Well-Known Member

Active Member

One final installment before I close off this Internet rabbit-hole. In addition to skipping articles behind paywalls and most of those without a link in Google Scholar, I've also been skipping the pure sociology/ethnography papers, since IME they tend toward intellectual wankery:
"I think that blablabla. (X, year1) and (Y, year2) agree with me, while (Z, year3) disagrees. Z is wrong because $untestable-reasons."
or
"I spent three months attending Lindy Hop dances, experienced X and felt Y. Therefore, all Lindy Hoppers X because of Y."

F.J. Karpati, C. Giacoas, N.E.V. Foster, V.B. Penhune, and K.L. Hyde. "Dance and the Brain: A Review", Annals of the New York Academy of Science (2015).

J.S. Larson and D.M. Billeter. "Adaptation and Fallibility in Experts' Judgments of Novice Performers", Journal of Experimental Psychology (2017).
Abstract: Competition judges are often selected for their expertise, under the belief that a high level of performance expertise should enable accurate judgments of the competitors. Contrary to this assumption, we find evidence that expertise can reduce judgment accuracy. Adaptation level theory proposes that discriminatory capacity decreases with greater distance from one’s adaptation level. Because experts’ learning has produced an adaptation level close to ideal performance standards, they may be less able to discriminate among lower-level competitors. As a result, expertise increases judgment accuracy of high-level competitions but decreases judgment accuracy of low-level competitions. Additionally, we demonstrate that, consistent with an adaptation level theory account of expert judgment, experts systematically give more critical ratings than intermediates or novices. In summary, this work demonstrates a systematic change in human perception that occurs as task learning increases.

Active Member

Of course, one does have to be quite careful which articles one uses as assistance. I mentioned upstream that I've been filtering out most pure sociology/ethnography papers. Here's a particular example of a less-than-useless paper:

Someone got a 20-page journal article out of "analyzing" a five-second clip of swing dancing. They would have known this "analysis" was utter bollocks if they'd ever actually attended a swing dance weekend.... The thesis of the article is that fellow competitors clap to the beat for choreography and stop clapping on improvisation. Except that the convention is to clap along for the entire song, and the competition was a Jack&Jill, so the entire dance is improvised. The reason the clapping stopped in that clip was because everyone had a "Wha..." reaction to a major gaffe followed by a couple of seconds of fumbling around. The brilliant recovery that followed was the main reason this couple won the competition, because "teamwork" is a major judging criterion for Jack&Jills (another example of the phenomenon of a major error resulting in a win due to teamwork is the case of a follower falling and landing on her rear and the lead copying her "move" two beats later).