One of the big things I think we talked about this week was that the paper on tweets was the first research paper published after the incident and it is important if only for that reason. While in class we discussed how the way of going about the research was done poorly, the conclusions drawn were wrong and even the specified type of study was incorrect with the results displayed. This blew my mind that this was an okay thing because it was still the first paper with scholarly merit done after the incident. So it will get cited hundreds of thousands of times and get plenty of recognition and all this person had to do was half ass something. It's a wonder to be in academia isn't it. I didn't know it was like being a weatherman; as long as your are one of the first few people there it doesn't matter if you get it right or wrong it's just important that you got there quick and said something.
That was something that really frustrated me. What is the point of your research if it isn't useful. I guess it's a jumping off point for someone else but man to get money to do a half assed study is crazy to me. Other than that this was a very informative class on the human element into breading fear and confusion into an area. The radiation "problem" caused by the earthquake was front and center with people feeding into the fear and paranoia and the news just covering it for weeks and months. It was interesting to see what happens when people don't keep their heads. This is what can happen when people don't understand a certain thing. Radiation is a scary and dirty word and it's a word you should just run from without asking what it is. The government was slow to respond as well which did not help anything. People can assume the worst and this is what happens when they do that. We need to work on getting people to try and stay calm and proactive after a disaster. That is something else I learned while in class. The more proactive you can make people feel the less fear and panic there will be. Give people something they can fight and try and wrap their head around. They don't understand radiation or tsunami's but they do understand debris and people in need and the want to help them.
It was a very interesting class all in all. Here is some pieced together footage of the tsunami .
Tom, may I first state that I wish I could have made it to class this week the video you keep talking about sounds pretty epic and I am mad I missed it! The picture that you posted in this blog looks absolutely crazy. I feel like that can’t be real and was taken from a movie. It is really hard to imagine what someone would do in that situation when faced with a wave coming at you of that size. Once again it seems as though you have brought your unique sense of writing to the table that draws and keeps the reader’s attention throughout the blog.
ReplyDeleteI must say that I agree with the next portion of your blog that talks about the scholarly paper that was written after the incident. I don’t see the point of publishing a piece if it is rubbish. If you are going to take time to get a paper published and have students use it in the classroom, at least put time and effort into it. I actually laughed a lot when I saw the weather man reference you made in this post because one of my friends is majoring in meteorology and we always joke around with her and call her a weather guesser.
Tom, I agree it should be a priority for people to figure out what others are talking about no matter what te topic instead of simply imagining what something such as radiation means. This is an age of technology if you don’t know exactly what something is we have a lovely thing called Google where you can find almost anything out that you wish to know on the world wide web. Overall, you have once again impressed me with the sarcasm in your blog post. It is always interesting to hear what you have to say every week. Great job and keep up the good work!
After reading your blog post I almost wish I was able to attend class on Monday. I’m a little interested in how the paper about the tweet research that was published was done incorrectly. It also blows my mind that this paper will probably get cited and referred to hundred maybe thousands of times because it was the first of its kind. I like your point about academia and comparing it to a weather man, because the more I think about, the more it makes sense to me. It makes me wonder if half the information we learn is correct and accurate, or is the information half right, much like the paper about the tweet research. It is crazy and frustrating that people can research something half assed. I guess if no one else really understand or know about the subjects being research, then the researcher can pretty much make up anything they want and make it sound believable. But you are also right, that it could serve as a jump off point for someone else to start.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, people need to be more proactive as far as disasters go. The less panic the more responsive people can be.
Tom, I agree that watching the tsunami was breathtaking and scary when you actually see it for real. When I first heard about the Tsunami, I did not really imagine how strong and powerful it actually was. After watching the video, I truly appreciated how strong and powerful the Tsunami that hit Japan actually was. You also mentioned the BBC video on the Japanese earthquake by the person with the Scottish accent. I also thought that the video was very informative and helped me better understand earthquakes. Prior to watching that video, I only had a rudimentary understanding of what actually causes earthquakes. After that video however, I had a much better understanding of the circumstances that lead to earthquakes and why Japan was so bad.
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned the problems in Academia with being the first one to publish on certain topic so that everybody else after you cites your work. Unfortunately, this is becoming a common problem across all facets of life today. Another prominent example of this problem outside of Academia is Journalists. Journalists today rush to publish articles without truly verifying the accuracy of the information contained in hopes of being the first one to break the story. If they are the first to break the story, then everyone will credit them with breaking the story. If they are wrong however, most of the time it will simply get lost in the sea of information available today. I do not really see the situation changing in Academia or Journalism until there are sufficient punishments for knowingly publishing wrong or terrible research. The rewards are too great for being the first one out there with the right information to stop publishing bad information.