MISTAKE-MISTAKES

10 Common First-Aid Mistakes

2011-12-30T05:32:00.000-08:00

1. Myth: Cut a snakebite
“The safest thing to do for snakebite is just splint the limb and go to thehospital,” says Christopher P. Holstege, M.D., an emergency medicine doctor andtoxicology expert. “Cutting the bite wound could sever tendons, nerves orarteries or increase the risk of infection, and tourniquets are risky,” Dr.Holstege explains.

Dr. Holstege recommends the right approaches forthe following first-aid myths.

2. Myth: Put butter on a burn.
Reality: If you apply butter or another substance to a serious burn, you couldmake it difficult for a doctor to treat the burn later and increase risk ofinfection.

The right approach: “It’s usually OK to cool theburn with cool water, but burns with significant blistering need to be seen ata health-care facility,” says Dr. Holstege. Keep the burn clean and looselycovered. Don’t pop the blisters.

3.Myth: Keep syrup of ipecac on hand in case of an accidental poisoning.
Reality: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other experts no longerrecommend using syrup of ipecac. The AAP says there’s no evidence that vomitinghelps children who have swallowed something poisonous. Most emergency medical facilitieshave switched to activated charcoal, which binds with the poison in the stomachand prevents it from entering the bloodstream.

The right approach: Throw out any syrup ofipecac that you have at home. If an accidental poisoning occurs, immediatelycall your doctor or a poison-control center for advice.

4. Myth: Apply a tourniquet to a bleeding extremity.
Reality: When severe bleeding occurs, some people mistakenly tie a belt orshoestring around the limb above the wound to slow the flow of blood. But doingso can cause permanent tissue damage.

The right approach: Pad the wound with layers ofsterile gauze or cloth, apply direct pressure, and wrap the wound securely.Seek medical help if the bleeding doesn’t stop or if the wound is gaping,dirty, or caused by an animal bite.

5. Myth: Apply heat to a sprain, strain, or fracture.
Reality: Heat gives the opposite of the desired effect—it promotes swelling andcan keep the injury from healing as quickly as it could.

The right approach: Apply ice wrapped in a clothor something else to keep it from having direct contact with the skin,alternating 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off for the first 24 to 48 hours.

6. Myth: You should move someone injured in a caraccident.
Reality: A person with a spinal-cord injury won’t necessarily appear badlyinjured, but pulling him or her out of a vehicle—even removing the helmet froman injured motorcyclist—could lead to paralysis or death.

The right approach: If the vehicle isn’tthreatened by fire or another serious hazard, it’s best to leave the person inplace until paramedics arrive.

7. Myth: Rub your eye when you get a foreign substance init.
Reality:Doing so could cause a serious tear or abrasion.

The right approach: Rinse the eye with tapwater.

8. Myth: Use hot water to thaw a cold extremity. Hands and feet go numb when they get too cold,in which case many people try to warm them up by putting them under hot water.
Reality: Hot water can cause further damage.

The right approach: Use lukewarm water only, oruse dry heat.

9. Myth: Sponge on rubbing alcohol to reduce a fever.
Reality: In children, the alcohol vapor is absorbed from the lungs. Childrenare sensitive to very small amounts of alcohol.

The right approach: “Take acetaminophen oribuprofen,” says Dr. Holstege. “If a fever is very high, have it checked by aphysician or treated in a hospital emergency room.”

10. Myth: It’s OK to treat at home an allergic response toa bee sting.
Reality: Delaying professional treatment could be fatal.

The right approach: For symptoms such asbreathing problems, tight throat, or swollen tongue, call for an ambulanceimmediately.

Small Patients, Big Consequences in Medical Errors

2011-12-13T21:55:00.001-08:00

WHEN 6-year-old Chance Pendleton cameout of surgery for a wandering eye, it was obvious that something was notright. “He was crying hysterically, vomiting and kept saying, ‘I wish I was dead,’ ”his mother, Grace Alexander, of Paris, Tex., recalled.

The boy had been through surgery before and hadnever reacted this way. “The nurse was quite peeved and wanted me to calm himbefore he disturbed anyone,” said Ms. Alexander, who said Chance was deniedmore pain and anti-nausea medication. “She thought he was just throwing atantrum.”
After about 20 minutes, another nurse walked by,and Ms. Alexander beckoned her for help. The nurse checked the intravenous linein Chance’s ankle and saw that it wasn’t inserted correctly. He wasn’treceiving any medication. She immediately fixed it, bringing relief to Chancein a matter of seconds.
Medical mistakes, though also common in adults,can have more serious consequences in children, doctors say. The actor DennisQuaid’s newborn twins nearly died last year after receiving1,000 times the prescribed dose of a blood thinner. Other infants have diedfrom the same error. A study in the journal Pediatrics in April found thatproblems due to medications occurred in 11 percent of children who were in thehospital, and that 22 percent of them were preventable.
An Instituteof Medicine report nearlya decade ago highlighted the prevalence of medical errors, and they are still amajor problem. “There’s been slow progress in the decline of these errors,”said Dr. Peter B. Angood, chief patient safety officer of the Joint Commission,the independent hospital accreditation agency. The agency recently called onhospitals tofurther reduce medication errors in children.
Children are also the victims of diagnosticerrors, incorrect procedures or tests, infections and injuries.
Medical errors pose a greater threat to childrenthan to adults for a number of reasons. They are physically small, and theirkidneys, liver and immune system are still developing. Even a tiny increase inthe dose of medication can have serious effects — especially in babies bornprematurely. And if children take a turn for the worse, they can deterioratemore rapidly than adults. Children also are less able to communicate what theyare feeling, making it difficult to diagnose their problem or know when asymptom or complication develops.
Adult medications are prepackaged and havestandardized doses, but pediatric medications vary, based on the child’s weightand sometimes height, requiring doctors to make calculations. It is easy tomisplace a decimal point, a tenfold error.
Typically, an adult formulation is diluted forchildren, and sometimes “the amount of medication being diluted is smaller thanan air bubble in a syringe,” said Dr. Rainu Kaushal, director of quality andpatient safety at the Komansky Center for Children’s Health at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell MedicalCenter.
“A pharmacist can get orders for 55 milligrams,65 milligrams, 70 milligrams of the same medication,” said Michael R. Cohen,president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit healthcare education organization. And medications for children come in differentformulations, from drops to liquids to chewables. These variables increase thechance of human error, Dr. Kaushal said.
The Joint Commission reported that about 32percent of medication errors in children in the operating room involved thewrong dose, compared with 14 percent in adults.
But not all errors happen in hospitals. KarenRhodes was giving her 2-year-old daughter, Lanie, the prescription medicationZyrtec for allergies threetimes a day, as the label indicated. But Lanie began to suffer tremors, herbreathing grew shallow, and she became “zoned out,” her mother said. It turnedout she was getting three times the recommended dose; the drug should have beentaken once a day. It was the pharmacist’s error, said Mrs. Rhodes, ofSpartanburg, S.C.
At the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting in 2006, Dr. Kaushalreported that potentially harmful medication errors affected 26 percent ofchildren in outpatient care.
“There needs to be more medications specificallymanufactured for the pediatric population, more standardized dosing regimensand very accurate and clear labeling and packaging of medications,” said Dr.Angood of the Joint Commission. A labeling issue caused the mix-up that led tothe overdose of the Quaid twins. The label for a 10-unit dose of the bloodthinner heparin, which is used to flush intravenous lines, looked similar tothe label of the 10,000-unit dose that the twins were given.
TECHNOLOGY has helped to reduce medicationerrors. Two methods are favored by experts: an electronic prescribing systemknown as computerized physician order entry, and a system in which a bar codeassigned to a patient is swiped against the bar code of the drug he is about toreceive.
But these technologies are expensive and requiretraining. Only about 10 percent of hospitals in the United States usecomputerized prescribing, and 20 percent use bar coding, said Dr. Cohen. Onetechnology, adopted by about half of the hospitals in the United States, is thesmart pump, a programmable intravenous device that regulates the amount andtiming of drug delivery. Infections, which are considered errors because theyare preventable, are also common among children being treated in hospitals.Studies of neonatal and pediatric intensive care units found that infectionstopped the list of medical errors, followed by medication errors and injuriesfrom catheters (many are left in too long), said Dr. Paul J. Sharek, chiefclinical patient safety officer of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital atStanford in Palo Alto, Calif.
Misdiagnosis is also common and can lead toserious complications or death. A study of malpractice lawsuits involvingchildren visiting emergency departments found thatmeningitis, appendicitis andbroken arms were the most common misdiagnosed conditions.
Hospitals can take simple measures to reducemistakes. For example, when members of a surgical team take a time-out a momentbefore operating to check that they have the right patient, the right procedureand the correct location, errors are reduced.
Parents need to be the eyes, ears and advocatesfor their children. “Parents have to pay attention and speak up,” said Dr.Steve Selbst, professor of pediatrics atJefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, who conducted the study onmalpractice suits. “You know your child, and if you feel something’s wrong, goup the chain of command.”
Chance Pendleton’s mother said she was notaggressive enough. “I wish I had been more confrontational sooner,” she said.“That was the worst 20 minutes of my life.”
Here are some tips from experts for parents tolower the chance their child will be harmed by his or her treatment.
ID BRACELETS If your child is in the hospital, make sure theidentification bracelet is worn at all times.
HYGIENE Ask all health care providers to wash their hands beforeapproaching your child.
INFORMATION Before a procedure, ask the surgery team’s members ifthey know exactly what the procedure is.
KNOWLEDGE Schedule a time every day to review with the physicianand nurses the medications your child is taking and any other information abouthis care.
AWARENESS Keep an eye on catheters and incisions, looking forredness and swelling.
ASK QUESTIONS If your child is very sick, make sure a pediatricspecialist is involved, and ask whether your child should be moved to achildren’s hospital.
TALK ABOUT IT Express your concerns about a missed diagnosis.
BE PREPARED Carry a list of the medications your child is taking andremind doctors about any allergies your child has.
DOUBLE-CHECK Understand why medications are being ordered, and don’tbe afraid to ask the doctor to double-check that he used your child’s correctweight and height in calculating the dose.
MEDICINES Familiarize yourself with the medications so that you canrecognize if your child is given the wrong pill or liquid. Ask about potentialcomplications and whom to contact if your child has a reaction.
VIGILANCE Be especially watchful if your child is taking multiplemedications or is on high-risk medications like chemotherapy drugs,insulin or heparin, or if your child has a compromised immune or organfunction.
THANKS http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/health

Top Ten Mistakes in Education

2011-12-03T05:02:00.001-08:00

Obviously, I believe thatthe school system is making a great many mistakes. Here are my ten favorites,favorite not because I like them but because eradicating them would go so fartowards helping kids learn:

Mistake #1: Schools actas if learning can be disassociated from doing.

There really is nolearning without doing. There is the appearance of learning without doing whenwe ask children to memorize stuff. But adults know that they learn best on thejob, from experience, by trying things out. Children learn best that way, too.If there is nothing to actually do in a subject area we want to teach childrenit may be the case that there really isn't anything that children ought tolearn in that subject area.

Mistake #2: Schoolsbelieve they have the job of assessment as part of their natural role.

Assessment is not the jobof the schools. Products ought to be assessed by the buyer of those products,not the producer of those products. Let the schools do the best job they canand then let the buyer beware. Schools must concentrate on learning andteaching, not testing and comparing.

Mistake #3: Schoolsbelieve they have an obligation to create standard curricula.

Why should everyone knowthe same stuff? What a dull world it would be if everyone knew only the samematerial. Let children choose where they want to go, and with proper guidancethey will choose well and create an alive and diverse society.

Mistake #4: Teachersbelieve they ought to tell students what they think it is important to know.

There isn't all that muchthat it is important to know. There is a lot that it is important to know howto do, however. Teachers should help students figure out how to do stuff thestudents actually want to do.

Mistake #5: Schoolsbelieve instruction can be independent of motivation for actual use.

We really have to getover the idea that some stuff is just worth knowing even if you never doanything with it. Human memories happily erase stuff that has no purpose, sowhy try to fill up children's heads with such stuff? Concentrate on figuringout why someone would ever want to know something before you teach it, andteach the reason, in a way that can be believed, at the same time.

Mistake #6: Schoolsbelieve studying is an important part of learning.

Practice is an importantpart of learning, not studying. Studying is a complete waste of time. No oneever remembers the stuff they cram into their heads the night before the exam,so why do it? Practice, on the other hand, makes perfect. But, you have to bepracticing a skill that you actually want to know how to perform.

Mistake #7: Schoolsbelieve that grading according to age group is an intrinsic part of theorganization of a school.

This is just a historicalaccident and it's a terrible idea. Age-grouped grades are one of the principalsources of terror for children in school, because they are always feeling theyare not as good as someone else or better than someone else, and so on. Suchcomparisons and other social problems caused by age-similar grades cause many achild to have terrible confidence problems. Allowing students to help those whoare younger, on the other hand, works well for both parties.

Mistake #8: Schoolsbelieve children will accomplish things only by having grades to strive for.

Grades serve as motivationfor some children, but not for all. Some children get very frustrated by thearbitrary use of power represented by grades and simply give up.

Mistake #9: Schoolsbelieve discipline is an inherent part of learning.

Old people especiallybelieve this, probably because schools were seriously rigid and uptight intheir day. The threat of a ruler across the head makes children anxious andquiet. It does not make them learn. It makes them afraid to fail, which is adifferent thing altogether.

Mistake #10: Schoolsbelieve students have a basic interest in learning whatever it is schoolsdecide to teach to them.

What kid would chooselearning mathematics over learning about animals, trucks, sports, or whatever?Is there one? Good. Then, teach him mathematics. Leave the other childrenalone.

This list does not detailall that is wrong with school, neither do the teaching architectures we proposefix all that is wrong with education. Nevertheless they give an idea of whereto begin. And, I believe that high quality software could help make thesechanges possible.

Thanks:- http://www.engines4ed.org/hyperbook/nodes/NODE-283-pg.html

Ten common mistakes people make when buying gold

2011-06-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

Buying gold has long been touted as a terrific way to diversify your investment portfolio and protect yourself against downturns in global currency values and financial markets. At first glance, the process seems simple enough. You just find a couple of coins that look good, fork over your cash, and store your loot in a safe, right? Wrong. There's much more involved in gold investing than browsing through a coin catalog and picking out your favorites. Unfortunately a lot of people actually take that approach-and end up losing quite a bit of money while doing so.

But you shouldn't let the fear of making mistakes prevent you from taking steps to solidify your financial standing. All you have to do is be aware of potential pitfalls so you can avoid them when the time comes to buy. Here are 10 of the most common mistakes to look out for prior to purchasing this precious metal.

1. Lack of knowledge. There is no excuse for being uninformed. As long as you have access to the Internet, you should be able to find out all you need to know about the basic ins and outs of gold investing. You should start by reading a glossary of terms related to this activity before moving on to articles and other resources so you know exactly what the experts are talking about.

2. Misunderstanding the value of gold. This mistake goes hand in hand with lack of knowledge. In order to invest wisely, you must understand how the metal-especially in coin form-derives its value based on things like history, scarcity, rarity, indestructibility, and global recognition as a desired commodity.

3. Indecision about your investment amount. People who are new to buying gold frequently make the mistake of either ordering too much or too little of the metal. If you buy too much, it defeats the purpose of diversifying your portfolio. If you buy too little, you're not doing enough to protect your other assets. Most experts agree that your coin holdings should equal from 5 to 30 percent of the combined value of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds in your portfolio.

4. Expecting big short-term gains. Gold investing is not going to make you rich overnight, so if you're interested in short-term gains, you should check out other options. The point of putting your money into investment grade coins is to hold onto them for a long time while they appreciate in value.

5. Linking gold markets to the stock market. Some would-be investors are under the mistaken impression that gold prices are somehow linked to the stock market, and that fluctuations in one will lead to corresponding reactions in the other. But it's important to understand that the two markets are largely independent of one another, so your purchasing decisions shouldn't be based on illusory cause-effect relationships.

6. Substituting gold stock or ETFs for the physical metal. Buying gold to protect your assets against unstable market conditions, inflation, and other economic problems is a smart move-but only if you get the metal itself instead of stocks, exchange traded funds, or other unworthy substitutes.

7. Skipping Rare Certified Gold in favor of bullion. Not all gold investments are created equal. Bullion, for example, will not appreciate in value based on age, rarity, or other variables. It will only be worth what the commodities market dictates. By contrast, Rare Certified Gold coins that are held for many years can end up being worth far more than what their weight would command on the commodities market, since their value is driven by supply and demand.

8. Looking for cheap prices. Although getting a bargain is usually considered a good thing, that's not necessarily the case when it comes to buying gold. Abnormally cheap prices are typically an indication of inferior quality, and are therefore a clear sign to stay away-unless you don't mind getting stuck with something that you won't be able to resell when you need cash.

9. Working with multiple dealers.Because of the large sums involved in gold investing, it would be worth the time and effort to seek out a reputable dealer and stick with that person for each transaction you make. You will get to know and trust each other a bit more after every deal, which will in turn pave the way for discounts on bulk purchases and similar goodwill gestures.

10. Failure to understand premiums over spot. Buying gold coins always involves a dealer markup or premium. This is what you're expected to pay over the spot price, and varies from dealer to dealer. It's critical to have some knowledge of fair premiums over spot in order to be able to identify any good or bad deals that might come your way.

In order to make sound decisions when buying gold, it is imperative that you first learn all you can about gold investing. There are lots of factors that impact each transaction, so the more you know, the better your chances of being successful.
Courtesy : EzineArticles.com
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Ten-common-mistakes-people-make-when-buying-gold-38734-3-1.html

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

2011-05-25T04:30:00.000-07:00

Mistake #1: We fall into a combat mentality.
When difficult conversations turn toxic, it's often because we've made a key mistake: we've fallen into a combat mentality. This allows the conversation to become a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser. But the reality is, when we let conversations take on this tenor – especially at the office – everyone looks bad, and everyone loses. The real enemy is not your conversational counterpart, but the combat mentality itself. And you can defeat it, with strategy and skill.

Mistake #2: We try to oversimplify the problem.
If the subject of your argument were straightforward, chances are you wouldn't be arguing about it. Because it's daunting to try and tackle several issues at once, we may try to roll these problems up into a less-complex Über-Problem. But the existence of such a beast is often an illusion. To avoid oversimplifying, remind yourself that if the issue weren't complicated, it probably wouldn't be so hard to talk about.

Mistake #3: We don't bring enough respect to the conversation.
The key to avoiding oversimplification is respecting the problem you're trying to resolve. To avoid the combat mentality, you need to go further – you need to respect the person you're talking to, and you need to respect yourself. Making sure that you respond in a way you can later be proud of will prevent you from being thrown off course if your counterpart is being openly hostile.

Mistake #4: We lash out – or shut down.
Fear, anger, embarrassment, defensiveness – any number of unpleasant feelings can course through us during a conversation we'd rather not have. Some of us react by confronting our counterpart more aggressively; others, by rushing to smooth things over. We might even see-saw between both counterproductive poles. Instead, move to the middle: state what you really want. The tough emotions won't evaporate. but with practice, you will learn to focus on the outcome you want in spite of them.

Mistake #5: We react to thwarting ploys.
Lying, threatening, stonewalling, crying, sarcasm, shouting, silence, accusing, taking offense: tough talks can present an arsenal of thwarting ploys. (Just because you're trying to move beyond the combat mentality doesn't mean your counterpart is.) But you also have an array of potential responses, ranging from passive to aggressive. Again, the most effective is to move to the middle: disarm the ploy by addressing it. For instance, if your counterpart has stopped responding to you, you can simply say, "I don't know how to interpret your silence."

Mistake #6: We get "hooked."
Everyone has a weak spot. And when someone finds ours – whether inadvertently, with a stray arrow, or because he is hoping to hurt us – it becomes even harder to stay out of the combat mentality. Maybe yours is tied to your job – you feel like your department doesn't get the respect it deserves. Or maybe it's more personal. But whatever it is, take the time to learn what hooks you. Just knowing where you're vulnerable will help you stay in control when someone pokes you there.

Mistake #7: We rehearse.
If we're sure a conversation is going to be tough, it's instinctive to rehearse what we'll say. But a difficult conversation is not a performance, with an actor and an audience. Once you've started the discussion, your counterpart could react in any number of ways – and having a "script" in mind will hamper your ability to listen effectively and react accordingly. Instead, prepare by asking yourself: 1. What is the problem? 2. What would my counterpart say the problem is? 3. What's my preferred outcome? 4. What's my preferred working relationship with my counterpart? You can also ask the other person to do the same in advance of your meeting.

Mistake #8: We make assumptions about our counterpart's intentions.
Optimists tend to assume that every disagreement is just a misunderstanding between two well-intentioned people; pessimists may feel that differences of opinion are actually ill-intentioned attacks. In the fog of a hard talk, we tend to forget that we don't have access to anyone's intentions but our own. Remember that you and your counterpart are both dealing with this ambiguity. If you get stuck, a handy phrase to remember is, "I'm realizing as we talk that I don't fully understand how you see this problem." Admitting what you don't know can be a powerful way to get a conversation back on track.

Mistake #9: We lose sight of the goal.
The key in any tough talk is to always keep sight of the goal. Help prevent this by going into conversations with a clear, realistic preferred outcome; the knowledge of how you want your working relationship with your counterpart to be; and having done some careful thinking about any obstacles that could interfere with either. (Remember, "winning" is not a realistic outcome, since your counterpart is unlikely to accept an outcome of "losing.") If you've done the exercise described in Slide 7, this should be easier. And you'll be less likely to get thrown off course by either thwarting ploys or your own emotions.

When we're caught off-guard, we're more likely to fall back into old, ineffective habits like the combat mentality. If you're not the one initiating the tough conversation, or if a problem erupts out of nowhere, stick to these basics: keep your content clear, keep your tone neutral, and keep your phrasing temperate. When disagreements flare, you'll be more likely to navigate to a productive outcome – and emerge with your reputation intact.

http://hbr.org/web/slideshows/difficult-conversations-nine-common-mistakes/1-slide

Recovering From Postdoc Mistakes

2011-05-20T04:45:00.000-07:00

"The best thing you can do in a postdoc is to do things that you enjoy," urges Doon Gibbs, deputy director for science and technology at Brookhaven National Laboratory, who has overseen the supervision of many postdocs over 25 years. Ensure those tasks are noticeable, such as publishing papers and presenting at conferences, he adds. But possessing a passion and self-promotion prowess alone does not a successful scientist make. Too often postdocs end up making mistakes along the way that can sideline them from the vocation they desire. Whether it is spending too long in a postdoc appointment, relying too much on their advisor, or simply not taking ownership of their career, there are many possible ways that early-career scientists can blunder. But luckily, there are clever means and methods to remedy even the most serious of slip-ups. By Alaina G. Levine

Why Am I Here?

The postdoc appointment is meant to serve as the stepping-stone to victory in academic science and certain positions in industry, says Harold Myron, former director of education programs at Argonne National Laboratory. The job is designed as a training program to instill certain skills, techniques, tools, and tactics for pursuing advanced research. Ideally, a postdoc should sharpen their innovative problem-solving abilities and learn to manage research group resources, such as employees and grant money.

Too often graduate students take a postdoc appointment for the wrong reasons, which of course, can be a mistake in and of itself. There is a decades-old tradition that "the postdoc is a training ground for a tenure-track position, that this is the metric for success for young scientists," saysCathee Phillips, executive director of the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA). "Postdocs have heard this for years, which causes them not to think about their own strategic career plan, because they think the postdoc will naturally flow into a tenure-track position." But with only 20 percent of postdocs advancing to tenure-track employment, many find themselves realizing too late, or waiting too long, to make a career plan with tangible contingency options.

Sebastian (not his real name), who works as an administrator at a medical school in the southern United States, admits he made a number of mistakes in his two postdocs, not the least of which were going in naively and staying too long without a concrete career plan. "If you don't want a tenure-track position, then there's no reason to do a postdoc," he declares, and reveals that his lack of planning led to miscommunication with his bosses and wasted time.

In his first appointment, which only lasted a year, Sebastian's principal investigator (PI) needed someone experienced in a particular biomedical technique, which he did not have. The mentor did not have time to train his protégé, which led to arguments. "It was the wrong lab for me, and my naivety led me to accept bullying [from my advisor]," he says. "My mistake was that I stayed as long as I did."

Ultimately, Sebastian recovered from what could have been a costly career blunder by forging his own path into academic program management. "It is vitally important for postdocs to be aggressive and take charge of their careers," he cautions.

All The Doctorates Are Doing It…

When deciding whether to accept a particular postdoc, it is paramount to confirm that you are proceeding with the appointment for the right reasons.

However, frequently, graduate students venture into a postdoc out of a feeling of desperation for a job, resulting in a lack of inquiry about basic elements of the appointment and little or no negotiation for benefits. "When you're finished with your Ph.D., people look into what postdocs they want," confesses Jimmy Weterings, whose appointment took place at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and who is currently seeking an academic position. "There are some people, and I count myself among them, who will take anything—it's a safety feeling. You finished your Ph.D., you know you will have income, but I didn't think beyond the two years."

Weterings, who did not possess a strategic plan, neglected to bargain for essentials that would have bolstered his career progression, such as teaching his own course. "In hindsight, I learned a lot about negotiation and talking with people," he says. Weterings advises you can prevent this common mistake by relinquishing the feeling of desperation that you have to take a job without asking vital questions about it from the start. And "don't take the first one that comes along," he adds. "Think if it's the right opportunity, ask yourself 'what will I accomplish'?"

Fiona (not her real name), who recently finished a two-year biology postdoc at a state university in the western U.S., had been thinking of leaving academia after earning her Doctorate. She decided to pursue the postdoc anyway because finishing her thesis left her "on a high," and she thought "it might be rash" to depart the tenure-track too soon. Her gaffe was that she did "not question people enough" about what she would be doing day-to-day. "I was so excited about getting a job,…I didn't think to ask how people in the lab generally felt," she says.

Within the first year of her appointment, her project lost funding. There was no financial support to attend conferences. And with a PI who was close to retirement and on sabbatical, Fiona discovered difficulty maintaining motivation.

But Fiona was lucky in one respect: Although she did not have a crystallized career plan when she entered her postdoc, she did have ideas about where she wanted to go next. She leveraged her postdoc experience to launch a fulfilling career in medical writing.

Help! I'm In a Postdoc And Can't Get Out!

Although the number of years one spends in a postdoc differs depending on the chosen field, specialty, and career choice, most advisors agree that three to five years should be the cut-off point. Yet, some postdocs stay much longer, languishing with seemingly no end in sight—a big mistake, stress some experts. "The postdoc experience is not meant to be limitless," saysTrevor Penning, who served as associate dean for postdoctoral research and training at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine from 1997 to 2005.

Some stay because they don't know what else to do. "Knowing you have x years, a postdoc must develop a timeline and goals," continues Penning. "Go home every night and ask yourself 'what did I accomplish today that furthered my career?' If every day you accomplish nothing, you need to take action…it's a warning sign of bad things." With improper planning and a lack of assertiveness, early-career scientists can get stuck in a seemingly endless hamster wheel of postdoc appointment after appointment. After not landing a tenure-track position the first or second time around, some postdocs simply stay put where they are while others pursue another postdoc.

Gibbs is concerned that a postdoc who stays too long could be taken advantage of by their supervisor. Sebastian for example, feels he was treated as a technician during his postdoc. According to other associates and even PIs, it is not uncommon for some postdocs to be looked upon as an extra pair of hands and be charged with less complex routine tasks, as opposed to more creative, scientifically driven endeavors.

"If you find yourself in a situation that is untenable, [ask yourself] 'is it in my best interest to stay in the lab?'" suggests Penning. Identifying the problem early is critical. "It's much better to lose one year than five."

The Medium Is Me (And My Mentor)

Your mentor has the potential to heavily influence your career. But it is your career. Mary (not her real name), who received her Ph.D. in the biological sciences, proffers serious counsel regarding the all-to-frequent misstep of allocating complete control of your livelihood to another person, especially your supervisor. "Never expect your mentor to only be looking out for you. You have to look out for yourself," she says. After all, "your boss's priority is their own career."

There is so much riding on your relationship with your PI, so "choose your postdoc mentor carefully," warns Mary. In addition to serving as your advisor, and ideally as a coach and champion, a good mentor should help orchestrate pathways for you to advance to the next stage of your career. So examine his or her track record of training associates, and pick "someone who moves people on to successful positions," she says.

Mary made the mistake of not checking on this before securing her appointment. Her PI had never gotten anyone through a Ph.D., let alone on to a good job, she claims. As such, her career has progressed at a very slow pace. She is now in her second postdoc at the same institution where she received her Doctorate.

"Postdocs have to be realistic about what to expect from their mentors," says Phillips. "These are busy people, and just because they hired postdocs doesn't mean they will automatically be good mentors, particularly if you are looking at a career outside of academia." Moreover, "the [appointment] is a two-way street with the mentor," notes Penning, "but the postdoc has to take ultimate responsibility for their own career success or failure."

Pedigree Is Not Always Key

Another classic conundrum is the sometimes misguided conviction that in order to progress in academe, you must spend your postdoc in a big, well-funded research group, says Carla (not her real name), a biologist who completed a five-year postdoc at a prestigious private university. But a large lab run by a famous scientist doesn't guarantee direct value for the postdoc, as she found out the hard way.

Carla, who is an assistant professor at a medical school in the eastern U.S., divulges that her postdoc was complicated by lack of face time with her PI. The supervisor was well-known and traveled extensively. He directed an enormous lab, consisting of a score of postdocs who were all jockeying for time with their advisor. Upon returning from his trips, the PI "would only talk to those whose projects meant the most to him or to people close to submitting a paper," she says.

But her research was not the group's main focus, so she did not receive substantial opportunity to meet with her mentor. Carla recommends staying on the supervisor's "radar screen" by making a careful decision to work on a project that is the highlight of the lab, she says.

"The largest labs may not give you the skills to be a professional scientist," warns Penning. And selecting your mentor "is not just about the lab's pedigree," he adds. "Choosing the wrong person to be a mentor can make an experience go south from the beginning."

But by networking and seeking out other mentors besides their PI, a postdoc can remedy a difficult situation. "They can't depend only on the PI for points of contact," says Philip S. Clifford, associate dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

If there is confusion as to whether your supervisor is actively participating in your professional advancement, "it boils down to good communication between the mentor and the postdoc," states Penning. "When you ask for help, if help is not forthcoming, your decision is easy: you find another mentor."

When Another Postdoc Takes Over

There is great internal competition among postdocs that is often not acknowledged, admits Carla. She describes how another person in her lab "liked my project and usurped it," and the PI, whose management skills were subpar, did nothing. Carla was then faced with the decision of whether to leave the lab, start something fresh, or partner with someone who seemed like the enemy. "I decided to collaborate," she recalls, "but I ended up suffering because the other person ended up talking about it on job talks," which she felt limited her ability to use it in presentations for academic positions.

Carla's solution was to recognize that there was enough room in the job market and in the research field for her to differentiate herself from the other party. But "the onus was on me to distinguish myself," she says. "I took the hard road, but in the end, this gives the most meaning in science."

If you find yourself in a situation where you are faced with an internal rivalry that could backfire, Carla suggests speaking with the PI and the other person to find ways to partner together. For example, there might be an angle that allows both people to co-first-author a manuscript. Communication is crucial, she says, "so everyone maxes out the benefits." The bottom line is you don't want to burn any bridges.

The Portal To Success

Every vocation has potential pitfalls and every professional has made their share of mistakes. Whether it's spending too much time in "PostdocLand," choosing the wrong mentor or lab, or not having a targeted career plan with flexibility for unforeseen twists, there will always be opportunity to err in academic science. Fortunately, as sources say, if you recognize that you are in the driver's seat, acknowledge a problem's existence early on, and focus on finding a resolution, you can recover and discover success. There are plenty of resources to aid you on your adventure, (see " It Pays to Plan: Why You Need a Career Map," DOI:10.1126/science.opms.r1000098), and best of all, if you learn from your mistakes, some might argue they were never mistakes in the first place. As James Joyce wrote, "A man of genius makes no mistakes. His errors are volitional and are portals of discovery."

This article was published as an advertising feature in the March 18, 2011, issue of Science.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_03_18/science.opms.r1100101

Top 10 Science Mistakes

2011-05-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

1: The Circulatory System

You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is...but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.

Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is).

How could they be so wrong? It gets worse.

Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long?

It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea.

2: The Earth Is the Center of the Universe

Chalk it up to humanity's collectively huge ego. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.

It wasn't until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction.

Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.

3: Germs in Surgery

Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.

The result? A lot of gangrene. Most early-19th century doctors tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" (that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar).

"Germ theory" (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around for a while, but it wasn't till Louis Pasteur got behind it in the 1860s that people started listening. It took a while, but doctors like Joseph Lister eventually connected the dots and realized that hospitals and doctors had the potential to pass on life-threatening germs to patients.

Lister went on to pioneer the idea of actually cleaning wounds and using disinfectant. Remember him next time you reach for the Purell.

4: DNA: Not So Important

DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.

Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.

It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.

5: The Atom Is the Smallest Particle in Existence

Believe it or not, we weren't actually all that stupid in ancient times. The idea that matter was composed of smaller, individual units (atoms) has been around for thousands of years -- but the idea that there was something smaller than that was a bit harder to come by.

It wasn't until the early 20th century, when physicists like J.J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, James Chadwick and Neils Bohr came along, that we started to sort out the basics of particle physics: protons, neutrons and electrons and how they make an atom what it is. Since then, we've come a long way: on to charmed quarks and Higgs bosons, anti-electrons and muon neutrinos. Let's hope it doesn't get too much more complicated than that.

6: The Earth Is Only 6,000 Years Old

Once upon a time, the Bible was considered a scientific work. Really. People just kind of assumed it was accurate, even when it didn't make much sense.

Take the age of the planet, for example.

Back in the 17th century, a religious scholar took a hard look at the Bible and estimated that creation happened around 4004 B.C. (you know, approximately). Add in nearly 2,000 more years to get to the 18th century, when Western, Bible-reading geologists started to realize that the Earth was constantly shifting and changing, and you get about 6,000 years.

Hmm ... those biblical scholars may have been a bit off. Current estimates, based on radioactive dating, place the age of the planet at around, oh, 4.5 BILLION years.

By the 19th century, geologists started putting the pieces together to realize that if geologic change was happening as slowly as they thought it was, and if this Darwin guy was at all right about evolution (which was also a slow process), the Earth had to be WAY older than they had thought. The emergence of radioactive dating in the early 20th century would eventually prove them right.

7: The Rain Follows the Plow

If only it were so easy. It's actually kind of shocking that humanity held on to the idea that land would become fertile through farming for so long. Didn't anyone look around and see that all this farming of arid land wasn't doing much?

So much for observation.

In reality, this quite erroneous theory (popular during the American and Australian expansions) may have stayed alive in part because it did sometimes work -- or at least it seemed to work.

What we know now is that the plow wasn't actually bringing the rain; long-term weather patterns were. Arid regions (like the American West, for example) go through long-term cyclical droughts, followed by cycles of wetter years. Wait long enough and you'll get a few wet ones.

There's just one problem: wait a few more years and all the rain just goes away - only now, you've got a civilization to support.

8: Phlogiston

What? You've never heard of phlogiston? Well, don't beat yourself up about it, because it's not real.

Phlogiston, proposed in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, was another element to add to the list (earth, water, air, fire and sometimes ether); it wasn't fire itself, but the stuff fire was made of. All combustible objects contained this stuff, Becher insisted, and they released it when they burned.

Scientists bought into the theory and used it to explain a few things about fire and burning: why things burned out (must have run out of phlogiston), why fire needed air to burn (air must absorb phlogiston), why we breathe (to get rid of phlogiston in the body).

Today, we know that we breathe to get oxygen to support cellular respiration, that objects need oxygen (or an oxidizing agent) to burn and that phlogiston just doesn't exist.

9: Heavier Objects Fall Faster

OK, trick question: do heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones? Today, we all know that they don't, but it's understandable how Aristotle could've gotten this one wrong.

It wasn't until Galileo came along in the late 16th century that anyone really tested this out. Though he most likely did not, as legend holds, drop weights from the tower of Pisa, Galileo did perform experiments to back up his theory that gravity accelerated all objects at the same rate. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton took us a step further, describing gravity as the attraction between two objects: on Earth, the most important being the attraction between one very massive object (our planet) and everything on it.

A couple of hundred years later, Albert Einstein's work would take us in a whole new direction, viewing gravity as the curvature that objects cause in space-time. And it's not over. To this day, physicists are ironing out the kinks and trying to find a theory that works equally well for the macroscopic, microscopic and even subatomic. Good luck with that.

10: Alchemy

The idea of morphing lead into gold may seem a little crazy these days, but take a step back and pretend you live in ancient or medieval times.

Pretend you never took high-school chemistry and know nothing about elements or atomic numbers or the periodic table. What you do know is that you've seen chemical reactions that seemed pretty impressive: substances change colors, spark, explode, evaporate, grow, shrink, make strange smells - all before your eyes.

Now, if chemistry can do all that, it seems pretty reasonable that it might be able to turn a dull, drab, gray metal into a bright, shiny yellow one, right? In the hopes of getting that job done, alchemists sought out the mythical "philosopher's stone," a substance that they believed would amplify their alchemical powers.

They also spent a lot of time looking for the "elixir of life." Never found that, either.

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes.html

Types of Medical Mistakes

2011-05-09T05:32:00.000-07:00

There are many ways that your medical care can go wrong. All of the phases from diagnosis to treatment can have some type of error.

Studies of error types: An Institute of Medical report ¹ attempts to quantify the types of medical errors that occur in healthcare settings. One cited study lists causes of error as follows:

· technical errors (44%),

· misdiagnosis (17%),

· failure to prevent injury (12%),

· medication errors (10%).

About 70% of all errors were believed to be preventable. The remainder were presumably non-preventable errors such as a patient reacting to a drug who had no previous history of an allergy to the drug.

National Patient Safety Foundation Survey: The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) commissioned a phone survey in 1997 to review patient opinions about medical mistakes. The findings showed that 42% of people believed they had personally experienced a medical mistake. In these cases, the error affected them personally (33%), a relative (48%), or a friend (19%). Of these people, the type of mistake they had experienced was:

· misdiagnosis (40%),

· medication error (28%),

· medical procedure error (22%),

· administrative error (4%),

· communication error (2%),

· incorrect laboratory results (2%),

· equipment malfunction (1%), and

· other error (7%).

Unfortunately, the wording in the study for misdiagnosis was "misdiagnosis or wrong treatment", so it is unclear exactly how many were true misdiagnoses or wrong condition treated versus the wrong treatment for the correctly diagnosed condition. In other questions, people reported that they believed their doctor failed to make an adequate diagnosis in 9% of cases, and in another question 8% cited misdiagnosis as a causal factor in the medical mistake.

The location where the medical error was experienced was

· hospital (48%),

· doctor's office (22%),

· operating room (7%),

· clinic (5%),

· emergency room (5%),

· pharmacy (4%),

· home (3%),

· medical laboratory (1%),

· nursing home (1%), and

· other (5%).

When asked to cite what they believed primarily caused the error, NPSF survey respondents mentioned

· carelessness/negligence (29%),

· untrained staff/incompetence (14%),

· communication (12%),

· misdiagnosis (8%),

· overworked staff (8%),

· misread prescription or pharmacy error (6%), and

· other (14%).

Diagnosis mistakes: there are various mistakes that can cause a misdiagnosis of a condition. Misdiagnosis can be one of the most costly of medical errors, leading to delayed, omitted, or inappropriate medical treatments.

· Self-diagnosis mistakes: when you diagnose yourself, mistakes are very common. Always seek professional medical advice. Do not rely on internet health information.

· Not diagnosed: some conditions are not obvious and may be missed, especially if they have no major symptoms.

· Wrongly diagnosed: you might be diagnosed as having the wrong condition.

· Wrong subtype of disease diagnosed: the diagnosis might have the correct overall disease, but the wrong subtype.

· Complications not diagnosed: the diagnosed disease may have various complications that also need to be diagnosed and treated.

· Underlying disease not diagnosed: there may actually be an underlying hidden disease causing the already diagnosed disease.

· Associated diseases not diagnosed: some types of conditions cluster together, even though they do not cause each other.

· Failure to diagnose others: infectious diseases need to be checked in family members and other exposed people; genetically associated diseases indicate family members may be at higher risk and may need screening.

Treatment mistakes: There are numerous ways that an error can occur in medical treatment.

· Self-treatment mistakes: if you try to treat yourself, mistakes are very common. Always seek professional medical advice.

· Wrong condition treated: i.e. from a misdiagnosis of the condition

· Wrong choice of treatment plan: the overall strategy used to treat your condition might not be the best one.

· Wrong type of treatment given

· Wrongly delayed treatment: there might be an undesirable delay in your treatment, by choice or through non-diagnosis.

· Wrongly performed procedures: all medical events such as surgeries and tests can have things go wrong.

· Wrong medications: see below.

Prevention mistakes: The failure to prevent a condition is another type of medical failing. In certain cases, it is clear that preventive actions should be taken and failure to do so is a medical mistake.

· Failure to prevent known complications of a diagnosed disease.

· Failure to treat family members or others exposed to an infectious disease.

· Failure to address clear risk factors for various conditions

Surgery mistakes: Surgical procedures are often complex and subject to various errors. Administration of surgery can also lead to errors. In some cases, there are known complications or risks of surgery than are often unavoidable.

· Surgery administration mistakes: wrong-patient, wrong-site, wrong-organ, equipment left inside.

· Surgical mistakes: the surgeon might make a wrong cut or other mistake.

· Anaesthesia mistakes: too much, too little (waking up).

· Complications from surgery

· Infections from surgery: called "iatrogenic infections"

· Wrong blood type transfusion

Hospital mistakes: A hospital can make errors in any of its varied activities. There are many staff who can make human mistakes and overall system problems can also lead to errors.

· Hospital-caused infections: called "nosocomial infections"

· Medication errors in hospitals: ordered medication not given, wrong medication, wrong dosage, wrong combinations, wrong patient given medication, and so on.

· Wrong procedures: failure to do ordered tests, wrong procedures or tests.

Medication mistakes: Errors in medication are a major source of medical mistakes. Medication errors can occur in hospitals or pharmacies, and the error may be made by any of the staff involved with choosing or dispensing medication.

· Inappropriate medication: the wrong medication given for a disease

· Wrong medication: the patient gets the wrong medication despite the doctor prescribing the correct one.

· Drug name mix-ups: several medications have similar-sounding names and can be mixed up by doctors or pharmacists.

· Wrong medication combinations: there are numerous types of medications that should not be mixed, because of side effects and cross-reactions when combined.

· Adverse reactions to medication: Some people have allergic or other adverse reactions to certain medications. These are risks and not necessarily avoidable mistakes if the person has no previous history of a particular adverse reaction.

· Side effects of medication: Almost all medications have some types of side effects. Some are mild, some nasty. It is almost impossible to know up front whether a person will have side effects from a medication.

· Non-compliance: the failure to follow your medication regimen can be a mistake made (usually by the patient).

Pharmacist errors: The dispensing of drugs by the pharmacy is a complex and busy activity. Various errors can occur at the pharmacist.

· Wrongly filled prescriptions

· Wrong drug supplied

· Wrong dosage supplied

· Drug name mix-ups: various drugs have similar names.

Pathology lab errors: Diagnostic testing done by a pathology laboratory can be subject to various errors. Some are administrative or human mistakes; other "mistakes" are inherent to the limitations of the type of test.

· Wrong biopsy results: visual inspection of cellular slides

· Administrative errors: mixing samples, etc.

· Known test errors and risks: almost all tests have a small percentage of unavoidable errors (false positives, false negatives).

· Known limitations of tests

Equipment failure errors: Physical failures with medical equipment can occur.

· IV drips dislodged

· Dead batteries in equipment

Unnecessary medical treatment: Excessive medical care can be a form of "mistake" for medical professionals and institutions. This can occur with good intentions (to ensure correctness) or for cynical reasons (to increase income).

· Unnecessary procedures

· Unnecessary tests

· Unnecessary visits

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/mistakes/types.htm

10 Biggest Public Speaking Mistakes

2011-05-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

How come intelligent, business-savvy people end up boring their audiences? They fail to recognize that public speaking is an acquired skill that improves with practice and honest feedback. Speaking for 20 minutes before the right group of people can do more for your career than spending a year behind a desk!

Rob Sherman, an attorney and public speaker in Columbus, Ohio, says in an article in the Toastmaster magazine to avoid these mistakes:

· Starting with a whimper. Don’t start with “Thank you for that kind introduction.” Start with a bang! Give the audience a startling statistic, an interesting quote, a news headline – something powerful that will get their attention immediately.

· Attempting to imitate other speakers. Authenticity is lost when you aren’t yourself.

· Failing to “work” the room. Your audience wants to meet you. If you don’t take time to mingle before the presentation, you lose an opportunity to enhance your credibility with your listeners.

· Failing to use relaxation techniques. Do whatever it takes – listening to music, breathing deeply, shrugging your shoulders – to relieve nervous tension.

· Reading a speech word for word. This will put the audience to sleep. Instead use a “keyword” outline: Look at the keyword to prompt your thoughts. Look into the eyes of the audience, then speak.

· Using someone else’s stories. It’s okay to use brief quotes from other sources, but to connect with the audience, you must illustrate your most profound thoughts from your own life experiences. If you think you don’t have any interesting stories to tell, you are not looking hard enough.

· Speaking without passion. The more passionate you are about your topic, the more likely your audience will act on your suggestions.

· Ending a speech with questions and answers. Instead, tell the audience that you will take questions and then say, “We will move to our closing point.” After the Q and A, tell a story that ties in with your main theme, or summarize your key points. Conclude with a quote or call to action.

· Failing to prepare. Your reputation is at stake every time you face an audience – so rehearse well enough to ensure you’ll leave a good impression!

· Failing to recognize that speaking is an acquired skill. Effective executives learn how to present in the same way they learn to use other tools to operate their businesses.

http://www.toastmasters.org/MainMenuCategories/FreeResources/NeedHelpGivingaSpeech/TipsTechniques/10BiggestPublicSpeakingMistakes.aspx

Advertising mistakes

2011-04-29T05:01:00.000-07:00

All of us have a pet peeve against some advertisement or the other and we wonder how such ads are even allowed to be aired or printed! Well, some people do complain, and as a result advertisers are forced to remove their ads or modify them. The ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) receives complaints and acts on them. The number or complaints in India are far fewer that in developed counties, but some good work is being done in this area in India too.

If you ever wondered why some ads or television commercials simply disappeared or changed, well, it’s because some enterprising soul complained. Here is a small list of some of the ads which came under the chopping block last year (January to September 2008). I have categorised the complaints under the headings of 1) unsubstantiated ads, 2) ads which lie, 3) ads which mislead, 4) ads which offend the sensibilities of people and 5) ads which can be dangerous. Here they are:

Unsubstantiated claims (Claims need to be substantiated by trials from independent and recognized institutions)

· The Dettol Soap TV commercial (TVC) had said that their product “eliminates the organisms [of cough and cold] ten times faster than other soaps” and that it also eliminates “organisms that cause gastrointestinal diseases”. Neither of these claims could be substantiated by the company and they were forced to modify their ad.

· The VLCC Shape Up Anti-Cellulite Oil and Gel made the unsubstantiated claim that “It reduces flab and firms skin. Beautiful arms and Legs in just 14 days.” By the time the ASCI demanded that the ad be withdrawn, the ad campaign had already concluded (July 2008)!

· Olay’s (Procter & Gamble) Total Effects Cream, which claimed to be India’s “best Anti-Ageing cream” in a TVC had to be withdrawn as the company could not substantiate its claim.

· The Ponds Flawless White TVC had claimed that “only the Ponds Flawless White cream can make your skin flawless in 7 days of usage.” This had to be withdrawn due to similar reasons.

· The Garnier Light Fairness and Dark Spots Prevention daily moisturizer commercial claimed that anyone using the product can get “2 times fairer in just 7 days.” The ASCI concluded that this was impossible, and the commercial had to be modified, even though there was a qualification in the ad that “individual results may vary.”

· Henkel’s Mr. White detergent had claimed that it was better than other detergents but could not produce any evidence of it, and the ad had to be modified.

· Haier ACs had a print ad which claimed that their AC’s provided “51% power savings”, along with other product claims, but the ASCI asked them to modify the ad as their claims were thought to be incorrect.

When it comes to unsubstantiated claims, cosmetic ads seem to be the worst!

Wild claims bordering on sheer lies.

· In an ad for Hyundai Verna which appeared on the company’s website, it was claimed that the car’s diesel variant “CRDI VGT” had a fuel economy of 32.8Kmpl! This wild claim could not be substantiated and in fact a customer claimed that he had not got more than 11 kmpl! This ad had to be discontinued.

· A print ad for Nai Dunia claimed that it was the “No.1 in Indore City” and the source mentioned was an unnamed “Private Survey.” But when in truth, the IRS (Indian Readership Survey) and the NRS (National Readership Survey) both showed that it was the Dainik Bhasker which was far ahead of NaiDunia. The ad had to be modified by the advertiser.

· Sanjeevan Retinopathy Clinic actually advertised that their “treatment” cures blindness, besides other things. The advertiser had to modify the advertisement.

· Another much publicized case was that of Tata Sky. They claimed that it was now offering its supersaver pack at Rs 200/- instead of Rs 300/- This was found to be an outright lie as the new, cheaper, package came without some premium channels! So all that the company was actually doing was offering a cheaper option. The company had to withdraw their TVC.

Deliberately confusing and misleading!

· Alapatt Jewellers which was advertising its 16 Gold & Certified Diamonds in a print ad, stated that “916 Purity should be there not only in the advertisement but also in the gold ornament”. This was considered to be vague and confusing and the advertiser had to withdraw this line. Their other claims that “Without hall marking there is no purity and will not get good price when exchanged” was considered misleading as 916 hallmarked gold is sold by almost all jewellers! And in any case, the exchange price is at the discretion of the jeweller and also depends on the market price.

· A TVC by Tata Teleservices showed film star Kajol helping three girls to connect to the internet by plugging in her own USB modem into their laptop and this gave the impression that this modem could connect to the internet anywhere. But the false impression given was that this modem was a “plug and play device” which it was not. There is an “installation procedure” which needed to be followed. The company was forced to withdraw this ad.

· The TVC of Gilette Victor Plus Blade was so misleading as to border on a total lie. It said that the blade lasted for 3 weeks but the fine print (which appeared too briefly on the screen to be read) said that “on the basis on one shave every 3 days.” ! This TVC had to be withdrawn.

Ads offending the sensibilities of people

· The Sisley Fall Winter Collection promotional e-mailer was found to be offensive by some. The headline said: – “You’ll melt once inside” and this was accompanied by a picture of a woman in a seductive pose. This, a complainant said, was nothing but pornography. The advertiser had to withdraw this mailer.

· A television ad of the ING Vysya Life Insurance showed the father of a young girl distressed at the cost of the higher education of his daughter. Visually this was shown by the ground breaking beneath him! In another scene, a father was shown to be distressed by the birth of a baby girl because of the financial cost involved…and again the ground was shown to be breaking underneath him. This ad was considered anti-women…but even though the ad was asked to be withdrawn, by that time the ad campaign had already ended, in February 2008.

· Parle Agro had a TV ad for Mintrox Mint in which mentally challenged people were shown in a bad light and this television commercial had to be withdrawn by the company.

· I guess most of us remember the AXE deodorant (Dark Temptation) TVC which showed a man covered with chocolate being licked and bitten by girls. This ad had to be modified. Several complaints were received against this commercial.

Dangerous ads

· Godrej’s television commercial showed a person happily inhaling the fumes of Good Knight Maha Jumbo Mosquito Coil! This ad was considered harmful for public health as these fumes contain insecticide. This TVC was withdrawn.

· There were some TV commercials which came under fire for showing dangerous driving, with warnings too fine to be noticed by consumers. One was for Thums Up, one for Kentucky Fried Chicken and one for Bajaj Pulsar. All these TVC’s had to be modified by the advertisers.

Just want to mention a really strange ad which I couldn’t put into any category. The print ad for Dabur’s SaniFresh Thick Toilet Cleaner had this headline: “Thick. The secret of my shiny, silky hair” and it was accompanied by a picture of a woman with long silky hair! Not surprisingly someone complained that this ad seemed more like an ad for a shampoo and that some vulnerable person might actually think it is an ad for a shampoo and wash her hair with Sanifresh! The ad had to be withdrawn.

I have not mentioned all of the complaints made to the ASCI (some were not upheld and this list is not available) or even all of the complaints which were upheld.

Overall though there is a dire need for more complaints from ordinary citizens. Often it is rival companies or consumer groups which file a complaint but individuals can also do it. Theprocedure is a simple one and the identity of the complainant is not revealed to the advertiser.

http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/advertising-mistakes/

Quotes tagged as "mistakes"

2011-04-24T05:09:00.000-07:00

"I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."
— Marilyn Monroe

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
— Albert Einstein

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
— Mahatma Ghandi

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
— Napoleon Bonaparte

"Tomorrow is fresh, with no mistakes in it."
— L.M. Montgomery (Anne of Green Gables)

"We should regret our mistakes and learn from them, but never carry them forward into the future with us."
— L.M. Montgomery

"Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it."
— Salvador Dalí

"Smart people learn from their mistakes. But the real sharp ones learn from the mistakes of others."
— Brandon Mull (Fablehaven)

"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err."
— Mahatma Ghandi

"Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."
— Rita Mae Brown (Alma Mater)

"Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time."
— George Bernard Shaw

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show_tag?name=mistakes&page=2

How to Admit Your Mistakes

2011-04-20T00:42:00.000-07:00

OK, you screwed up. Something’s gone horribly, horribly wrong, and it’s all your fault. And now, it’s time to pay the piper.

Maybe you lost your company’s big client. Maybe you forgot to do a critical part of that big project. Maybe you weren’t there for someone when they needed you, even when you said you would be. Whatever the situation, someone trusted you to do a job and you failed.

Now you’ve got to tell them.

The instinctive reaction to a situation like this is “duck and cover” — protect yourself by any means necessary. Depending on how badly you screwed us, it could mean the end of your job, your career, your relationship, your status, or your reputation.

“Mistakes were made.”

Most people will try to weasel out of their mistakes. There’s a whole language of “weasel-words” people deploy to defer attention away from themselves, to downplay the seriousness of the situation, or even to deny anything went wrong at all.

The all-time universal champs at weaseling are government officials, and their all-time favorite way to weasel is the non-admission of guilt embodied by the phrase “mistakes were made”. It’s what Nixon said about Watergate, it’s what Reagan said about the Iron-Contra affair, it’s what Hillary Clinton said about Whitewater, it’s what Alberto Gonzalez said about his firing of federal prosecutors.

Mistakes were made, but not by me — that’s the implication. They just kind of… happened. Nothing to worry about, really, just mistakes, you know — they were made. Move along, nothing to see here.

“I made a mistake.”

The problem with dodging the bullet is that the bullet is still flying, and still needs to be dealt with — if you dodge it, then it will probably hit someone else. “Whew!” Except not; if you’ve pinned your reputation on your ability to do the job, whatever the job, right, then the failure is still going to stick to you. Plus, you’ll have lost the trust of the people around you, especially the ones who ended up paying for your mistakes, whether by taking the blame or cleaning up the mess. Or, in the worst case, you’ll have distracted enough attention that the mess doesn’t get cleaned up at all.

On the other hand, admitting your fault puts you one step closer to dealing with it, and can often be the first step towards a successful turn-around. At the least, though, it shows that you’re someone with integrity and courage, even in the face of disastrous consequences.

Here are a few pointers about ‘fessing up and dealing with your mistakes:

· See things from someone else’s perspective: If you’ve made a promise and failed to keep it, put yourself in the other party’s shoes and see how things look from there. How would you feel? What would your response be if you were them? And what action would satisfy you?

· Be sympathetic: Realize that your mistakes might affect many more people than just you, and recognize the pain you’ve caused. A little bit of sympathy can well be the opening you need to set things right.

· Take responsibility: Don’t try to weasel out of it, and don’t look around wildly for someone else to blame. Even if your failure came about because someone let you down, you’re ultimately responsible for the projects under your authority.

· Accept the consequences: It’s hard, I know, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet and take your lumps. Few actions come without any consequences at all; be prepared to embrace whatever befalls you as a result of the mistakes you’ve made.

· Have a plan: Taking responsibility means being prepared to clean up the mess, which means you need a plan. You should have a clear idea of what went wrong and how you can fix it — and how you can avoid it in the future.

· Be sincere: Don’t pretend to feel sympathy or act phony so that the other person can see how deeply you care. Don’t play the martyr. Show honest emotion — the first step to rebuilding the trust lost.

· Apologize. No, really. A lot of people go to great lengths to make up for their mistakes — or to hide them — when a simple “I’m sorry” would do the job, and cause a lot fewer hard feelings.

None of these tips will prevent the worst from happening — you may still lose your job, your client, your partner, or your friendship. But you’ll have done so with dignity, instead of disgrace — allowing you to walk away with your head held high.

And by taking full responsibility for your mistakes and acting appropriately, you’ll have set yourself on a path to failing successfully — to learning what there is to learn and moving forward with grace and purpose.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/management/how-to-admit-your-mistakes.html

DO YOU MAKE THESE 10 MISTAKES WHEN YOU BLOG?

2011-04-14T05:26:00.000-07:00

Assuming you want to increase your blog traffic, there are certain mistakes you must avoid to be successful. If you commit these mistakes, your traffic will never gain momentum. Worse, it may plateau or begin to decrease.

How do I know? After writing more than 1,000 posts and receiving more than 20,000 comments, I have made most of the mistakes you can make—numerous times. As a result, I have begun to see certain patterns emerge. These are my top ten traffic-killers.

· Mistake #1: You don’t post enough. Hobby bloggers may go weeks between posts. But frequency is what separates the men from the boys. You cannot build solid traffic without frequent posts. I have seen time and time again (via Google Analytics) that there is a direct correlation between frequency and traffic. The more I post—within reason—the greater my traffic.

· Mistake #2: You post too much. Yes, this is possible, too. I don’t need to hear from anyone more than once a day—unless it is a group blog or a news site. You would do better to focus on writing one really great post a day rather than several mediocre ones. The trick is to find your frequency sweet spot. For me, it is four to five posts a week.

If a post starts getting too long, consider breaking it up into several posts.

· Mistake #3: Your post is too long. Seth Godin is the master of the short, pithy post. His are usually in the 200–400 word range. I shoot for less than 500 words. But I often post 750 words and sometimes more. You can get away with this if your posts are “scannable”—that is, you make use of subheads, lists, and other devices that keep people moving through your content. If a post starts getting too long, consider breaking it up into several posts.

· Mistake #4: You don’t invite engagement. When I talk about “engagement,” I am referring to a combination of page views, reader comments, and social media mentions. Postrank.com is a great tool for measuring this kind of engagement. The posts that generate the most engagement for me are those that are controversial, transparent (especially about failure), and open-ended. This is why I try to end every post with a question.

· Mistake #5: You don’t participate in the conversation. When bloggers don’t participate in conversation by commenting on their own posts and responding to their readers, it is like hosting a party at your home, making a brief appearance, and then disappearing. In any other context, this behavior would be perceived as rude or odd. The same is true in blogging. People want to have a conversation—with YOU.

When you use subheads, lists of bullets or numbers, it draws readers in by making your content accessible. Shorter paragraphs also help.

· Mistake #6: You don’t make your content accessible. Since I am in the publishing business, I often get asked if I think people are reading less. The simple answer is “No.” In fact, I think they are reading more than ever. But they are reading differently. Readers have shorter attention spans. They are scanning content, looking for items that interest them. When you use subheads, lists of bullets or numbers, it draws readers in by making your content accessible. Shorter paragraphs also help.

· Mistake #7: You don’t create catchy headlines. According to Brian Clark, who runs the must-read site, CopyBlogger, “on average, 8 out of 10 people will read headline copy, but only 2 out of 10 will read the rest.” This means your headlines are the most important thing you write. Fortunately, Brian has an entire series of posts called “How to Write Magnetic Headlines.” I suggest you read every post.

· Mistake #8: Your first paragraph is weak. This is critical. Assuming that you have written a great headline, people will next read your first paragraph. You must use this paragraph to pull them into the rest of your blog post. Start with a story, a promise, or a startling fact. The idea is to grab their attention and hang onto it. Many bloggers spend too much time trying to setup the post or provide context. Just get to the point.

· Mistake #9: Your post is off-brand. I have often been guilty of this one. If you are a hobby blogger, you can get away with the occasional post that strays from your primary message or brand. But if you are trying to build traffic, you need to find an editorial focus and stick to it. A tighter focus leads to higher traffic. This is why I have tried to narrow my own focus to three areas: leadership, social media, and publishing. If I want to write on something else (e.g., fitness), I do so through one of these three lenses.

· Mistake #10: Your post is about YOU. Unless you are a mega-celebrity, readers don’t care about you. Not really. They care about themselves. They want to know what’s in it for THEM. Your personal stories can be a doorway to that, but in the end, the best posts are about your readers’ needs, fears, problems, or concerns. Always ask, “What’s the take-away for my reader?”

There are other mistakes, too; I doubt this list is exhaustive. But I think I have covered the major ones. If you can avoid these, you will be well on your way to increasing your traffic and growing your audience.

http://michaelhyatt.com/do-you-make-these-10-mistakes-when-you-blog.html

6 common photography mistakes (and how to avoid them)

2011-04-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

Whether you’re on the other side of the world or wandering your own neighbourhood, you’ll soon realise that the sights that have you reaching for your camera are fleeting photo opportunities.

With this in mind, you really need to be prepared to capture such moments. Here are the six most common mistakes that can leave you with an ordinary image – instead of the masterpiece it should have been.

1. Not having a strong point of interest

The very first thing to consider is the subject – what is it and why are you taking a photo of it? Successful images have a point of interest: the key element around which the composition is based. It’s probably the thing that caught your eye in the first place and should be able to draw and holds the viewer’s attention.

2. Not getting close enough to the subject

Good compositions leave no doubt as to the subject of the photograph. How do you make sure this is clear? A good way to start is to fill the frame with your subject. This helps to eliminate unnecessary or unwanted elements and overcomes the common mistake of making the subject too small and insignificant, which leaves the viewer wondering what the photo is supposed to be of. Often just taking a few steps towards your subject or zooming in slightly will make an enormous difference.

3. Focusing on the wrong part of the composition

The sharpest part of the image should be the point of interest, so take care when focusing. If something other than the main subject is the sharpest part of the composition the viewer’s eye will rest in the wrong place.

Most compact cameras and all SLRs have a focus-lock facility, activated by depressing the shutter release button halfway, which you should be confident using. It allows you to produce more creative and technically better pictures by locking the focus on the main subject then recomposing without the camera automatically refocusing.

4. Placing the subject in the middle of the frame

Centering the subject often contributes to a static composition so you should aim to place the point of interest away from the centre of the frame. As you’re thinking about where to place the point of interest, keep in mind the ‘rule of thirds’ that has traditionally been the starting point for successful composition. As you look through your viewfinder or study the LCD screen, imagine two vertical and two horizontal lines spaced evenly, creating a grid of nine rectangular boxes.

Try placing the point of interest, or other important elements, on or near the points where the lines intersect. For example, if you’re taking a portrait, the subject is the person’s face and the point of interest would be their eyes. In a landscape the point of interest may be a boat floating on a lake; place the boat on one of the intersections and also position the horizon near one of the horizontal lines.

5. Including elements that conflict with the subject

Avoid including other elements that conflict with the main subject. Look at the space around and behind your subject and make sure nothing overpowers it in colour, shape or size. What you leave out of the frame is just as important as what you leave in.

Do you really want power lines running across the facade of the most beautiful building in the city? It’s fine if you do, but not if you didn’t notice them in the first place! Scan the frame before pressing the shutter release, looking for distractions and unnecessary elements.

6. Not thinking about the direction of the light

The direction of the light and how it is illuminating your subject, whether it’s the natural light of the sun, incandescent lighting indoors or at night or flashlight, can make or break a photograph. That’s why it’s vital to observe the light. If you are aware that it’s striking your subject in the wrong place – for example, if the facade of a beautiful monument is in shade, or if someone’s hat is casting a shadow over half their face – then you can take action.

Either move the subject, move yourself or, if the subject isn’t going to disappear, wait a while or return at the appropriate time of day. Once you’re in the habit of considering how the light is falling on your subject you can select a viewpoint and time of day so that the light enhances your subject, rather than detracts from it.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/india/travel-tips-and-articles/76046

The role of mistakes in language learning

2011-03-27T05:30:00.000-07:00

Of all the advice on Antimoon, "Do not make mistakes" is by far the most controversial.Hardly a month goes by without an e-mail or forum post from an angered English teacher, letting me know how stupid I am for telling learners to avoid mistakes. Don't I realize that mistakes are a necessary element of all learning? Haven't I heard the phrase "learn from your mistakes"? And why am I scaring learners into silence?

With this article, I hope to clear up the confusion once and for all.

Are mistakes good or bad?

Let me say something obvious first: mistakes are bad. If one had a choice between saying a sentence correctly and saying it with a mistake, nobody in their right mind would choose saying it with a mistake — and no teacher would recommend that. Similarly, no teacher would give a higher grade to a student who made more mistakes than another one.

The reason teachers sometimes say that mistakes shouldn't be avoided is that they believe one of two things (or both):

That mistakes are an inseparable part of the learning process; therefore, the only way to avoid language mistakes would be to avoid speaking and writing in a foreign language, and that would be bad. (the "Mistakes are inevitable" group)
That making mistakes, and having them corrected, is a good way to learn a language. (the "Mistakes are good" group)

Let's take a look at each of these beliefs:

1. “Mistakes are an inseparable part of the language learning process”

One of the most frequently repeated pieces of business advice is that to succeed in business, you have to try many different things, until one of them finally works. Even huge corporations often release unprofitable products despite spending enormous amounts of money on market research. That's because it is impossible to tell with 100% certainty whether customers will buy a product until it hits the shelves.

These examples teach us that in "unknown" areas like scientific research and marketing, mistakes are truly inevitable. Where no one can predict what will work, people who try and fail have a higher probability of success than those who are doing nothing for fear of failure. Think of Thomas Edison, who had to test over 6,000 unsuitablematerials for light bulb filaments until he found one that worked.

Are there any other situations where mistakes are necessary? Let's take learning to swim. Swimming is not an "unknown" area. There is no mystery in it. Everybody can watch slow-motion videos of Michael Phelps and see how it should be done.

The problem here is that there is a long way between knowing how to swim and doing it yourself. It takes hours of training to develop the right reflexes: putting your head under water at just the right moment, synchronizing your legs and your arms, breathing in and breathing out, etc. The process involves many mistakes; in fact, as a beginner, almost everything you do is wrong.

Are mistakes costly? You bet. Every swimmingcoach knows that mistakes can easily turn into bad habits, which are difficult to unlearn. When you fail in business, you lose money. These are the costs of mistakes. But you have to accept them, because there is no other way to succeed in business and in swimming.

What about language learning?

Now let's take a look at language learning. It's obvious that learning a language is not an "unknown" area like research or marketing. No one is asking learners to invent anything (indeed, they should not invent their own grammar and vocabulary) — they just need to do things exactly the way the native speakers do it.

Language learning is not like learning to swim, either. In swimming, you can remember very well how your coach moves his arms, but still be unable to re-create that motion.Knowing the right way is not enough. You need to train your muscles to react in a certain way, which is a long, error-prone process. First you make a lot of mistakes, then fewer and fewer, until you are error-free.

By contrast, in languages, knowing the right way isenough. If you can remember and understand a sentence in a foreign language, you can repeat it without any mistakes. If you remember two correct sentences, you can transform and combine them into another correct sentence. There is little room for mistakes.

Now of course things are a bit more complicated than that:

· If you are just beginning to write or speak in a foreign language, it will perhaps take you 30 seconds to produce each sentence (you will make a lot of edits or, if you're speaking, you will stutter and start over). That's because it can take a long time torecall things, especially if they are not in your "active memory". But even if you're slow, your sentence can be error-free or almost error-free if you are careful.

· As noted before, the key to producing correct sentences is remembering correct examples. To build your own sentences in a foreign language, you need thousands of words, hundreds of grammatical structures and dozens of idioms. Furthermore, you must know which words are used in what contexts. For example, end can meanstop (e.g. We must end the project), but you cannot say ~~I have decided to end seeing her~~ (you must say: I have decided to stop seeing her).

There are thousands of "exceptions" like that in any language. So, although there is only a short way between theory and practice, the theory is huge. However — and this is crucial — the theory can be acquired without producing mistakes (by reading and listening).

· Although following correct examples is not hard, there can be some problems. One is that certain information is difficult to notice. For example, if you don't read English texts carefully, you may ignore the use of articles (a/the), as they are not necessary to understand the meaning. As a result, information on article usage will be missingfrom your memory and your correctness will suffer.

A smaller problem is related to "unexpected exceptions". Some usage patterns are so rare that it is very difficult to learn them, even with massive input. For instance, "I'd like to see The Simpsons" is correct if you mean the movie, but wrong if you mean the TV show (in that case, you're supposed to say "I'd like to watch The Simpsons"). Differences like that are really hard to learn, even if you read a lot.

· There is one area of language learning where "knowing the right way" does not immediately translate into "doing it the right way": pronunciation. You can spend hours listening to a native speaker saying a word, and still be unable to repeat it properly. In fact, learning to pronounce the sounds of a new language is very much like learning to swim — your brain and your muscles have to get used to new movements. The process takes time and involves many mistakes.

What have we learned so far? First of all, that not all learning is trial-and-error learning. In particular, language learning is possible with few mistakes because:

It does not require innovation or creativity. All you need to do is copy other people (native speakers).
The gap between "knowing how it should be done" and "doing the right thing" is small. Once you have enough correct examples in your memory, it is relatively easy to transform and combine them into your own sentences.
You need a lot of correct examples to speak a foreign language, but they can beacquired without mistakes.

2. “Making mistakes is a good way to learn a language”

We have seen that language learning can happen with few mistakes. But why should it? Isn't speaking and writing with mistakes an effective way to learn a foreign language? After all, "practice makes perfect", doesn't it?

Those who believe mistakes are a good way to learn probably picture the following model:

The learner says a sentence, makes some mistakes, the teacher corrects them, and the learner memorizes the proper way to say the sentence. Next time around, the learner willhopefully make fewer mistakes. The process is repeated until the learner is error-free.

Now, why doesn't this model work so well?

It's too slow

Language learning is a very memory-intensive task. There is a staggering number of words, phrases, structures, and subtle differences in usage to memorize. Some verbs take the infinitive (e.g. cease to do something), some take the gerund (e.g. stop doing something). We get in the car, but on the bus. My copy of Michael Swan's Practical English Usagehas 654 pages of examples like these and it does not cover everything I know about English. (In contrast, all the information you need to swim perfectly can probably be written on a few pages; the rest is a matter of practice.)

It is obvious that an efficient language learning method must somehow supply all this information to the learner. In other words, the learner needs a huge number of correct examples of the target language. In the feedback-based method, he gets correct examples when the teacher corrects him (and tells him how to say something) and when he listens to his own speech (and his sentences are correct).

The problem is that the flow of information is too slow. When you speak in a language you don't know well, you speak slowly, with many pauses. Before you open your mouth, you have to think what to say. Often, in the middle of the sentence, you start over when you realize you've made a mistake. There are also delays due to teacher-student interaction. All this means that the amount of correct language that reaches the learner's ears is quite small.

I did an informal experiment to measure this. First, I read a simplified German book for 15 minutes, using the "pause and think" method (paying attention to grammar and usage). I managed to read 55 sentences (476 words) before the time ran out. Then, I recorded myself talking about the story for 15 minutes. I constructed 21 German sentences (196 words).

In terms of the sheer amount of input you get, 4 language classes per week (45 minutes each) would be equivalent to reading a book for 74 minutes. That's about 10 minutes a day, 7 days a week. A whole school year (9 months) of classes (4 classes per week) provides about the same amount of input as a single 250-page book (84,000 words). Of course, these rough estimates assume classes where students speak all the time — in real classes, a great deal of time is simply wasted; a little time is also spent on pure input (reading a short article in the coursebook, listening to a short recording).

It requires a competent teacher

As the method is based on errors and feedback, it requires a competent feedback-giver. It is not clear where the learner is supposed to find such a person outside of the classroom. If he tries to interact with native speakers in real life or on the Internet, he will find that native speakers generally won't correct his mistakes, as long as they can understand him. So grammar like this (example by Johnny) is likely to go unchallengedoutside of the classroom:

that not truthful really, i now am answer and express my thinking, and you understand myself on this replying, i am no doubt about it, but if you don't correct my false words in this post then i keep practice false english and means i am learn this crap english.

The learner can of course "stick to the classroom", but making any real progress will require more than 8 classes a week. Such intensive courses are quite expensive and impractical for someone who has to go to work, school or college. It seems that a method based on "free" reading and listening will be both cheaper and more flexible.

Finally, there is also the problem of finding good teachers. While I have so far assumed that teacher feedback is perfect, the reality is that teachers will ignore many mistakes due to insufficient attention, knowledge or time. Non-native teachers will sometimes object tocorrect sentences, or their "corrections" may be wrong themselves. My experience in the Polish educational system shows that very few non-native teachers are a reliable source of correct input (not to mention pronunciation, which is a typical Achilles' heel).

It can reinforce mistakes

Every time you say an incorrect sentence, your brain gets used to it, and it becomes more likely that you will make the same mistake again. We are all familiar with the "fossilized" English learner who always says things like He make, She work, and no amount of corrections seems to help. This is what happens when you've been listening to your own version of English grammar for a long time.

Therefore, the output-based learning method actually contains two feedback loops:

When the teacher corrects you and you try to remember that a given phrase is wrong (this correction will not always occur).
Whenever you say an incorrect sentence.

The second effect (reinforcement) is probably weaker than the first one (correction), but it further slows down learning methods that are based on speaking. If a learner spends most of his time listening to bad grammar (produced by himself and other students), and he gets little other input, one cannot expect good results.

Final word

Language learning does not have to be based on speaking, mistakes, and repeated correction. Indeed, if your goal is good English — that is, if you want to be able to speak and write in English with few mistakes and understand English-language television — the feedback-based method is the wrong way to do it. It builds your knowledge very slowly and depends on a good instructor. As a result, only intensive, long-term courses with competent teachers can give satisfactory results, but these are very expensive and very impractical.

The alternative — input-based learning (more specifically, the Antimoon Method) — does not rely on mistakes and corrections. It gives you more information in less time and enables you to build your English whenever you want to, for as long as you want. On the other hand, it requires that you enjoy reading books in English or watching English-language programs, and that you apply the principles of careful reading and writing.

http://www.antimoon.com/how/mistakes-in-learning.htm

Why You Should Celebrate Your Mistakes

2011-03-21T06:29:00.001-07:00

When you make a mistake, big or small, cherish it like it’s the most precious thing in the world. Because in some ways, it is.

Most of us feel bad when we make mistakes, beat ourselves up about it, feel like failures, get mad at ourselves.

And that’s only natural: most of us have been taught from a young age that mistakes are bad, that we should try to avoid mistakes. We’ve been scolded when we make mistakes — at home, school and work. Maybe not always, but probably enough times to make feeling bad about mistakes an unconscious reaction.

Yet without mistakes, we could not learn or grow.

If you think about it that way, mistakes should be cherished and celebrated for being one of the most amazing things in the world: they make learning possible, they make growth and improvement possible.

By trial and error — trying things, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes — we have figured out how to make electric light, to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, to fly.

Mistakes make walking possible for the smallest toddler, make speech possible, make works of genius possible.

Think about how we learn: we don’t just consume information about something and instantly know it or know how to do it. You don’t just read about painting, or writing, or computer programming, or baking, or playing the piano, and know how to do them right away.

Instead, you get information about something, from reading or from another person or from observing usually … then you construct a model in your mind … then you test it out by trying it in the real world … then you make mistakes … then you revise the model based on the results of your real-world experimentation … and repeat, making mistakes, learning from those mistakes, until you’ve pretty much learned how to do something.

That’s how we learn as babies and toddlers, and how we learn as adults. Trial and error, learning something new from each error.

Mistakes are how we learn to do something new — because if you succeed at something, it’s probably something you already knew how to do. You haven’t really grown much from that success — at most it’s the last step on your journey, not the whole journey. Most of the journey was made up of mistakes, if it’s a good journey.

So if you value learning, if you value growing and improving, then you should value mistakes. They are amazing things that make a world of brilliance possible.

Celebrate your mistakes. Cherish them. Smile.

7 Business Mistakes That Nearly Broke Me… Literally

2011-03-17T05:21:00.000-07:00

Over the past 6 years I founded 9 .com companies. Most of the companies failed miserably and lost me a million dollars or so, but luckily a few of them did well enough to cover my loses. The main reason I had a lot of unsuccessful ventures is because I made some really big mistakes. Hopefully you can learn from my mistakes and not make them.

Don’t spread yourself too thin

A lot of good opportunities will come your way and your gut reaction will be to do them all, but don’t. I made this mistake and what ended up happening is that all of my businesses suffered, even the ones that were doing well. Within 3 to 6 months of me spreading myself too thin all my businesses suffered because I hadn’t spent enough time on each of them, even though I had employees and business partners who were helping me out. Remember, no matter how big or small your business is, you have to spend all of your time on it.

Pick the right type of incorporation

Not only is it important for you to incorporate your business, but it is important to get the right type of incorporation. It may not seem important when you are starting your company, but once you start making money it becomes a huge deal. For example, my accountant tells me that if your company makes under $200,000 in profit a year, a C corporation is good for you due to tax benefits. If you make more than that, consider getting an S corporation or a limited liability company.

I found this out the hard way, when my company started profiting 7 figures a year I had the wrong type of corporation. I ended up getting taxed twice, the company paid taxes on the profit and then I paid taxes on the dividends I got from the company.

Be careful whom you trust

I was working with a few developers and engineers for 3 months and they came to me with a business proposition. The first 3 months of working with them went well, so I decided to hear them out. The businesses opportunity they presented was supposed to revolutionize the hosting industry, but the catch was, they were broke. After hearing them out I ended up giving them some money for living expenses, I bought them a house to live in, and I was dumping 4 to 5 figures into the company every week.

To keep a long story short, they screwed me out of my money, stole stuff from the company, and ruined the house I bought. No matter how well you think you know someone, be careful, because you don’t know who is going to screw you over. One stupid mistake can make you lose thousands of dollars.

Have a thorough hiring process

If you really want to grow your company, you will need employees. You’ll probably post some job openings to find these employees or ask a few friends if they know anyone that you could hire. No matter how you get your applicants, go through each person with a fine-tooth comb. If a friend recommends someone, it doesn’t mean that they’re a good hire. I made this mistake multiple times by hiring developers, designers, and sales people that friends recommended. Just because someone did well at their last job, it doesn’t mean they will do well working for you.

Make your employees accountable

If you aren’t strict with your employees they will start slacking off after a while. And if you travel frequently like I did, they will really start messing around when you aren’t there. The first day a new employee starts, you need to be strict with them because it is hard to get employees out of bad habits.

During the first few years of being an entrepreneur, I didn’t hold any of my employees accountable. Every time they told me something, I took their word for it. On top of that I wasn’t strict when people came in 30 minutes late and after a while it became a daily habit.

To solve this I started using project management software, like Liquid Planner, and I made each one of my employees upload what they completed at the end of each day. This way I could keep track of what each employee did.

On top of that I made every one clock in and out. This allowed me to see who came in on time and who didn’t. At first I didn’t think it was a big deal that a few of my employees came in 30 minutes late each day, but over a course of a year it added up to 3 missed weeks.

Collect your money on time

Making money may seem like a hard thing, but collecting money from people can be even harder. In 2008 I worked for 8 companies that never ended up paying me. This wasn’t a few dollars either, a few companies still owe me over $100,000, sadly I don’t think they will end up paying.

With your business collect the money first before you provide anything. No matter how large a company may be, they can still go bankrupt. Things like contracts and debt collectors won’t help you much if the company doesn’t have money.

And for some reason if someone owes you money, whine to them until you get paid. If you act like you don’t need the money, you’ll never get paid. But if you whine and act like you are in financial trouble, hopefully they will feel sorry and pay you.

Time is not on your side

Especially with your first company, you will want everything to be perfect. The reality is, there will always be problems and nothing will ever be perfect. So instead of trying to make everything perfect, just launch your company before someone else beats you to the punch.

With my first software company, I wanted the software to be perfect before I launched it. I took so long in trying to make the software perfect that Google launched a competing product before I did. After that I had no chance of succeeding because Google’s product was free and mine wasn’t.

Conclusion

No matter what, you are going to make mistakes in life. Even if I told you every mistake that I made, you will still make more. If you want to succeed you can’t give up!!! Sooner or later you will do well, but like anything worth while, it takes time.

http://www.quicksprout.com/2009/01/14/7-business-mistakes-that-nearly-made-me-go-broke/

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

2011-03-11T23:55:00.000-08:00

To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.

At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We're better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?
For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It's a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it's nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.
From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask "Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?" is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?
The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.
While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"
While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.
So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren't nasty and brutish, even though farmes have pushed them into some of the world's worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don't tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.
How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.
In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy (Discover, October). And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.
Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner's sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.
One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for men, 5' 5'' for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
The evidence suggests that the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don't think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. "When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it's become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate."
There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early fanners obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition, (today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearnce of large cities.
Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A. D. 1000, the elite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?
Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts -- with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.
Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today I often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which I lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When I eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.
As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.
Thus with the advent of agriculture and elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over on person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it's because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it's old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don't have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn't want.
At this point it's instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past, and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.
Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?

Learning From Mistakes Only Works After Age 12, Study Suggests

2011-03-08T05:15:00.000-08:00

Eight-year-old children have a radically different learning strategy from twelve-year-olds and adults. Eight-year-olds learn primarily from positive feedback ('Well done!'), whereas negative feedback ('Got it wrong this time') scarcely causes any alarm bells to ring. Twelve-year-olds are better able to process negative feedback, and use it to learn from their mistakes. Adults do the same, but more efficiently.

Brain areas for cognitive control

The switch in learning strategy has been demonstrated in behavioural research, which shows that eight-year-olds respond disproportionately inaccurately to negative feedback. But the switch can also be seen in the brain, as developmental psychologist Dr Eveline Crone and her colleagues from the Leiden Brain and Cognition Lab discovered using fMRI research. The difference can be observed particularly in the areas of the brain responsible for cognitive control. These areas are located in the cerebral cortex.

Opposite case

In children of eight and nine, these areas of the brain react strongly to positive feedback and scarcely respond at all to negative feedback. But in children of 12 and 13, and also in adults, the opposite is the case. Their 'control centres' in the brain are more strongly activated by negative feedback and much less by positive feedback.

Three-way division

Crone and her colleagues used fMRI research to compare the brains of three different age groups: children of eight to nine years, children of eleven to twelve years, and adults aged between 18 and 25 years. This three-way division had never been made before; the comparison is generally made between children and adults.

Unexpected

Crone herself was surprised at the outcome: 'We had expected that the brains of eight-year-olds would function in exactly the same way as the brains of twelve-year-olds, but maybe not quite so well. Children learn the whole time, so this new knowledge can have major consequences for people wanting to teach children: how can you best relay instructions to eight- and twelve-year-olds?' ’

Ticks and crosses

The researchers gave children of both age groups and adults aged 18 to 25 a computer task while they lay in the MRI scanner. The task required them to discover rules. If they did this correctly, a tick appeared on the screen, otherwise a cross appeared. MRI scans showed which parts of the brain were activated.

Learning in a different way

These surprising results set Crone thinking. 'You start to think less in terms of 'good' and 'not so good'. Children of eight may well be able to learn extremely efficiently, only they do it in a different way.'

Learning from mistakes is complicated

She is able to place her fMRI results within the existing knowledge about child development. 'From the literature, it appears that young children respond better to reward than to punishment.' She can also imagine how this comes about: 'The information that you have not done something well is more complicated than the information that you have done something well. Learning from mistakes is more complex than carrying on in the same way as before. You have to ask yourself what precisely went wrong and how it was possible.'

Is it experience?

Is that difference between eight- and twelve-year-olds the result of experience, or does it have to do with the way the brain develops? As yet, nobody has the answer. 'This kind of brain research has only been possible for the last ten years or so,' says Crone, 'and there are a lot more questions which have to be answered. But it is probably a combination of the brain maturing and experience.'

Brain area for positive feedback

There is also an area of the brain that responds strongly to positive feedback: the basal ganglia, just outside the cerebral cortex. The activity of this area of the brain does not change. It remains active in all age groups: in adults, but also in children, both eight-year-olds and twelve-year-olds.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925104309.htm

Rudeness at Work Causes Mistakes

2011-03-01T00:06:00.000-08:00

If someone is rude to you at work or if you witness rudeness you are more likely to make mistakes, says Rhona Flin, Professor of Applied Psychology at the University of Aberdeen, in an editorial published in this week's British Medical Journal.

Professor Flin believes that the link between rudeness and mistakes is particularly concerning in healthcare settings, where it can pose a threat to patient safety and quality of care.

Research suggests that in confined areas, such as operating theatres, even watching rudeness that occurs between colleagues might impair team members' thinking skills.

She warns: "In surgical environments, all staff require high levels of attention and memory for task execution …. If incivility does occur in operating theatres and affects workers' ability to perform tasks, the risks for surgical patients -- whose treatment depends on particularly high levels of mental concentration and flawless task execution -- could increase."

Rudeness at work is not uncommon, says Professor Flin. In a survey of 391 NHS operating theatre staff, 66% of respondents said they had "received aggressive behaviour" from nurses and 53% from surgeons during the previous six months.

Disagreements between surgeons and theatre nurses were reported by 63% of respondents, and disagreements between theatre nurses and ward nurses were reported by 58%. The main source of this problem was the management of the operating list.

Interviews with scrub nurses also indicated that they sometimes had to tolerate surgeons' bad temper and tantrums.

Flin concludes: "People concerned with patient safety should note that civility between workers may have more benefits than just a harmonious atmosphere."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100706204709.htm

Mistakes Can Explain 'Cooperative' Behavior

2011-02-24T05:23:00.000-08:00

How people behave in economic games, where they can choose to be selfish or cooperative, can be explained more easily by 'mistakes' than wanting others to succeed.

he finding comes from four new experiments carried out by researchers from Oxford University, Edinburgh University, and the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. A report of the research was recently published in PNAS.

In the four experiments 168 people played games in groups of four where they were able to choose how many of 40 monetary units they wished to contribute to a public project. Players were then rewarded according to the premium put on cooperative behaviour (contributing) as opposed to holding onto their 'money'.

What we found was that even as we increased the premium on cooperation, so that players made most money by contributing 100 per cent of their money, on average people contributed significantly less than 100 per cent,' said Professor Stuart West of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, one of the leaders of the study. 'In fact even when full cooperation delivered the best financial returns between 66 and 94 per cent of people still saw fellow players as their competitors.'

The research shows that mistakes or 'imperfect behaviour' made by players in a game setting can lead to a systematic bias in how much or little they cooperate.

'Our results suggest that players avoid both completely 'selfish' and 'fully cooperative' behaviour, even if one of these strategies delivers maximum benefit,' said Professor West. 'This could derive from a psychology that avoids extreme behaviours, which could be very costly if they go wrong, or indicate that the sort of simple everyday rules of thumb we use to make these kind of judgements 'misfire' in an intense experimental setting.'

The findings have important implications for evolutionary theory as they challenge the need for new evolutionary theories (such as 'strong reciprocity') to explain how such seemingly 'altruistic' behaviour could have evolved.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100521205753.htm