<p>My goal is to transfer to the University with the best Cognitive Psych department
because my goal is to a write a thesis
regarding the differential effects of vocabulary acquisition/ desultory thought patterns/ verbal internal working memory capacity and degree of comprehension of words and sentences
into a mathematicized combinatorial model which predicts the most effective didactic techniques and postulates the qualities which constitute the ideal skill set for seminal intellectual creativity </p>
<p>This thesis is in the works and should be completed within 6 months
my SAT was 2380
M:800
W:800
CR:800
and I have a solid 3.72 College GPA</p>
<p>which graduate schools would you recommend for Cognitive Psych
or undergraduate schools (cuz I could transfer)
advice would be really helpful!
if you help me…just post a link of a question you need help with and I promise I will answer it
thanks!</p>
<p>I would stay put and graduate, although you may want to raise that GPA to 3.8+ to have a solid shot at top graduate programs.</p>
<p>Top graduate programs in Cognitive Psychology include:</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon University
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of California-San Diego
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Washington University-St Louis
Yale University</p>
<p>Yeah thanks for the advice
the reason it is only 3.72 is because my freshman year was plagued by absenteeism and too much alcohol and over-involvement in the social scene</p>
<p>but despite that my recommendations are extremely solid</p>
<p>the thesis I am writing is extremely creative, well-written and decently researched
and I guarantee it will persuade nearly every admissions committee in the nation that I am qualified for their program </p>
<p>I am considering dual-majoring in business so that might help too
but a potential snag in my plan is the fact I have only taken like 4 science courses in college and no Organic Chemistry or Advanced Neuro
but I might take those even if I have to stay an extra year to do it</p>
<p>but yeah I will take a look at those programs </p>
<p>yeah I accidentally typed that I scored an 800 on the critical reading
I actually scored a 780 but I cannot edit it</p>
<p>Do you happen to know the best resource for detailed information
on the differences in thought processes between genius level people and people of average intelligence
or detailed psychometric studies relating to vocabulary size and analogical reasoning
or statistics regarding vocabulary size vis-a-vis age/intelligence/ profession/ </p>
<p>these things are crucial for the development of my theory but I am having difficulty locating the extreme amount of detail needed to finish my thesis</p>
<p>Check out [Google</a> scholar](<a href=“http://scholar.google.com%5DGoogle”>http://scholar.google.com) - a quick search brought up [one</a> neat paper](<a href=“Relationship between intelligence and vocabulary - PubMed”>www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15773700), and there are probably tons more. Re: analogical reasoning and vocabulary, you might look into [George</a> Lakoff](<a href=“http://georgelakoff.com/]George”>http://georgelakoff.com/)'s research (he’s the founder of cognitive linguistics and is a prof at Berkeley), which has focused on metaphor (in the general sense) in the lexicon of a language; his main argument is more or less that analogical reasoning is central to human thinking and to vocabulary, and it’s gained him quite a bit of notoriety. Finally, since cognitive psychology often draws on computational methods, you might look into models that have tried to bootstrap lexical semantics using various methods based on developmental psychology. More complex models are better able to disambiguate words in context (‘higher intelligence’). For this, check out the research of [Josh</a> Tenenbaum<a href=“a%20prof%20at%20MIT”>/url</a> for starters; you might also check out Princeton’s [url=<a href=“http://wordnet.princeton.edu/]WordNet”>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/]WordNet</a> project](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/cocosci/josh.html]Josh”>Josh Tenenbaum's home page) or Stanford’s[url=<a href=“http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/sem-ind.shtml]WordNet”>The Stanford Natural Language Processing Group]WordNet</a> project<a href=“which%20tries%20to%20bootstrap/induce%20a%20wordnet”>/url</a>.</p>
<p>Not sure if any of that helps, but it’s what came to mind from your description. Best of luck on your research - seems like neat stuff. :)</p>
<p>Thanks a ton!
the reason I am doing this research is because I aspire to write books on how to approach vocabulary immersion learning and how to teach kids analogical reasoning skills and mathematical concepts
I am going to argue for a different approach to math education and especially writing education which focuses too heavily on organization rather than the ability to synthesize ideas and reason
I am going to argue that desultory thought patterns characteristic for people with ADHD
combined with a high internal working verbal memory capacity a high degree of comprehension of each vocabulary word and rapid cycling of concept clusters
results in a much greater potential for seminal intellectual ideation</p>
<p>so basically I want to accelerate the flynn effect by implementing didactic techniques which are quite novel and geared primarily to those with above average intelligence</p>
<p>and to the degree possible even though this is a dauting task and to derive a precise function would be almost impossible
I would like to mathematicize the effects of vocabulary acquisition/concept grasp
constrained by working memory capacity, degree of comprehension, speed of thought cycling, degree of association among clusters, the number of modifications possible given a given vocabulary word
to argue that someone with a greater repertoire of especially verbs, adj and non-object nouns describing concepts can do an exponentially greater amount of modifications of concepts and actually increasing internal verbal conceptual working memory…giving them more precision with concepts while requiring fewer words to do so enabling them to juggle exponentially more complex ideas…and I will argue that people with desultory thought patterns who tend to generate a higher proportion of relevant ideas but with a greater tendency to recombine ideas from more diverse fields of inquiry will have the greatest chance of revolutionary ideation
Another idea which I am sure is not new
is to create more advanced words for extremely complex concepts
which involve like 5 or 10 steps or which cannot be described in less than a sentence
this way if you make up a word about some complex mathematical process or something like it will be 10x easier to imagine (say the word is bimbamate) a bimbanation of a bimbanation and other meta-analytical aspects…this creation of these words will not easily become standardized but it is worth a shot to advocate its creation
but you have to ensure the word you are describing depicts a process which is not so ambivalent as to provoke too many different possible associations to give the word optimal precision with enough versatility to become applied and adopted
I also have ideas about indexing research articles so that we could create a search engine where someone could type in a question (and the indices would have to be extremely detailed, well-catalogued) about almost any topic and get a list of articles and studies related to the question in a way that is much more focused than a google search with more relevant results</p>
<p>but yeah its in the formative stages right now
thanks so much for the research suggestions!</p>
<p>That sounds really interesting. If you’re looking to formalize vocabulary acquisition, esp. within the constraints of human memory/processing capacity, then most definitely look to computational models of language acquisition. Those are essentially trying to do the same: come up with a rigorous explanation for vocabulary acquisition in the context of the human mind. If you want to focus on verbs, you might look into [VerbNet[/url</a>] (which is like WordNet, except only for verbs; both are projects of cognitive science) and the many papers that have been written utilizing that resource, e.g. verb acquisition.</p>
<p>by the way phantasmagoric
one of my old AIM screennames was Phantasmagoria69
lol its never in use anymore but Phantasmagoria might be my favorite word in the english language</p>
<p>“and I guarantee it will persuade nearly every admissions committee in the nation that I am qualified for their program”</p>
<p>It’s nice that you are so self-confident, but don’t assume anything when it comes to admissions. There are no guarantees, and grad programs are very competitive.</p>
<p>yeah maybe I should temper my confidence with a dose of bitter realism
maybe I am not as persuasive as I perceive myself to be
your right thanks for the reality check
but yeah I would say prolly at least a 30% chance where I am applying</p>
I think the German language perfected this, concatenating words to create new words. Good luck j6, glad to see new ideas springing from the sea of conformity.</p>
If you’re looking to formalize vocabulary acquisition, esp. within the constraints of human memory/processing capacity, then most definitely look to computational models of language acquisition. Those are essentially trying to do the same: come up with a rigorous explanation for vocabulary acquisition in the context of the human mind. If you want to focus on verbs, you might look into [VerbNet[/url</a>] (which is like WordNet, except only for verbs; both are projects of cognitive science) and the many papers that have been written utilizing that resource, e.g. verb acquisition.</p>