Even though the post by Chris on Emotion, Reason, and Moral Judgment over at Mixing Memory violates some of the golden rules of blog writing (tip: small bites are easier to chew), I highly recommend you take a look at it. It is the best precis I have read of the recent scientific paper about moral judgements made by damaged brains.
What is so good about it?
- It assumes no previous knowledge of brain science. This means philosophers without a background in neuroscience can get on board. Quickly.
- It avoids science jargon, the hallmark of unreadable scientific papers.
- The pretty picture of the brain is useful to the reader, because Chris explains in one glorious paragraph why researchers think proximity matters.
- He cleanly maps the experimental method with good examples, and ties it to the results.
- Alternative interpretations of the results are presented!
- The post ends with a discussion of what we should take from this research.
All of this means the post is easier to digest than the paper, and more on-point than the mainstream press coverage.
Where could it improve? Shorter paragraphs would be a start. That penultimate paragraph is a killer, though it’s clear this is where Chris is warming to the topic.
(It would be nice if blogging text-editors gave warnings when paragraph and post lengths exceeded 5 lines and 3 screens, respectively.)
As for content, only three things are missing:
- Connectivity in the conclusion. Quickly relating his interpretation of the research to other commentary would be valuable to readers of all sorts.
- An up-front hint what “the reward system” means. While this gets explained a few sentences later, providing meaning when it is first mentioned would make for cleaner reading. To keep focus on the main point, any definition should remain short and tangential. Off-site links or footnotes are good second options.
- A quick copy edit: “and brain’s the reward system” shouldn’t make it to press.
None of that should deter readers from popping over to read the post. It’s enlightening reading, and a good mix of well-presented fact and educated opinion. Science writers take heed.
Here is the paper which stirred this up:
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasion, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature.
Hey, thanks for the critique. You’re right, the last paragraph needs a lot of work, and my typos (like the wandering “the”) make it into posts all the time, because I generally don’t edit them. It’s a one and done thing. Which also explains the last paragraph. After I finished explaining the study, I just wrote what was pretty much a stream of consciousness interpretation of the experiment’s results. That never makes for good writing, and unless you think like me, it doesn’t make for clear writing either.
bonus senza deposito poker
telecharger jeux poker gratuites
casino on line senza deposito
aprire casino online
apply card credit line
online spiel raum…
Jederder casino bonus codes descargar poker gratis online spiel raum texas poker 888 casino…
jeux roulette…
The craps online jack black strategien jeu de poker en francais computer black jack play roulette online…
Each one has its own property that makes it interesting as a solution. ,
Roulette is a nice game. The problem with roulette is that your chances of winning are slightly lower than other games IF you’re not facebook about it. Anyways, its still very fun!
toujours de tres bonne info merci pour ce post !
Great information. Keep up the great work. I love Google.