“The right level of abstraction” is *great* advice.
On my own I did find the chunking model via Barbara Oakley work. Which I believe u covered somewhere.
Any other examples of brain function research?
Conversation
Apologies I meant examples of learning research and brain function research
1
Well, I'm currently interested in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, because emotion regulation is a superpower in an age of knowledge work. And I also want to do a *proper* summary of burnout research — there's a 2016 survey paper by Maslach, but I'm curious to see developments.
2
1
Replying to
You probably have this in your pile of research papers to look at
On the off chance you don’t
I found this in my kindle highlights
1
1
Replying to
Odd. That is NOT the predominant view that I am aware of. (Taste test: is it just one paper that’s quoted? Is it a meta analysis? If yes to the former and no to the latter, the author is probably wrong).
2
Replying to
Apologies. I am still layman. So not sure what's a meta analysis. this is the paper lib-edpsy.alzahra.ac.ir/documents/1015 How do I tell whether it's a meta analysis?
1
and yes, the point abt depression and burnout being the same was from this one paper. This is the full blown page for better context. I still hunting for the citations from Malach and Kranz in the same page about burnout due to wrong fit.
1
Replying to
A meta analysis is a study of studies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-anal
The cited paper is an individual study. Author asserts they are the same. I am quite certain Maslach does NOT think that burnout == clinical depression. She makes no mention in her 2016 survey paper.
2
1
Replying to
Sorry if I sound annoying. I had myself tested before on the big5 and I score above average for being disagreeable. heh.
makes no mention in her 2016 survey paper != think they are different
Am I wrong?
2
Nvm I found my answer in the same paper. The Comparative symptomatology of burnout and depression paper's authors noted that Maslach thinks burnout is a separate phenomenon.
Ignore me. I *am* wrong
1
Replying to
I’d be curious to see if this finding holds up. I bet it’ll be a decade before we get consensus though.
The meta lesson is to never take popular science books at face value. They’re often written by writers who don’t know how to read scientific papers.
Replying to
>never take popular science books at face value.
In past, I too easily go into the overly skeptical camp. so my new operating system is I take at face value & if wrong, I change my mind.
Of cse, I assign different levels of taking at face value ala Dalio's principle.