15.12.16
Option A vs B: Decision Time
Tomorrow Edinburgh City Council will decide between Options A and B for the East-West Cycle route, after deferring a decision last September. Some of the recent coverage:
- A visualisation of Roseburn Option A (above).
- A comparison of road layout, current against Option A (below).
- A letter in the Edinburgh Evening News from East-West nemesis Pete Gregson.
- A letter from Transport Committee head Leslie Hinds, rebutting the previous letter.
- A two-page spread in the Edinburgh Evening News.
- A blog post from Daisy Narayanan of Sustrans.
We have seen narratives that create an ‘us’ and ‘them’ – pitting ‘motorists’ against ‘cyclists’ against ‘pedestrians’. With such projects, it is hugely disheartening to see what should have been a force for positive change become a focus for anger. It is equally disheartening to see strong evidence and the policies of the Scottish Government which support a more active, greener Scotland being undermined by such opposition.
In darker moments, I have been tempted to draw parallels to the post-fact world that we seem to inhabit at present.
Previously:
Option A vs B: Kicked into the long grass
Option A: Think about the childrenOption A vs B: Kicked into the long grass
Labels: Cycling, Edinburgh, Politics
10.12.16
Do you have Q?
A study conducted at Northeastern analyses the factors that contribute to success in science. Age is not one of them.
The research team began by focusing on career physicists. It ransacked the literature going back to 1893, identifying 2,856 physicists with careers of 20 years or more who published at least one paper every five years — widely cited findings rated as “impact” papers — and the team analyzed when in a career those emerged. ...Benedict Carey, New York Times, When It Comes to Success, Age is Just a Number.
[K]eeping productivity equal, the scientists were as likely to score a hit at age 50 as at age 25. The distribution was random; choosing the right project to pursue at the right time was a matter of luck.
Yet turning that fortuitous choice into an influential, widely recognized contribution depended on another element, one the researchers called Q.
Q could be translated loosely as “skill,” and most likely includes a broad variety of factors, such as I.Q., drive, motivation, openness to new ideas and an ability to work well with others. Or, simply, an ability to make the most of the work at hand: to find some relevance in a humdrum experiment, and to make an elegant idea glow.
“This Q factor is so interesting because it potentially includes abilities people have but may not recognize as central,” said Zach Hambrick, a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. “Clear writing, for instance. Take the field of mathematical psychology. You may publish an interesting finding, but if the paper is unreadable, as so many are, you can’t have wide impact because no one understands what you’re talking about.”
