Reply to comment
Soo..
August 31, 2007 by Eric B. (not verified), 2 years 10 weeks ago
Comment id: 24756
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Concentrating blocks out distractors? Errr... Isn't that why we concentrate? I mean, I guess I understand the concept of "your mind does x" but this is hardly worthy of a post. If I exclude all other things from my input than that which I want to measure, aren't I, by virtue of the act, expected to miss things?
Now, if you had claimed that even superficial concentration results in high percentage of peripheral data being lost then I would say "ok..." But this only works if you attempt exclusion of all else. I was able to count the ball passings AND notice the anomoly quite easily - barely any effort. I fail to see what this proves other than "if you concentrate on comething, you only see that one thing..." which is the point of concentration in my mind...
Eric