A couple of weeks ago, I went to a birthday party, where my friends and I danced West Coast Swing with R&B. It was a social dance occasion. We did not pre-choreograph or anything.
Yet, these "social dance" was danced fine, with plenty of varieties and fun (and we got compliments too..., hehe, thanks). For doing and for watching, repeating the same thing too many times would be boring.
Partner dance needs to follow predetermined patterns to get it work. And there is finite time for a song. For 2 minutes song, you can put a limited number of moves; 6-count, 8-count, transitional moves, and so on, plus acting, pausing, separate/freestyling, etc.
In other words, dancers are putting pieces of moves into the song, much like playing jigsaw puzzle. These pieces of moves are the modules. Each style of dance has different kind of modules.
Ballroom dance is most structured in this aspect. Are you familiar with the Bronze patterns, Silver patterns, Gold patterns, and combinations of them (called amalgamation by the ballroom people)?
What we call "basics" are the most standard modules for the style of dance.
Then, there are modules that are built upon the basics. They are intermediate and advanced "modules", depending on required difficulties, novelties, or looks.
In addition, there are modules used for stage dances or other show occasions (advanced and/or stage moves). You may not need nor be able to use them in social dance settings, because your "social dance" partners would not know these modules. But certainly you can use them with specific partner(s) who practiced them together.
When you dance, you combine different modules to occupy the song.
Choreography is basically an art of weaving these modules to the song. A dance-able song has repetitions and structure (both rhythmic and melodious). Partner dance offers modules that can fit in the song.
"Original" and "creative" are different. In partner dances, you use common modules, so the dances cannot be "original". But the way you combine modules cam be "creative".
It helps to know a bunch of modules. My friends are long-time dancers and know a lot of modules/patterns. These are the basis of and the trick for dancing decent social dances.
Some competitive or professional dance are boastful, filled with modules that need physical competence and that amateurs cannot pull off. Yet, if you break them down to each module, they are not entirely impossible. You break the modules down, and if you can imitate well, you are now dancing like them.
Dance can be very technical. And much like music to which dance accompanies, without techniques you cannot communicate with dance.
That makes it simple. Work on your modules, both variety and execution. Then, a higher level of dancing will appear to you.
I noticed I have not posted about dancing for some time. So here is an essay. Stating obvious? Maybe. But this "obvious" way of seeing dance can be useful if you are not aware of it.
February 8, 2019
January 31, 2019
Science: Stephenson Cancer Center annual symposium 2019 (upcoming 2/1)
This Friday (2/1/2019) we'll have the Stephenson Cancer Center annual cancer research symposium at the Samis Education Center in the Children's hospital.
There are three tracks of sessions; Cancer biology, Prevention and control, and Experimental medicine and developmental therapeutics.
This year I'm not giving a talk, but may check out some sessions and presentations by colleagues.
Otherwise, there are a few results I want to see soon in the lab. We are looking at injured brains of mice, and optimizing experimental conditions to observe these injury's biomarkers. Collaborating with neuroscientists certainly provide interesting opportunities.
Symposium Link:
https://stephensoncancercenter.org/Research/Research-Events/Cancer-Research-Symposium
There are three tracks of sessions; Cancer biology, Prevention and control, and Experimental medicine and developmental therapeutics.
This year I'm not giving a talk, but may check out some sessions and presentations by colleagues.
Otherwise, there are a few results I want to see soon in the lab. We are looking at injured brains of mice, and optimizing experimental conditions to observe these injury's biomarkers. Collaborating with neuroscientists certainly provide interesting opportunities.
Symposium Link:
https://stephensoncancercenter.org/Research/Research-Events/Cancer-Research-Symposium
Past 2-3 days were cold, down to lower 20F (-5~-6C) at night in OKC. But the temp was nowhere near the arctic cold Chicago and other midwest cities were having.
January 24, 2019
Science: Science is show and tell
This week I have been working on revising a manuscript.
The manuscript went out and received a harsh review. A part of the reasons is that the reviewer was not convinced by a previous work, which is the basis of current work.
When we test hypotheses, we test them. Yet, some of the hypotheses will be determined as "untrue" after experiments/tests, even with best rationales. In many cases, nature holds something beyond our reasoning.
One way to get over with it and to endure perceived "failures" is, to know such is the nature of the game of medical science, to know a "failure" is not really a failure but another trial to get closer to truth, and to get used to it.
Hypothesis-driven science is not unlike baseball. No one hits all the time. We swing. We miss. But sometimes we hit.
In the lab, we can do trials and errors. It is a good thing for cell biology and other lab science.
Once we find something that may be "true", we further test them. Here we need to be cautious, especially when we feel like we are onto something.
We test many possibilities internally in the lab, so we become confident in the positive result.
But reviewers outside do not know how much of confirmatory experiments we have done here. Nor the amount of inputs from colleagues, pathologists, and others. All these backstage work are not considered if not shown.
In the manuscript, we did not show some data. The said reviewer assumed we did not do due diligence, and thought we knew very little about what we were showing.
Well, at first I was bummed by the review. But there is something constructive. It is a feedback by a peer after all. We need to show what we did internally but did not show. That, adding the data we did not show, is what I have been doing this week.
I need to remind myself, 'Science is "show and tell". ' When they are saying we did not show enough to convince them, we got to show some more.
The manuscript went out and received a harsh review. A part of the reasons is that the reviewer was not convinced by a previous work, which is the basis of current work.
When we test hypotheses, we test them. Yet, some of the hypotheses will be determined as "untrue" after experiments/tests, even with best rationales. In many cases, nature holds something beyond our reasoning.
One way to get over with it and to endure perceived "failures" is, to know such is the nature of the game of medical science, to know a "failure" is not really a failure but another trial to get closer to truth, and to get used to it.
Hypothesis-driven science is not unlike baseball. No one hits all the time. We swing. We miss. But sometimes we hit.
In the lab, we can do trials and errors. It is a good thing for cell biology and other lab science.
Once we find something that may be "true", we further test them. Here we need to be cautious, especially when we feel like we are onto something.
We test many possibilities internally in the lab, so we become confident in the positive result.
But reviewers outside do not know how much of confirmatory experiments we have done here. Nor the amount of inputs from colleagues, pathologists, and others. All these backstage work are not considered if not shown.
In the manuscript, we did not show some data. The said reviewer assumed we did not do due diligence, and thought we knew very little about what we were showing.
Well, at first I was bummed by the review. But there is something constructive. It is a feedback by a peer after all. We need to show what we did internally but did not show. That, adding the data we did not show, is what I have been doing this week.
I need to remind myself, 'Science is "show and tell". ' When they are saying we did not show enough to convince them, we got to show some more.
January 14, 2019
Science: Government shutdown
The US government shutdown is dragging on.
My workplace is a state university, so I am not one of 800,000 people who are in federal agencies and directly affected. Yet, the US government is the biggest sponsor for medical research through a number of research grants. That shutdown certainly affects many things we do.
For example, during the government shutdown, all the responses to inquiries to upcoming grant by the government officials are delayed or suspended.
This pending of response slows our planning and preparation process.
There are many other things I can work on, so my everyday work does not seem to change much. Yet, in a broader sense, this shutdown is surely destabilizing environment for medical research in the US.
I do not welcome nor support this government shutdown.
My workplace is a state university, so I am not one of 800,000 people who are in federal agencies and directly affected. Yet, the US government is the biggest sponsor for medical research through a number of research grants. That shutdown certainly affects many things we do.
For example, during the government shutdown, all the responses to inquiries to upcoming grant by the government officials are delayed or suspended.
This pending of response slows our planning and preparation process.
There are many other things I can work on, so my everyday work does not seem to change much. Yet, in a broader sense, this shutdown is surely destabilizing environment for medical research in the US.
I do not welcome nor support this government shutdown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)