A new study, forthcoming in Psychological Science, and led by Jason Moser at Michigan State University, expands on this important concept. The question at the heart of the paper is simple: Why are some people so much more effective at learning from their mistakes? After all, everybody screws up. The important part is what happens next. Do we ignore the mistake, brushing it aside for the sake of our self-confidence? Or do we investigate the error, seeking to learn from the snafu?

The Moser experiment is premised on the fact that there are two distinct reactions to mistakes, both of which can be reliably detected using electroenchephalography, or EEG. The first reaction is called error-related negativity (ERN). It appears about 50 milliseconds after a screw-up and is believed to originate in the anterior cingulate cortex, a chunk of tissue that helps monitor behavior, anticipate rewards and regulate attention. This neural reaction is mostly involuntary, the inevitable response to any screw-up.

The second signal, which is known as error positivity (Pe), arrives anywhere between 100-500 milliseconds after the mistake and is associated with awareness. It occurs when we pay attention to the error, dwelling on the disappointing result. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that subjects learn more effectively when their brains demonstrate two properties: 1) a larger ERN signal, suggesting a bigger initial response to the mistake and 2) a more consistent Pe signal, which means that they are probably paying attention to the error, and thus trying to learn from it.

He permitted her to persist with the illusion that evolution and creation are competing hypotheses, when in fact they are entirely independent concepts that have nothing to do with one another.

She needs to understand why creation doesn’t belong in a science classroom. The fact that she thinks it does displays a fundamental misunderstanding on her part (and on the part of many of his students most likely) of what science is and what it is not. Based on the actions of his daughter, I’d wager that he let his emotions get in the way of actually effectively conveying ideas.

“We’re not going to have an evolution versus creation debate in this classroom, but it’s going to take me a few minutes to help you guys understand why.

Can anyone tell me what science is?”

(Long wait. Sometimes you have to make them look it up in the dictionary. Most definitions come round to, ‘A way of learning about nature.’)

“Right, it’s a way of learning about nature. By definition, any concept of a god involves the supernatural – that which is outside of nature. So by definition, it’s outside the scope of the topic. We can’t measure divinity. We can’t test divinity. We can’t falsify a hypothesis about divinely inspired creation. We don’t spend a lot of time on world history or diagramming sentences in a biology classroom, and we’re not going to spend a lot of time on creationism either -because it’s not science.

Science is not concerned with what you believe.

It is concerned with what you know – the best model we can construct from the evidence available in the natural world.

Science doesn’t deal with the metaphysical. Some of you will view that as a limitation, and that’s fine. You have to understand the appropriate uses and limitations of any tool you work with.”

A great point about how to have conversations about science.

In 2010, Svante Pääbo and his colleagues presented a draft version of the genome from a small fragment of a human finger bone discovered in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia. The DNA sequences showed that this individual came from a previously unknown group of extinct humans that have become known as Denisovans. Together with their sister group the Neandertals, Denisovans are the closest extinct relatives of currently living humans.

Stunning.

“There are two ways you can make an error as a man,” says Perilloux. “Either you think, ‘Oh, wow, that woman’s really interested in me’—and it turns out she’s not. There’s some cost to that,” such as embarrassment or a blow to your reputation. The other error: “She’s interested, and he totally misses out. He misses out on a mating opportunity. That’s a huge cost in terms of reproductive success.” The researchers theorize that the kind of guy who went for it, even at the risk of being rebuffed, scored more often—and passed on his overperceiving tendency to his genetic heirs. The casual sex seekers “face slightly different adaptive problems,” says Perilloux. “They are limited mainly by the number of consenting sex partners—so overestimation is even more important.” Only the actually attractive men probably had no need for misperception.

Interesting.