Fri Oct 31 15:47:01 EDT 2014

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently:

  • Your nose knows death is imminent

    Losing the sense of smell predicts death within five years, according to new research.

    According to new research, the sense of smell is the canary in the coalmine of human health. A study published today in the open access journal PLOS ONE, shows that losing one's sense of smell strongly predicts death within five years, suggesting that the nose knows when death is imminent, and that smell may serve as a bellwether for the overall state of the body, or as a marker for exposure to environmental toxins.

    ... The tip of the olfactory nerve, which contains the smell receptors, is the only part of the human nervous system that is continuously regenerated by stem cells. The production of new smell cells declines with age, and this is associated with a gradual reduction in our ability to detect and discriminate odours. Loss of smell may indicate that the body is entering a state of disrepair, and is no longer capable of repairing itself.

  • We Are All Confident Idiots

    The trouble with ignorance is that it feels so much like expertise.

    In 1999, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog, my then graduate student Justin Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize - scratch that, cannot recognize - just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: For poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers - and we are all poor performers at some things - fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack.
    What's curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.

  • Past Climate Change Was Caused by the Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere, New Rutgers Study Finds

    The study published in Science provides a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change today.

    In their study, the researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean - which pulls in heat and carbon dioxide in the Atlantic and moves them through the deep ocean from north to south until it's released in the Pacific.

  • What Schizophrenia Can Teach Us About Ourselves

    Some scientists are arguing that our new understanding of a particular network in the brain is allowing neuroscientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists - even artists and writers - to understand each other in ways that wouldn't have made sense ten years ago. Called the default mode network, or DMN, it's a set of brain regions that are typically suppressed when a person is engaged in an external task (playing a sport, working on a budget), but activated during a so-called "resting state" (sitting quietly, day-dreaming).
    "We should be wary of seeing a schizophrenic person as someone with a kind of deficiency," Woods says. Rather, it may be just another part of what it means to be human. A person might simply process language differently or ruminate on social interactions for too long. His or her inner speech might be more fragmented or circuitous. Individual differences in DMN activity account for the diverse ways the human mind freely wanders.

  • Something Is Dangerously Wrong at the New York Fed

    The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is a public institution, which writes banking rules and enacts monetary policy. But the 12 regional banks, which carry out regulatory examinations, are privately run. The local banking industry and other corporate interests choose the majority of the regional bank boards, who subsequently select a president. Unsurprisingly, those presidents often reflect the business management perspective of those who choose them. Bill Dudley, the New York Fed president, spent his career as chief economist for Goldman Sachs.
    This public/private hybrid leads to a lack of transparency about the regional banks and their activities. The New York Fed, which because of the presence of Wall Street has by far the most power of the regional banks, routinely exempts itself from public disclosure requirements.

  • The Problem With Positive Thinking

    Why doesn't positive thinking work the way you might assume? As my colleagues and I have discovered, dreaming about the future calms you down, measurably reducing systolic blood pressure, but it also can drain you of the energy you need to take action in pursuit of your goals.
    Positive thinking fools our minds into perceiving that we've already attained our goal, slackening our readiness to pursue it.
    What does work better is a hybrid approach that combines positive thinking with "realism." Here's how it works. Think of a wish. For a few minutes, imagine the wish coming true, letting your mind wander and drift where it will. Then shift gears. Spend a few more minutes imagining the obstacles that stand in the way of realizing your wish.

  • Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

    In this extract from When Google Met WikiLeaks Julian Assange describes his encounter with Google's Eric Schmidt and how he came to conclude that it was far from an innocent exchange of views.

  • Why Inequality Matters

    Bill Gates on Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

  • Real-time rumor tracker

    It's part of a research project with the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University that focuses on how unverified information and rumor are reported in the media. It aims to develop best practices for debunking misinformation.

  • The Immigrant Sport: What Ping-Pong Means In America

    Article about the U.S. Open of Table Tennis in Grand Rapids, Michigan. A plug for my favorite sport.

  • Freedom From Religion Foundation

    Protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of state and church

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation's ad featuring Ron Reagan describing himself as "an unabashed atheist" has been rejected for airing by CBS, not only by "60 Minutes," the desired placement, but for any CBS TV show. Watch it: CBS, '60 Minutes,' reject Ron Reagan's `unabashed atheist' ad

    We need more prominent people to come out as atheists. Laws won't change until public opinion does, just like for women's rights, gay rights, etc.

  • Belief in Free Will Not Threatened by Neuroscience

    A key finding from neuroscience research over the last few decades is that non-conscious preparatory brain activity appears to precede the subjective feeling of making a decision. Some neuroscientists, like Sam Harris, have argued that this shows our sense of free will is an illusion, and that lay people would realize this too if they were given a vivid demonstration of the implications of the science.

    ... However, in a new paper, Eddy Nahmias, Jason Shepard and Shane Reuter counter such claims. They believe that Harris and others (who they dub "willusionists") make several unfounded assumptions about the basis of most people's sense of free will.

    I was hoping for a better argument.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Thu Oct 23 22:56:13 EDT 2014

Brain Errors

Some links about how your brain sometimes fails so that what you think is true may not be right.

  • Brain's limits lead to unconscious choices in what we see and remember

    The brain has limited capacity to perceive and remember, and it makes choices we're not aware of

    How much we can visually take in and what we remember are subject to limitations in signal capacity and storage space. The brain adapts by making a lot of choices outside of our conscious awareness, new research shows.

    "Forgetting seems disadvantageous, but plays an essential role in maintaining the efficiency of memory operations," the researchers wrote.

  • Things You Cannot Unsee (and What That Says About Your Brain)

    What you know influences what you see.

    Once you interpret visual stimulus in a certain way, you'll continue to interpret it in the same way now and the next time you encounter the stimulus

    You're not only seeing what is actually before you; you're seeing what your brain is telling you is there.

  • When Beliefs and Facts Collide

    TheUpshot, Brendan Nyhan

    This finding helps us understand why my colleagues and I have found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts.

  • YourMorals.Org

    Learn about your own morality, ethics, and/or values, while also contributing to scientific research

    Why do people disagree so passionately about what is right? Why, in particular, is there such hostility and incomprehension between members of different political parties?

    If you think your moral values are about logic or facts, think again.

  • Our biases make it really hard to see things clearly.

    ... people understand the world in ways that suit their preexisting beliefs and ideological commitments. Thus in controlled experiments both conservatives and liberals systematically misread the facts in a way that confirms their biases.

  • How reliable is eyewitness testimony? Scientists weigh in

    As Loftus puts it, "just because someone says something confidently doesn't mean it's true." Jurors can't help but find an eyewitness's confidence compelling, even though experiments have shown that a person's confidence in their own memory is sometimes undiminished even in the face of evidence that their memory of an event is false.
    . . .
    One thing the report comes out solidly in favor of is treating the lineup as a double-blind scientific experiment-neither the witness nor the presiding officer should know in advance whether the suspect is in the lineup. "Double-blinding is central to the scientific method because it minimizes the risk that experimenters might inadvertently bias the outcome of their research, finding only what they expected to find," the report concludes. But it leaves the question of exactly how police departments should implement double-blind lineups unanswered.

  • Think You're Immune to False Memory? You're Not.

    The most disconcerting aspect of human memory is not that we forget things; it's that we falsely remember them.

    We know for a fact that at least 225 men and women have been convicted of serious crimes because witnesses convincingly, yet mistakenly, named them as the culprits.
    . . .

    Overall, the results of the study further substantiate the idea that human memory is not recorded but constructed. We recall events and details by association, using basic emotional, tactile, and visual cues to piece together a memory. Sometimes, that process manufactures jumbled falsehoods.

  • Think by Numbers

    You have a total of three brains: the reptilian brain, the paleo-mammalian brain, and the rational brain.

    Your mind has been infiltrated. Your logical and conscious prefrontal cortex is ever thwarted by powerful saboteurs hiding within the dark realm of your subconscious. The usurpers of your decision-making processes are none other than the ignorant reptilian brain stem and emotional limbic system. They torture you with sadness for the slightest defiance. They drug you with narcotic neurochemicals to reward your obedience. This diabolical duo is responsible for all forms of irrational human behavior, such as racism, war, and marriage. Your only defense against these illogical bastards is to base your decisions on cold, hard numbers.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Mon Sep 29 12:04:12 EDT 2014

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently:

  • Does philosophy have a future?

    by Mark English

    One of (the) problems with philosophy is that -- unlike in science -- virtually nothing within the discipline is ever definitively resolved. Old approaches are routinely exposed as logically flawed or inadequate. But the usual pattern is that someone then comes along and finds that the original view can be salvaged with some small modifications and/or that the critique is also flawed.
    ... The general belief within philosophy is that the process of collegial debate, discussion and review leads to a refinement or clarification of views and so to a progress of sorts. Refinement, yes. Clarification, I'm not so sure.
    Often this process can all too plausibly be interpreted in one of two ways (or both -- the ideas are not mutually exclusive): it can be seen as a cover for what is essentially an ideological battle; or merely as a competitive game, self-perpetuating and futile.
    ... The view that much philosophy is self-perpetuating and futile, a game of sorts which ends not when some kind of "truth" or resolution is finally arrived at but when people just get tired of that particular game and move on to another, has often been more or less acknowledged by philosophers.

  • Clapper Denies Lying, Announces New Ethics Policy

    Why isn't this guy in jail?

    Clapper flat-out lied to Sen. Ron Wyden during a Senate hearing in March when he said the NSA does not wittingly "collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans."
    Clapper has previously said he "responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no."
    On Thursday, he said he had been falsely accused of lying "because of a mistake and trying to answer on the spot a question about a specific classified program in an unclassified setting."

    Even though it was a friendly setting, was there not at least a giggle from the audience?

  • No, Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help The Terrorists

    "Well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them."

    "...Flashpoint Global Partners, a private security firm, examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups... It found no correlation in either measure to Snowden's leaks about the NSA's surveillance techniques, which became public beginning June 5, 2013."

  • Schizophrenia not a single disease but multiple genetically distinct disorders

    About 80 percent of the risk for schizophrenia is known to be inherited, but scientists have struggled to identify specific genes for the condition. Now, in a novel approach analyzing genetic influences on more than 4,000 people with schizophrenia, the research team has identified distinct gene clusters that contribute to eight different classes of schizophrenia.

  • Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota

    Collectively, our results link NAS (Non-caloric artificial sweeteners) consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage.

  • The Feynman Lectures on Physics

    Now, anyone with internet access and a web browser can enjoy reading a high quality up-to-date copy of Feynman's legendary lectures.

    Volume     I: mainly mechanics, radiation and heat
    Volume   II: mainly electromagnetism and matter
    Volume III: quantum mechanics

  • How big telecom smothers city-run broadband

    AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable use statehouses to curb public Internet service

    The companies have succeeded in getting laws passed in 20 states that ban or restrict municipalities from offering Internet to residents.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Wed Sep 17 13:58:22 EDT 2014

History (War and Peace)

Why I never took a history course in college.

  • Does It Help to Know History?

    Adam Gopnik, August 28, 2014 The New Yorker daily comment

    But the best argument for reading history is not that it will show us the right thing to do in one case or the other, but rather that it will show us why even doing the right thing rarely works out.

    What history actually shows is that nothing works out as planned, and that everything has unintentional consequences. History doesn't show that we should never go to war -- sometimes there's no better alternative. But it does show that the results are entirely uncontrollable, and that we are far more likely to be made by history than to make it. History is past, and singular, and the same year never comes round twice.

In the summer after I graduated high school I read War and Peace. It was just after I had taken a calculus course and the analogies made by Tolstoy between history and calculus made a lasting impression on me. Adam Gopnik's blog posting reminded me of this and here are two links that give more details about Tolstoy's comments related to calculus in War and Peace.

  • MathFiction: War and Peace
    (quoted from War and Peace)

    The movement of humanity, arising as it does from innumerable arbitrary human wills, is continuous. To understand the laws of this continuous movement is the aim of history. But to arrive at these laws, resulting from the sum of all those human wills, man's mind postulates arbitrary and disconnected units. The first method of history is to take an arbitrarily selected series of continuous events and examine it apart from others, though there is and can be no beginning to any event, for one event always flows uninterruptedly from another.

    The second method is to consider the actions of some one man- a king or a commander- as equivalent to the sum of many individual wills; whereas the sum of individual wills is never expressed by the activity of a single historic personage.

    Historical science in its endeavor to draw nearer to truth continually takes smaller and smaller units for examination. But however small the units it takes, we feel that to take any unit disconnected from others, or to assume a beginning of any phenomenon, or to say that the will of many men is expressed by the actions of any one historic personage, is in itself false.

    It needs no critical exertion to reduce utterly to dust any deductions drawn from history. It is merely necessary to select some larger or smaller unit as the subject of observation- as criticism has every right to do, seeing that whatever unit history observes must always be arbitrarily selected. Only by taking infinitesimally small units for observation (the differential of history, that is, the individual tendencies of men) and attaining to the art of integrating them (that is, finding the sum of these infinitesimals) can we hope to arrive at the laws of history.

  • Tolstoy's Calculus

    "Absolute continuity of motion is not comprehensible to the human mind. Laws of motion of any kind become comprehensible to man only when he examines arbitrarily selected elements of that motion; but at the same time, a large proportion of human error comes from the arbitrary division of continuous motion into discontinuous elements."

    "By adopting smaller and smaller elements we only approach a solution of the problem, but never reach it," Tolstoy declared. "Only when we have admitted the conception of the infinitely small, and the resulting geometrical progression with a common ratio of one tenth, and have found the sum of this progression to infinity, do we reach the solution of the problem." Building on this analogy, Tolstoy turned to the calculus as a model of how to apprehend history. "A modern branch of mathematics having achieved the art of dealing with the infinitely small can now yield solutions in other more complex problems of motion which used to appear insoluble," he wrote.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Fri Aug 29 14:18:45 EDT 2014

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently:

  • The Discovery of Global Warming

    Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

    "To a patient scientist, the unfolding greenhouse mystery is far more exciting than the plot of the best mystery novel. But it is slow reading, with new clues sometimes not appearing for several years. Impatience increases when one realizes that it is not the fate of some fictional character, but of our planet and species, which hangs in the balance as the great carbon mystery unfolds at a seemingly glacial pace."
    -- D. Schindler

  • The Evolution of Diet

    Could eating like our ancestors make us healthier?
    Some experts say modern humans should eat from a Stone Age menu.
    What's on it may surprise you.

    The notion that we stopped evolving in the Paleolithic period simply isn't true. Our teeth, jaws, and faces have gotten smaller, and our DNA has changed since the invention of agriculture. "Are humans still evolving? Yes!" says geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania.
    . . .
    More accurately, you are what your ancestors ate. There is tremendous variation in what foods humans can thrive on, depending on genetic inheritance. Traditional diets today include the vegetarian regimen of India's Jains, the meat-intensive fare of Inuit, and the fish-heavy diet of Malaysia's Bajau people. The Nochmani of the Nicobar Islands off the coast of India get by on protein from insects. "What makes us human is our ability to find a meal in virtually any environment," says the Tsimane study co-leader Leonard.
    . . .
    In other words, there is no one ideal human diet. Aiello and Leonard say the real hallmark of being human isn't our taste for meat but our ability to adapt to many habitats - and to be able to combine many different foods to create many healthy diets. Unfortunately the modern Western diet does not appear to be one of them.

  • The Secret to Raising Smart Kids

    Don't tell your kids that they are. More than three decades of research shows that a focus on effort - not on intelligence or ability - is key to success in school and in life

  • Study questions need for most people to cut salt

    A large international study questions the conventional wisdom that most people should cut back on salt, suggesting that the amount most folks consume is OK for heart health -- and too little may be as bad as too much. The findings came under immediate attack by other scientists.

  • The Case against Patents

    Journal of Economic Perspectives: Vol. 27 No. 1 (Winter 2013)

    The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded -- which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. Both theory and evidence suggest that while patents can have a partial equilibrium effect of improving incentives to invent, the general equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative.

  • Extracting audio from visual information

    Algorithm recovers speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag filmed through soundproof glass.

    Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographed from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.

    Who would have thunk it?
  • Why Psychologists' Food Fight Matters

    "Important findings" haven't been replicated, and science may have to change its ways.

    The recent special issue of Social Psychology was an unprecedented collective effort by social psychologists to do just that - by altering researchers' and journal editors' incentives in order to check the robustness of some of the most talked-about findings in their own field. Any researcher who wanted to conduct a replication was invited to preregister: Before collecting any data from subjects, they would submit a proposal detailing precisely how they would repeat the original study and how they would analyze the data. Proposals would be reviewed by other researchers, including the authors of the original studies, and once approved, the study's results would be published no matter what. Preregistration of the study and analysis procedures should deter p-hacking, guaranteed publication should counteract the file drawer effect, and a requirement of large sample sizes should make it easier to detect small but statistically meaningful effects.

    The results were sobering. At least 10 of the 27 "important findings" in social psychology were not replicated at all. In the social priming area, only one of seven replications succeeded.

    . . .
    Caution about single studies should go both ways, though. Too often, a single original study is treated - by the media and even by many in the scientific community - as if it definitively establishes an effect. Publications like Harvard Business Review and idea conferences like TED, both major sources of "thought leadership" for managers and policymakers all over the world, emit a steady stream of these "stats and curiosities." Presumably, the HBR editors and TED organizers believe this information to be true and actionable. But most novel results should be initially regarded with some skepticism, because they too may have resulted from unreported or unnoticed methodological quirks or errors. Everyone involved should focus their attention on developing a shared evidence base that consists of robust empirical regularities - findings that replicate not just once but routinely - rather than of clever one-off curiosities.

  • Calm Hearts, Bad Behavior

    David Kohn in The New Yorker tech elements blog.

    There are several theories, but Raine tends to favor the fearlessness hypothesis, which says that some of those with L.R.H.R. remain undaunted by the threats that would keep most of us in check. When you get scared, your heart rate goes up, because your body activates to deal with the imminent hazard. By definition, people with less fear tend not to get activated in situations that others find threatening.
    . . .
    Raine's skeptics argue that L.R.H.R. and other biological factors play a relatively minor role in determining who becomes a criminal. "The evidence is pretty consistent that biological traits don't have a large effect," Robert Sampson, a social scientist at Harvard University who has studied the topic for more than two decades, told me. "Social and environmental characteristics have much more weight."

  • When It's Bad to Have Good Choices

    Maria Konnikova in The New Yorker science blog.

    Unsurprisingly, when people were asked to decide between something like an iPod and a bag of pretzels, they didn't feel particularly anxious: the choice was clear and life was good. When both choices were low in value, the emotions were similarly clear - cut. No one was particularly happy, but neither were they anxious. But when multiple highly positive options were available - a digital camera and a camcorder, say - anxiety skyrocketed, just as Lipowski had predicted. The choices between those objects that they valued most highly were both the most positive and the most anxiety - filled. The more choices they had - the study was repeated with up to six items per choice - the more anxious they felt. "When you have more good choices, you don't feel better," Shenhav says. "You just feel more anxious."

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Wed Aug 20 14:11:39 EDT 2014

American Oligarchy

Oligarchy: a government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

  • Is America an Oligarchy?

    After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy.

  • US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

    The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

  • How to Become an Oligarch
    by Simon Johnson

    If the new graduate in your life has the connections to join a very large brand-name private-equity fund, the path to immense wealth, political influence, or even power becomes much clearer. Without such initial connections, however, it is very unlikely that he or she will become an oligarch. But you knew that already.

  • End the Export-Import Bank and Other Forms of 'Crapitalism'

    It's crapitalism when politicians give your tax money and other special privileges to businesses that are run by their cronies.

    Voters assume government handouts go to people who need help. But they usually don't. Most government handouts go to the middle class and the rich.

    Government has no business handing out loan guarantees to companies. Corporations can pay their own way. The Agriculture Department's Market Access Program gives millions of dollars to affluent groups like the Pet Food Institute, the Wine Institute, Sunkist, and Welch Foods. In return, politicians get campaign contributions. It's disgusting crapitalism.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Tue Jul 29 21:59:29 EDT 2014

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently:

  • AIs Have Mastered Chess. Will Go Be Next?

    Randomness could trump expertise in this ancient game of strategy.

  • Inside Marc Maron's Garage

    About one of my favorite podcasts WTF with Marc Maron.

  • To change attitudes, don't argue -- agree, extremely

    Contradicting people's beliefs often doesn't change them, but agreeing with them just might.

    Researchers found that showing people extreme versions of ideas that confirmed -- not contradicted -- their opinions on a deeply divisive issue actually caused them to reconsider their stance and become more receptive to other points of view. The scientists attribute this to the fact that the new information caused people to see their views as irrational or absurd, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    "For example, the fact that they are the most moral society in the world is one of the most basic beliefs of Israeli society," Halperin said. So when the researchers showed participants a video that claimed Israel should continue the conflict so that its citizens could continue to feel moral, people reacted angrily.

    I wonder how many minds have been changed by The Colbert Report.

  • Sometimes, Early Birds Are Too Early

    Procrastination Can Be A Positive Thing - Matt Richtel, NYT

    They could pick up a bucket near the start of the alley and carry it to the end, or they could pick up a different bucket that was closer to the end of the alley, walk a few steps and put it down.

    In particular, Dr. Rosenbaum said, people are seeking ways to limit the burden to their "working memory," a critical but highly limited mental resource that people use to perform immediate tasks. By picking up the bucket earlier, the subjects were eliminating the need to remember to do it later. In essence, they were freeing their brains to focus on other potential tasks.

  • The Trouble With Brain Science

    Gary Marcus

    An example is the discovery of DNA, which allowed us to understand how genetic information could be represented and replicated in a physical structure. In one stroke, this bridge transformed biology from a mystery - in which the physical basis of life was almost entirely unknown - into a tractable if challenging set of problems, such as sequencing genes, working out the proteins that they encode and discerning the circumstances that govern their distribution in the body.

    Neuroscience awaits a similar breakthrough. We know that there must be some lawful relation between assemblies of neurons and the elements of thought, but we are currently at a loss to describe those laws. We don't know, for example, whether our memories for individual words inhere in individual neurons or in sets of neurons, or in what way sets of neurons might underwrite our memories for words, if in fact they do.

  • How Much Do Our Genes Influence Our Political Beliefs?

    Why do so many poor, working-class and lower-middle-class whites - many of them dependent for survival on government programs - vote for Republicans?

    Identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to share traditional values with their twin siblings, suggesting a biological link on cultural outlook.

    The significance of the different correlations for identical and fraternal twins, Ludeke added, is that "when we see identical twins who are this similar, while fraternal twins are much less similar, we have a good indication that genes account for some of the difference between people for the trait in question."

  • Ghostery: Transparency + Control = Privacy

    Browser add-on to see which companies are tracking you.
    Read about one user's experience using it at

  • The Curse of Smart People

    Smart people have a problem, especially (although not only) when you put them in large groups. That problem is an ability to convincingly rationalize nearly anything.

    Here's the problem. Logic is a pretty powerful tool, but it only works if you give it good input. As the famous computer science maxim says, "garbage in, garbage out." If you know all the constraints and weights - with perfect precision - then you can use logic to find the perfect answer. But when you don't, which is always, there's a pretty good chance your logic will lead you very, very far astray.

  • The Price of Wine

    Blind tastings and academic studies robustly show that neither amateur consumers nor expert judges can consistently differentiate between fine wines and cheap wines, nor identify the flavors within them.

  • Why aren't there more retractions in business and economics journals?

    A new paper has catalogued retractions over the past few decades in business and economics journals -- and hasn't found very many.

  • How often do economists commit misconduct?

    This study reports the results of a survey of professional, mostly academic economists about their research norms and scientific misbehavior. Behavior such as data fabrication or plagiarism are (almost) unanimously rejected and admitted by less than 4% of participants. Research practices that are often considered "questionable," e.g., strategic behavior while analyzing results or in the publication process, are rejected by at least 60%. Despite their low justifiability, these behaviors are widespread. Ninety-four percent report having engaged in at least one unaccepted research practice. Surveyed economists perceive strong pressure to publish. The level of justifiability assigned to different misdemeanors does not increase with the perception of pressure. However, perceived pressure is found to be positively related to the admission of being involved in several unaccepted research practices. Although the results cannot prove causality, they are consistent with the notion that the "publish or perish" culture motivates researchers to violate research norms.

  • Things I Learned About Life While Daytrading Millions of Dollars
    James Altucher
    1. You can't predict the future.
    2. Hope is not a strategy.
    3. Uncertainty is your best friend.
    4. Taking risks versus reducing risk.
    5. Diversification.
    6. Say "no."
    7. Health.
    8. Laughter.
    9. "This is crazy" means you're crazy.
    10. It doesn't matter if a trade (or a day, or a life) is good or bad.
    11. It's never about the money.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Fri Jul 11 17:38:28 EDT 2014

Medical Links

Some recent links from the world of medicine.

  • Antioxidant vitamins don't stress us like plants do - and don't have their beneficial effect.

    Warding off the diseases of aging is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. But evidence has mounted to suggest that antioxidant vitamin supplements, long assumed to improve health, are ineffectual. Fruits and vegetables are indeed healthful but not necessarily because they shield you from oxidative stress. In fact, they may improve health for quite the opposite reason: They stress you.

    That stress comes courtesy of trace amounts of naturally occurring pesticides and anti-grazing compounds. You already know these substances as the hot flavors in spices, the mouth-puckering tannins in wines, or the stink of Brussels sprouts. They are the antibacterials, antifungals, and grazing deterrents of the plant world. In the right amount, these slightly noxious substances, which help plants survive, may leave you stronger.

    Parallel studies, meanwhile, have undercut decades-old assumptions about the dangers of free radicals. Rather than killing us, these volatile molecules, in the right amount, may improve our health. Our quest to neutralize them with antioxidant supplements may be doing more harm than good.

    [Added 07/19/2014]
  • Why Doctors Order Too Many Tests

    Too many tests can be hazardous to your health for several reasons

  • Wikipedia Medical Articles Found To Have High Error Rate

    Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources. Caution should be used when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care.

  • Can homeopathy 'work' even when there's no evidence?

    The really interesting question is how can we possibly have something that people think works when for all intents and purposes, from a scientific perspective, it doesn't?

  • The other downside of antibiotics: Killing the useful bacteria

    Author Martin Blaser looks at how antibiotics are reshaping our inner ecosystem.

  • The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease

    Are butter, cheese and steak really bad for you? The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Sat Jun 28 22:57:48 EDT 2014

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently:

  • The Pitchforks Are Coming... For Us Plutocrats

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To:       My Fellow Zillionaires

    If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.

  • The Disruption Machine

    What the gospel of innovation gets wrong.
    Jill Lepore, in The New Yorker June 23, 2014

    And the response, Clayton Christensen Responds to New Yorker Takedown of 'Disruptive Innovation'

  • SpiderOak

    Store. Sync. Share. Privately (and Securely)

  • Death Switch

    Secure access by others to your online data after you die.

  • What's So Bad About a SuperPAC?

    Lawrence Lessig, lawyer and reformer plan to fight money with money.

    Or more precisely, to change the way we fund elections, both directly and through SuperPACs, we needed a SuperPAC. We need, in other words, a powerful political engine to build the support that this movement will require. And we need one quickly.

    For more information on how to help fight the influence of money in politics see, MAYDAY PAC
  • Pulling back the curtain on Dr. Oz

    Rant by Erin May at Harvard policy lab

    Given his education and influence, there's no excuse for the unsubstantiated claims and sensational language that is so pervasive on his show. I'm not sure whether it's willful blindness or calculated deception that causes him to disregard rigorous scientific standards. But the result is that many of his recommendations are akin to the cure-all elixirs peddled by door-to-door salesmen in the patent medicine era of the late 1800s.

  • Spurious Correlations

    Tyler Vigen illustrates how correlation does not imply causation.

    The next time someone tells you about a coincidence they cannot explain, point them to this web site.

  • Is Atheism Irrational?

    Kelly J. Clark in Big Questions Online.

    Is atheism's connection with autism the silver bullet that proves once and for all that atheists are irrational? Given the complexities of both the human mind and human culture, it is impossible to tell.

  • The secret to desire in a long-term relationship

    Esther Perel, author of Mating in Captivity, TED talk.

    In long-term relationships, we often expect our beloved to be both best friend and erotic partner. But as Esther Perel argues, good and committed sex draws on two conflicting needs: our need for security and our need for surprise. So how do you sustain desire? With wit and eloquence, Perel lets us in on the mystery of erotic intelligence.

  • The Enron-Style Accounting That Deprives Americans Of Economic Growth

    John Tamny in Forbes

    Of course, the fact that GDP registered growth is the first clue that it's a more-than-worthless number. Diane Coyle, author of a new book 'GDP: A Brief But Affectionate History', wouldn't agree that the number is worthless, but she does acknowledge that it does not measure human wellbeing or welfare. No it doesn't, and while Coyle doesn't hide her bias in favor of the hubristic conceit that says economists can credibly measure country economic activity, her book is still an important read for, if nothing else, revealing to readers just how unwittingly fraudulent the practice of economics is.

  • 'How Not To Be Wrong' In Math Class? Add A Dose Of Skepticism

    Jordan Ellenberg, author of 'How Not To Be Wrong - The Power of Mathematical Thinking' interviewed on NPR's ALl Things Considered.

    Ellenberg tells NPR's Robert Siegel how he believes math courses should be taught and what sets math apart from other school subjects.

  • A Cell Phone App To Detect Cancer

    DermoScreen, developed by University of Houston professor Dr. George Zouridakis and the MD Anderson Cancer Center, works simply enough. Users snap a picture of a potentially problematic mole or lesion, then the app automatically analyzes the picture using algorithms based on the same criteria used by professional dermatologists to identify cancerous growths--namely the so-called ABCD rule, 7-point checklist, and Menzies' method.

    But here's the crazy thing: Early testing of the technology has shown it to be accurate about 85% of the time, which is similar to the accuracy rate for trained dermatologists--and more accurate than non-specialist primary care physicians.

  • The End Is A.I.: The Singularity Is Sci-Fi's Faith-Based Initiative

    I'm not arguing that machine sentience is an impossibility. Breakthroughs can't be discounted before they have a chance to materialize out of thin air. But belief in the Singularity should be recognized for what it is -- a secular, SF-based belief system. I'm not trying to be coy, in comparing it to prophecy, as well as science fiction. Lacking evidence of the coming explosion in machine intelligence, and willfully ignoring the AGI deadlines that have come and gone, the Singularity relies instead on hand-waving. That's SF-speak for an unspecified technological leap. There's another name for that sort of shortcut, though. It's called faith.

  • The Five Biggest Threats to Human Existence
    1. Nuclear war
    2. Bioengineered pandemic
    3. Superintelligence
    4. Nanotechnology
    5. Unknown unknowns

    Note that climate change is not in the top five.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Mon Jun 9 12:50:41 EDT 2014

Inequality (and Piketty)

Some pointers to discussion on the hot topic of income inequality and social mobility.

  • Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the 21st Century is being discussed everywhere
    (and these are just some early ones): For the most part there is a rather predictable pattern in the reviews from the left and the right.
    In the above link from Nate Silver, he sums it up:

    The closest thing to a solution is to remain appropriately skeptical, perhaps especially when the research finding is agreeable to you.

  • We need a new conversation about inequality

    Democrats are scared of class. But issues like inequality are why liberals exist, and talk can't be left to elites.

    When President Obama declared in December that gross inequality is the "defining challenge of our time," he was right, and resoundingly so. As is his habit, however, he quickly backed away from the idea at the urging of pollsters and various Democratic grandees.

  • Don't Give Money To Fancy Colleges

    A student at one of America's most-selective universities is fourteen times more likely to be from a high-income family than from a low-income family.

    Meanwhile, the demographics of highly selective institutions reveal that highly selective institutions remain what they always have been -- mechanisms for the perpetuation of inequality and hierarchy.

  • Income Growth and Income Inequality: The Facts May Surprise You

    Gary Burtless at The Brookings Institution offers a slightly contrarian point of view.

    CBO's newest estimates confirm the long-term trend toward greater inequality, driven mainly by turbo-charged gains in market income at the very top of the distribution. The market incomes of the top 1% are extraordinarily cyclical, however. They soar in economic expansions and plunge in recessions. Income changes since 2007 fit this pattern. What many observers miss, however, is the success of the nation's tax and transfer systems in protecting low- and middle-income Americans against the full effects of a depressed economy. As a result of these programs, the spendable incomes of poor and middle class families have been better insulated against recession-driven losses than the incomes of Americans in the top 1%. As the CBO statistics demonstrate, incomes in the middle and at the bottom of the distribution have fared better since 2000 than incomes at the very top.

  • Income Inequality in America - Fact and Fiction

    The extent of inequality differs with the measure used.

    This pre-tax, pre-transfer measure of inequality is, however, misleading because it fails to properly measure well-being. Upper-income individuals cannot spend the money that is taken away in taxes, so it gives them no benefit (other than, perhaps, higher social status). On the other hand, lower-income individuals clearly benefit from more spending power with, among others, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and unemployment insurance. As such, it would be inaccurate not to include the latter in measures of their well-being.

    [Added 07/14/2014]

  • Ten Ways to Get Serious About Rising Inequality

    1. Establish a guaranteed minimum income for all American households.
    2. Abolish the payroll tax.
    3. Replace the payroll tax with a consumption tax.
    4. Raise the top rate of income tax.
    5. Tax wealth properly.
    6. Give ordinary Americans "homestead" grants.
    7. Nationalize the public-education system.
    8. Copy the Germans and greatly expand technical education.
    9. Abolish private schools and legacy admissions to private universities.
    10. Introduce a financial-transactions tax.

  • Social Mobility Hasn't Fallen: What It Means and Doesn't Mean

    Our estimates are still too imprecise to rule out modest trends in either direction. For the most part, though, our results for the cohorts born between 1952 and 1975 suggest that intergenerational income mobility in the United States has not changed dramatically over the past two decades.


    We find that all of these rank-based measures of intergenerational mobility have not changed significantly over time. For example, the probability that a child reaches the top fifth of the income distribution given parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution is 8.4 per cent for children born in 1971, compared with nine per cent for those born in 1986.

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments