# Why is it difficult to copy edit your own work?

When I was writing my PhD thesis, as with anyone else it involved multiple drats going back and forth. As far I am concerned writing is never a linear process. At times one cannot even write a single line in a day, and at other times you may finish a couple of sections in a a few hours. Writing is difficult as it involves third level thinking (Dix 2006). You may have several ideas with you, you can also explicate while talking to others. But when it comes to writing it down we find it is not easy. But when we are in the”zone” the writing task becomes a natural thing. Your creative juices flow, the elusive ideas seem to express themselves in words. I usually experience such zone when l am at the end of the world task. The disparate looking ideas are bound together in a coherent whole. The feeling is close to an epiphany of a strange kind. You lose track of time and experience oneness with your work, as of the concrete form of ideas is a physical extension of your self. The feeling can be deeply satisfying to see your ideas on a concrete form. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi uses the term “flow” to describe such an experience.

I experience the similar thing while reading a book. There are times when even reading a couple of sentences feels like a chore. While at other times when I am in the flow a hundred pages are finished in a couple of hours. The result send effortless. Words just seen to read themselves or to you. Of course it also depends on the kind of book one is reading. Technical books will take a longer to read.

When you are reading easily, you actually don’t read the entire words, letter by letter. Rather there is some sort of guess work or pre-processing that happens. Typically by looking at the starting letter and the end letter and also estimating the size of the word, we can actually guess the word before we can read it correctly. That is our cognitive system can fill in the gaps when we are dealing with familiar information. This makes the reading fast for experienced learners. A full use is made is of the repertoire of words that we know, and also rules of grammar. We expect certain words to follow certain words. And at times our system will fill in the gaps by itself when it finds some. This way the reading becomes effortless and we can make name out of it easily. Such fast refund comes with experience and knowing the language. When your children have difficulty in reading they have both problems. Their prediction system is not strong so they have to read each word and each letter in the word individually and only then they are angle to make sense. This then boils to be able to recognise the symbols as quickly as possible.

But how do we recognise the symbols that we see? There are several theories that attempt to explain our recognition of the symbols. The template theory posits that there are as many templates in our long term memory as many symbols we can detect. But this assumption of the theory puts severe demand on the long term memory and also on the processes which would the pattern recognition. A simple example which puts the template theory into spot is that we can recognise a letter in its various forms. The sheer number of fonts and handwriting, some of it bordering on illegible, we can recognise with little efforts lots severe strain on the template theory. The fact that we can also recognise the shape of fonts we have never seen before also poses a challenge.

The feature theory on the other hand posits that the long term memory has a set of features of the symbols which are essential in the symbol. For example, to recognise letter “w”, the feature set might include two lines slanting to the left and two lines slanting to right such as \ / \ /. This as soon as our sensory register gets this input of such lines we immediately pre process such input to a “w”. The feature theory posits three steps in pattern recognition which are collectively called as Analysis-by-Synthesis. In this process the pattern is broken down into its features, then these features are matched with LTM and finally a decision about the pattern is taken. Thus with this theory we require much less number of items in our long term memory. The analysis-by-synthesis is completely driven by the data that impinges on the sensory organs.

Some of the challenges that this theory faces include ambiguity of how we deal with ambiguity in recognition of the patterns especially when the data is similar. In particular it does not answer our ability to consider importance of context in which the patterns appear and the sensory data itself is not good enough discriminator. In many cases turns out that we rely on other knowledge and information also to make sense of the patterns, in which case the feature theory alone cannot provide good explanations. For example, consider the Greek letter $\Delta$. Though we can identify it as such, the meaning it conveys can be heavily dependent on the context. We take three such examples.

• If it is seen in a sentence in Greek it will be interpreted as a sound “de” Το Δελχί είναι η πρωτεύουσα της Ινδίας (Delhi is India’s capital.).
• Now if the same letter $\Delta$ is seen in a mathematical context such as $\Delta ABC \cong \Delta PQR$, it represents a triangle and the sentence is read as “Triangle ABC is congruent to triangle PQR”.
• Finally, if the symbol $\Delta$ appears in a physics formula, lets say $\Delta E = E_{2} – E_{1}$, it represents a difference in the two values of $E$.

Or consider the two sentences below

In the first sentence we will probably read it as “The number of participants was 190 (one hundred and ninety)” while in the second sentence we would read it as “I go there often”. Note here that the visual pattern is the same in both the sentences. Yet the context of the sentence makes all the difference in how we interpret the pattern. From such experiences we must conclude that context affects the pattern recognition by activating some conceptual information from LTM or pre-synthesising the pattern. Thus our cognitive system adds more information based on the contexts to the perceptual data to make sense of the patterns and context establishes what to expect in the incoming patterns.

Now this adaptive feature of the our cognitive system can be very useful and allows us to be much faster than just being dependent on the perceptual information. But at times it can be maladaptive also. This notion brings us back to the title of this post. As I completed my first draft of the thesis, and gave it for comments, I discovered to my extreme horror and embarrassment that it was full of elementary grammatical mistakes. In the flow of writing down my ideas, I chose to just go with them. Though I did review what I had written, I did not find any obvious faults in it. This is something that you might have also experienced. It is difficult to see “obvious” break in ideas or abrupt endings in your own writing, and this of course also includes “trivial” grammar rules of punctuation and articles as such.  But when you are proof-reading work of someone else both “obvious” and  “trivial” errors are markedly visible. I can say this as I have copy-edited and proof-read several long and short works, where I did found out the very same errors in other works which I could not in my own work. Thankfully, in my thesis most of the issues were of “trivial” grammar and no “obvious” conceptual or fundamental issues were pointed. I then furiously began correcting the “trivial” grammar issues in my work.

Why is this so? Seen in the framework of analysis-by-synthesis model, we know what we have written or wanted to write and our pre-synthesising cognitive system fills in the obvious gaps and creates the required and expected patterns contextually where they are found missing. We tend to “skip” over our writing as we read it in a flow, with background and context of why the text was written and what it wants to say. All the “obvious” and  “trivial” errors and gaps are ironed out with the additional contextual information that we have about our own work. So we have to be extra-careful while proof-reading our own work. When we are reading work written by someone else, all this background information is not available to us, hence pre-synthesising of patterns happens at a lower level. This leads us to find “obvious” and  “trivial” errors and gaps much easily.

I found out that though I can do a good job of proof-reading other persons work on a computer (using the record changes/comments on a word processor) , for proof-reading my own work I usually take a printout and work on it with a pen. The concrete form of my work perhaps helps me in minimising the pre-synthesising that happens.  I usually take red ink for proof-reading, perhaps reminiscing of how teachers in schools grade assignments.

References

Chapter 2 Hunt, R. R., & Ellis, H. C. (1999). Fundamentals of cognitive psychology. McGraw-Hill.

A. Dix (2006). writing as third order experience Interfaces, 68, pp. 19-20. Autumn 2006.

# What develops in children as they grow up?

. . . the most ubiquitous finding in developmental research is that infants show more adult- like performance as they grow older. [1]

The very fact that children grow up and become adults relates to the above sentence. The starting and the ending points of the child’s development are known to us. The main aim of the developmental theories is to find out the ‘paths’ that lead to the change from an infant to an adult. Thus in a way different theories ‘map’ out the regions between the infant and adult. For achieving this, every theory has some tools, processes, structures and concepts. Change and development in each of these parameters results in the overall development of the child. The parameters and the agents of development may be different in the different approaches. We consider each of the major developmental theories with respect to their parameters of development.
The broad outlines for the various developmental approaches presented here follow closely the section What Develops? at the end of each chapter in [4] unless otherwise indicated.

# 1 Piagetian Approach

The basic paradigm that the Piagetian approach envisages, is the stagewise development of the child and the associated psychological structures or schemes. The stages of child range from an infant at sensorimotor stage to an adolescent in formal operational stage. Associated with each stage is the characteristic structural change in schemes, regulations, functions, and various logico-mathematical structures. So the answer to the question ‘what develops’ according to Piaget would be that the schemes and structures associated with each stage develop, in accordance to characteristic for each stage. This development can be assessed through observations, interviews taken by the experimenter [4] pg. 72.

# 2 Information Processing Approach

In the information processing approach, the cognitive processing is the measure of development. The increase in cognitive processing means that it becomes efficient, well organized, and the content of information also increases, which results in the overall development. Children acquire ‘rules’, ‘strategies’, ‘scripts’ and more knowledge. The concept of memory is directly related to the cognitive processing, it determines the ‘speed’ of processing as well as the ‘output’. So the increase in the memory capacity results in the overall increase ‘quality’ as well as the ‘quantity’ of the cognitive processing. In case of the connectionist approach the strengthening of connections in terms of number and strengths over time, would represent the development of the particular path of connections related to the input.

# 3 Vygotskian Approach

In the Vygotskian approach the development of the child has a distinctly social character. Also the development is not just limited to the individual, but is much broader in the outlook; viz. a culture, a species, a child, a cognitive skill. The basic unit of development is the “active-child-in- cultural-context.” This unit is responsible for construction of different cognitive skills, including “system of meaning and its psychological tools.” The ideal end point in development of each culture is dependent of the goals of the particular culture. The goal of the culture is the basic driving force for the development of the child, and the interactions of the child with the society are responsible for this. The psychological tools or the higher mental functions are the parameters of the development of the child. A volitional control, conscious awareness of these higher mental functions represents a final step in the process of development [6] Chapters 5 and 6.

# 4 Psychoanalytic Approach

In the Freudian or the psycho-analytic approach three structures viz. the id, ego and the superego form the central basis of the theory. The id is the largest portion of the mind, is innate and is responsible for biological needs and desires. The id aims to satisfy the impulses without any delay. The ego which emerges in early infancy, is the conscious part of the personality and is responsible for the completion of id’s impulses in accordance with reality. The superego develops between 3 -6 years and incorporates the values of the society. The emergence, interaction and the struggle between these three structures form the basis of development. [2] pg. 14, [4] pg. 137.

# 5 Social Learning Theories

The learning theorists provide only a few universal behaviors as the act of learning itself depends on ‘what the environment has to offer.’ Since this theory accounts for development primarily as a quantitative change, one in which the learning episodes accumulate over time; the ability to skillfully learn what is observed or listened from the other people or by attending to symbolic characters or imitation in the society is developed in the children universally [4] pg. 201.

# 6 Ecological Theories

In the Gibson’s ecological theory child actively learns from experience and environment. The child learns to detect the structure, which specifies the information available to be perceived. Gibson has proposed four parameters for human behavior viz. agency, prospectivity, search for order, and flexibility. Agency “is the self in control, the quality of intentionality in behavior.” We see ourselves as distinct from the environment, and can be agent to cause the change in it. Thus with development our aspect towards this relationship changes. Prospectivity refers to the intentionality, planning and anticipation of the future. This is also seen to develop with the age. The search for order would involve the search for patterns, order and regularity in trying to make the sense of the environment. The aspect of flexibility comes into picture with the adaptation to the environment with whatever ‘skills’ one has. The affordances [“what an environment offers it provides for an organism; they are opportunities for action”] needed for working in another setting are obtained by changing the activities [4] pg. 360.

# 7 Modularity Nativism

The term modularity nativism refers to a set of approaches that postulate certain innate modules, structures or constraints, each specialized for a particular domain of cognition [3] pg 20. The modules are ‘pre-programmed’ to respond to specific sorts of information. These innate modules require a ‘trigger’ in form of little experiences, with appropriate content, to be activated. The different modules are posited to be relatively independent of each other, such that the development in one does not overflow into another. The developmental changes in thinking are caused by external factors such as maturation [4] pg. 427. This in turn implies that the infant mind is not very different from that of an adult.

# 8 Theory Theory

The theory theory approach is another domain specific approach to child development, which likens the children’s knowledge to a scientific theory [3] pg. 20. The children are capable of constructing intuitive, folk , everyday na ̈ıve “theories” for a particular domain [4] pg. 423. According to this theory the child has different theories for different domains. In the development process the children ‘test’ these intuitive theories, just like a scientists, in light of their experiences, thus they are like ‘little scientists’. So the answer to the question, What Develops? is that these intuitive na ̈ıve theories develop, with the experience of the children with the real world.

# 9 Dynamic Systems

The dynamic systems approach to child development addresses change over time in the complex holistic systems, especially self organizing ones [4] pg. 432. The term dynamic system most generally means “simply systems of elements that change over time.” In dynamic systems we have two basic themes for development [5] pg. 563:

1. Development can only be understood as the the multiple, mutual, and continuous interaction of all the levels of the developing system, from the molecular to the cultural.
2. Development can only be understood as nested processes that unfold over many time scales, from milliseconds to years.

One of the metaphors that is used to explain the dynamic systems approach is a mountain stream . The behavioral pattern are analogous to the eddies and the ripples of a mountain stream. In mountain stream metaphor “behavioral development is seen as an epigenetic process, that is truly constructed by its own history and system wide activity” [5] pg. 569. Thus development is seen as a process in which new behavioral patterns emerge because of interaction. [5]

## References

[1]  Aslin as quoted in [3] pg. 47.
[2]  Berk L., Child Development 3rd Ed. 2001, Prentice Hall of India
[3]  Flavell J. H., Miller P. H., Miller S. A. Cognitive Development 4th Ed. 2001, Prentice Hall
[4]  Miller P. H., Theories of Developmental Psychology 2001, W.H. Freeman
[5]  Thelen E., Smith L. B., “Dynamic Systems Theories” Chapter 10 in Handbook of Child Psychology : Vol. 1. Theoretical Models of Human Development 1998, Wiley
[6]  Vygotsky L. S., Thinking and Speech Ed. Rieber, Carton The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1: Problems of General Psychology 1987 Plenum

# The psychology of perception of time in elevators

As a technology, elevators were mandatory for having high rise apartments. You really don’t want to climb up 35 flights of stairs to just get home. My experience with elevators (or lifts as they are more commonly called in India) has been rather strange at times and continues to be so. And I am pretty sure, this is something most people also experience. If you look at it with scrutiny, it is not a strange experience per se, but I found it fascinating nonetheless. As the title of the post suggests, it is about how we perceive the passage of time when we are in an elevator. Now, typically, they would take less than a minute, sometimes perhaps 10-20 seconds to traverse the required distance. Now, here I am considering typical apartment buildings which I have lived in. Not the skyscrapers with 100s of floors. The lift takes about 12 seconds, as timed using a stopwatch to reach my floor if there are no other stops. Of course, if there are stops on intervening floors when people get in or get out, this is longer. So this is the minimum possible time for the lift to take this floor, both ways. That is from my floor to the ground floor and from the ground floor to my floor.

The distance between the ground floor and my floor is constant. The lift and its motor produce the same acceleration and hence same terminal velocity, and the time taken is the same (as measured with a chronometer). I used a quantum-temporal-displacement-chronometer to be sure about time measurement. So our experience of this short travel should also be the same. But this is far from the case. Traveling in the lift gives a variety of experiences. But most strongly it affects how we perceive the passage of time during this short journey. Sometimes it is as if the ground floor is touched as soon as you press the 0 button on the control panel, while at other times it seems time itself has slowed down and it is taking centuries to cover that trivial distance. You may look at the panel displaying the current floor several times during these few seconds and yet it somehow feels lift is moving too slowly. And at times when you are not looking at the panel, and are lost in your thoughts, it chimes to indicate the ground floor has arrived. And you are surprised that it took such a short time. So what kind of blackmagicfuckery is this you wonder? That we subjectively experience something entirely different in terms of time perception is nothing new, but in the case of an elevator, it is so much striking and a part of everyday experience.

I have concocted explanations for the two cases one in which we deem the lift going too slowly and one in which we perceive it be too fast. In the first case, when we perceive the lift to be too slow, we are perhaps not thinking about anything else. Our entire cognitive apparatus and sense organs (eyes and ears) are solely focussed on getting to the destination. Hence, we tend to only look at the floors numbers on the display panel again and again. Expecting it to change often, and our expectation time, the way our neurons are firing is much faster than the real-time. The anticipation is that it should go faster whereas it is going at its own pre-determined pace. Hence, there is a cognitive dissonance that we experience as lift going too slowly. This is even more pronounced if we are in a hurry to get somewhere or are already late. I have seen people press the buttons on the control panel again and again in the hope that it will get them there faster, but it doesn’t work that way. Objectively measured the lift will take the pre-determined time to reach its destination. You are only subjectively experiencing that it is taking longer. Perhaps two persons in the same lift will have a  completely different perception of time depending upon their mental states.

Now coming to the other case, in which we experience the time to be too short, perhaps our cognitive system is already too loaded. This is when before entering the lift we are deep in a thought chain that we are processing. In such a scenario, we expect the lift to just take us to the destination once we press the button. Our schema for the elevator is activated, we don’t have to do any cognitive processing once we press the button. The schema, as an automated response shaped by our experiences with elevators and induction, works seamlessly when not interfered with, assuming that the elevator is behaving in its normal manner. I have had experience of an elevator which could close the door as you were trying to enter. It was almost as if the elevator waited like a predator to catch its pray. Some logic circuits in this elevator were fried, and it won’t let you off you when it caught your leg. Or the elevator might itself have a severe case of fear of heights (vertigo?), as told in HHGTG and would not want to travel to heights. But these being extreme cases, most elevators are domesticated and docile, doing the deed they are designed to do depositing and delivering cargo to destinations, despite the draconian ways in which some travellers might treat them.

Coming back to the explanation for the former case, perhaps due to no cognitive load we are trying to screw with the automated schema. We are just running the simulation of the schema for elevators in our minds, and confusing it with the real world out there. Hence there is a cognitive dissonance. We are expecting something in the mind, while we are seeing something in reality. I have also tried this experiment sometimes when this happens. I close my eyes and mentally calculate the amount of time that might have passed and try to predict the floor that I might have reached. I open my eyes to check if I have guessed correctly but most of the times I am incorrect in the guess.

When we have company in the lift, the temporal experience can be altered and can be subjective as well. If you are with a person whom you find attractive or admire, you might feel that the time taken was perhaps too short. On the other hand, if it is somebody whom you find disgusting or un-attractive, the same journey might seem like a lifetime or a life sentence. In this case, perhaps the cognitive system has become completely Epicurean (when it is not?) in its approach and wants to maximise the good times and minimise the not-so-good ones.

But this does not end the discussion of the elevators. Experiments in elevators provide some useful insights in fundamental physics. This is related to the concepts of frames of reference and the so-called equivalence principle. Elevators are used in Gedanken experiments for thinking about the equivalence principle, which later gave rise to the general theory of relativity.

Apple falling inside a box that rests on the Earth. Indistinguishable motion when the appl is inside an accelerated box in outer space.

The equivalence principle states that to an observer in a freely falling elevator the laws of physics are the same as in the inertial frames of special relativity (at least in the  immediate neighbourhood of the centre of the elevator). The effects due to the accelerated motion and to the gravitational forces exactly cancel. An observer sitting in an enclosed elevator cannot, if he observes apparent gravitational forces, tell what portion of these correspond to acceleration and what portion to actual gravitational forces. He will detect no forces at all unless other forces (i.e., other than gravitational forces) act on the elevator. In particular, the postulated principle of equivalence requires that the ratio of the inertial and gravitational masses be M_i/M_g = 1. The “weightlessness” of a man in orbit in a satellite is a consequence of the equivalence principle. Pursuit of the mathematical consequences of the  principle of equivalence leads to the general theory of relativity.. –
From Kittel Mechanics – Berkeley Physics Course Volume 1

Another fundamental aspect of physics which uses elevators is the notion of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference. An inertial frame of reference is one in which the particle experiences no acceleration (either transitional or rotational).

Our ability to say whether or not a particular reference frame is an inertial frame will depend in a strict sense upon the precision with which we can detect the effects of a small acceleration of the frame. In a practical sense, a reference frame in which no acceleration is observed for a particle believed to be free of any force and constraint is taken to be an inertial frame.

Now an elevator moving with a constant downward acceleration will be no different than the gravity that we experience on the surface of the Earth. No dynamical experiments conducted inside the elevator will ever tell us whether the elevator is moving with constant acceleration or it is stationary at the surface of the Earth. To know what is the actual case we have to go and perform experiments / take observations outside the lift.

Thus the humble lift or elevator has more to offer to you than just taking you from point A to point B in your daily routine.

# Implicit cognition in the visual mode

Images become iconified, with the image representing an object or
phenomena, but this happens by enculturation rather by training. An
example to elaborate this notion is the painting Treachery of
Images by Belgian surrealist artist René Magritte. The painting is
also sometimes called This is not a pipe. The picture shows a
pipe, and below it, Magritte painted, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe.”,
French for “This is not a pipe.”

When one looks at the painting, one
exclaims “Of course, it is a pipe! What is the painter trying to say
here? We can all see that it is indeed a pipe, only a fool will claim
otherwise!” But then this is what Magritte has to say:

The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you
stuff my pipe? No, it’s just a representation, is it not? So if I had
written on my picture `This is a pipe’, I’d have been lying!

Aha! Yess! Of course!! you say. “Of course it is not a pipe! Of
course it is a representation of the pipe. We all know that! Is this
all the painter was trying to say? Its a sort of let down, we were
expecting more abstract thing from the surrealist.” We see that the
idea or concept that the painting is a \emph{representation} is so
deeply embedded in our mental conceptual construct that we take it for
granted all the time. It has become so basic to our everyday social
discourse and intercourse that by default we assume it to be so. Hence
the confusion about the image of the pipe. Magritte exposes this
simple assumption, that we so often ignore. This is true for all the
graphics that we see around us. The assumption is implicit in all the
things we experience in the society. The representation becomes the
thing itself, for it is implicit in the way we talk and communicate.
Big B and D
When you look at a photo of something or someone, you recognize
it. “This is Big B!” you say looking at the painting! But then you
have already implicitly assumed that the representation of Big B is Big B. This implicit assumption comes from years of implicit training from being submerged in  the sea of the visual artefacts that surround and drown us. This association between the visual representation and the reality it represents had become the central theme of the visual culture that we live in. The training that we need for such an association comes from the peers and mentors that surround us from the childhood. The meaning and the association of the images is taught/caught over the years, so much so that we assume the abstract association is the normal way things are. In this way it becomes the implicit truth, though when one is pressed, the explicit connections are brought out.
Yet when it comes to understanding images in science and mathematics, the same thing doesn’t happen. There is no enculturation of children into understand the implicit meaning in these images. Hardly there are no peers or mentors whose actions and practices can be imitated by the young impressible learners. The practice which comes so naturally in other domains (identifying actor with a picture of the actor, or identifying a physical space with a photo) doesn’t happen in science and mathematics classrooms. The notion of practice is dissociated from the what is done to imbibe this understanding in the children. A practice based approach where the images become synonymous with their implied meaning is used in vocabulary might one very positive way out, this is after all practitioners of science and mathematics learn their trade.

# On who controls who

PUNCH AND JUDY, TO THEIR AUDIENCE
Our puppet strings are hard to see,
So we perceive ourselves as free,
Convinced that no mere objects could
Behave in terms of bad and good.
To you, we mannikins seem less
than live, because our consciousness
is that of dummies, made to sit
on laps of gods and mouth their wit;
Are you, our transcendental gods,