire has it posted here.

You’re probably wondering why I think this interview and the paper are connected.  Near the end of the interview, Bill Nye states:

“The great thing about science is … it’s true for all of us. You can run the test, I can run the test, and we try to get the same results. And if we don’t, then we find out why.”

This is why so many people were excited about the interview.  He put out there what science is really all about and how it has nothing to do with belief and politics but verifiable and repeatable information.

Unfortunately, that wonderful quote probably fell on deaf ears.  If conservative white males (which are most of Fox’s demographic) are hierarchical and averse to democratizing risk assessment, then the fact that *anyone* can do science doesn’t mean much.  He is trying to undermine the system or hierarchy that is already in place with this ‘science’ thing that’s accessible to everyone.  (Which is ironic given the largest demographic in science is still the white male.)

I think Bill did a great job, and I think he does a wonderful job of explaining things.  However, if he has the chance to do it again, I hope he is better able to appeal to the values of that particular group.

McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States Global Environmental Change DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003

It’s freezing; no wait, it’s melting… May 23, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in engineerblogs.org, geophysics, papers, research, science.
Tags: geodynamo, inner core, , outer core
add a comment

First order of business is to send you to EngineerBlogs.org where I posted today on how engineers who do simulation are not, in fact, inept experimentalists.  Just come back after you’ve read it (and commented!).

Are you done yet?

The other thing I wanted to mention was that I came across an article on LabSpaces about how Earth’s core may be continually freezing and melting.  I am interested because of implications for the geodynamo.  (As a side note, I haven’t read the paper directly, just commenting on the LabSpaces post.)

Earth’s outer core is composed primarily of molten iron, but there are some lighter elements in there.  The generally accepted theory is that most of the energy to power the geodynamo (which generates Earth’s magnetic field) comes from the freezing of the outer core.  It’s still really hot down there, but the pressure is so high that the iron can become solid.  As the iron freezes out, it releases energy.  Another source of energy is the rising of the lighter elements as they don’t freeze out.

There are some problems with this theory.  First is that the iron isn’t freezing out at a rate to produce sufficient amounts of energy to power the geodynamo.  That is, it provides some of the energy, but not all of it.  If this freezing out process were to produce the amount of energy needed to power the geodynamo entirely, it would have entirely solidified in about a billion years.  The planet has been here for about 4 billion, so obviously that’s not what’s going.  Second, the amount of energy generated by the inner core is proportional to its surface area.  This means that you would expect Earth’s magnetic field to increase over time as the inner core grew.  Experimental evidence suggests that Earth’s magnetic field strength was about the same, even 3 billion years ago.

The theory that the inner core is continually freezing and melting again might change some of the perspective on this.  If the core freezes and generates energy and then melts again, this could potentially explain why the core hasn’t frozen out and may lead one to believe the core may have been growing for longer than anticipated.  On the other hand, if the remelting process consumes a significant amount of energy, it could definitely not help with the energy balance issues.  If this process is consuming a lot of energy, then that may actually exacerbate the problem because that means more energy may need to come from some other mechanism.

What the world really needs… May 16, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in papers, research.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Is an interactive citation manager…

I know there are some journals that do this electronically.  You pull up a paper and you see a list of everything cited in the article along with all the other papers citing that paper.  IEEE and APS journals are great about this.

What I’d really like is something more personalized – something where I can add notes and identify if I’ve read the paper or not and perhaps leave notes about a couple key points.  It’s be really bonus if I could navigate it strictly by clicking.

I do like to use Menktosj’s Papers program to keep my research papers organized.  Unfortunately, I’ll be reading through and see a citation which I can’t remember if I’ve read or not.  It would be nice if I could scan through references with a little something to jog my memory about a paper’s important points.

Writing, writing, everywhere…except on my blog April 16, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in meta, papers, pets.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

I’m sorry posting has been so sporadic. I’m in the midst of writing a paper at work as well as stuff for my dissertation (research plan stuff, not dissertation itself). After I spend a day writing and looking up things, it’s hard to motivate myself to write a post. However, I keep putting ideas in my file, so I’ll get to it eventually.  And the paper for work should be done by the middle of next week.

In the meantime, I have cute pictures:

Gigadog was doing her best bear rug impression.  While taking this pic, Microcat had something else up her sleeve…erm…paw.

Oh! You needed to put that dish in HERE?!  Go ahead…I was just trying to get some of that massaman curry up there.

I’m an author! April 1, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, papers, pets, research.
Tags: book chapter,
1 comment so far

My morning started off on an awesome note. Over last summer and in the fall, I worked on writing a book chapter. This morning, I got the email that it’s been published online. If you’re interested, it’s called The Interaction of Electrostatic Discharge and RFID.  If you have read my other paper on the topic, the book chapter includes a summary of those results as well as information on circuit-level considerations and issues in manufacturing.

In other news, my husband has been out of town this week, hence the restricted posting. It’s too hard to keep bedtime routines going while composing blog posts, so something had to give. Fortunately, he’s back today, so I can have my normal schedule back soon. I have a few ideas in the hopper, but they all seem education related. Guess I’ve been working on ‘top secret’ stuff at work, so I haven’t had too many engineering things to talk about, and not sure what sciency stuff I feel like writing about.

So back to normal – except that Gigadog will be showing up tomorrow. I have no idea how much that will change our lives. I’m excited about having a fuzzball, though. And I can’t wait to see how Microcat and Macrocat deal with it. I imagine that they’ll fall in love once they realize the worst it’ll do is slobber all over them.  Yes, I’ll post a few pictures.  :-)

Does anyone have any awesome pranks to share as it’s April Fools’ Day?

Amusing reviewer comments January 28, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, papers, research.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

My husband just received some reviews of a paper on which he is a co-author, and there are a couple real gems here.

First: “Please improve English uses in the paper.”

And later: “Introduction can concise.”

While I appreciate where they’re going with this (and there were more similar comments), I think the pot needs to brush up on some grammar before pointing at the kettle.

You want to SHARE credit? January 26, 2011

Posted by mareserinitatis in career, engineering, papers, research.
Tags: credit, , ,
1 comment so far

I have a dilemma, one that is somewhat unique to my situation. Many people work in the same field of research as their spouse. However, my husband and I have several interests in the same subfield. While he doesn’t know that much about geophysics and I’m not all that great with electronics, there is a considerable amount of overlap in our other engineering interests.

Really, it’s awesome to have someone to talk about when we get stuck on technical problems. On the other hand, there is a serious drawback:

Papers.

We do a lot of our research together. It seems like when one of us gets interested in a project, the other inevitably becomes sucked in. And that’s fine. We like it that way. But when we’re putting together a paper on something, inevitably we sit there and stare at each other, pondering whether one or both of our names should go on it.

A reasonable person would say, “Of course! If you both made a significant contribution, then you both deserve to have credit for the final product.” So far, neither one of us has taken the Sheldon Cooper approach to sharing credit.

I especially felt this way while he was doing his dissertation. Sometimes he would come home after I’d gone to sleep and wake me up to talk about things, especially if frustrated. Next thing I knew, he was sleeping soundly, and I was wide awake trying to figure out his problem.

The real problem is that, someday, people may look at my CV, and see that most of my papers have been co-authored by my husband. They may wonder if he really deserves the credit and is helping me along. (The opposite scenario of him taking unearned credit is also plausible but less likely.)

At this point, we’ve been saying that fairness demands the other person be given credit. But I can’t help but wonder if down the line, one of us may end up regretting it.

If anyone has had any experience or wisdom to share on the topic, I’d love to hear it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,006 other followers