Post(s) tagged with "science"

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.

Max Planck

Science’s job is to map our ignorance.

David Byrne

Mind-reading can be improved with a dose of oxytocin

A study in the journal Biological Psychiatry shows that mind-reading can be improved with a dose of oxytocin—a brain chemical often called the ‘love hormone’ because of its role in trust, friendship and bonding.

Researchers at Rostock University, led by Gregor Domes, tested 30 males’ mind-reading ability—how well they could infer the mental state of another person—after either a dose of oxytocin or a placebo. Mind-reading was tested using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, where subjects looked at 36 pictures of a person’s eyes and tried to guess what emotion the eyes reflected

Domes found that subjects correctly identified the mood conveyed in the eyes more often after taking a dose of oxytocin as compared with placebo, regardless of which they took first.

This study highlights how we can manipulate our mind-reading ability. Just by taking a hormone, we can suddenly become more adept at picking up signals from people around us that alert us to their state of mind. Imagine taking this to a poker table. 

As Domes writes in the article, “the ability to infer the internal state of another person [and then] adapt one’s own behavior is a cornerstone of all human social interactions.” We all have some ability to understand our peers’ emotional states by observing their actions, expressions, and words, but a change in our hormone levels can alter that ability.

- Joshua Gowin

Related

A neuroscience look at how oxytocin relates to social motivation

Passion and performance; a link forged by dopamine and oxytocin

An example of correlation is not causation

(via johntropea)

‘Open Science’ Challenges Journal Tradition With Web Collaboration - Thomas Lin via NYTimes.com ⇢

A great overview of how online, communitarian, open science sites are transforming the wold of science journals, and research.

Thomas Lin via NYTimes.com

The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only “if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.”

Dr. Nielsen and other advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction.

Open-access archives and journals like arXiv and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years. GalaxyZoo, a citizen-science site, has classified millions of objects in space, discovering characteristics that have led to a raft of scientific papers.

On the collaborative blog MathOverflow, mathematicians earn reputation points for contributing to solutions; in another math experiment dubbed the Polymath Project, mathematicians commenting on the Fields medalist Timothy Gower’s blog in 2009 found a new proof for a particularly complicated theorem in just six weeks.

And a social networking site called ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity.

The web is subversive and corrosive to established power configurations, and now is the time for the scientific journal oligopoly to crash.

Announcing Arc: a new magazine about the future from the makers of New Scientist

arcfinity:

February 2012 will see the debut of Arc, a bold new digital publication from the makers of New Scientist.
 
Arc will explore the future through cutting-edge science fiction and forward-looking essays by some of the world’s most celebrated authors – backed up with columns by thinkers and practitioners from the worlds of books, design, gaming, film and more.
 
Arc 1.1 is edited by Simon Ings, author of acclaimed genre-spanning novels The Weight of Numbers and Dead Water. Simon, who made his name with a trio of ground-breaking cyberpunk novels, is a frequent commentator on science, science fiction and all points in between.
 
“Arc is an experiment in how we talk about the future,” Simon explains. “We wanted to get past sterile ‘visions’ and dream up futures that evoke textures and flavours and passions.” The response, he says, has been amazing. “I feel like the dog that caught the car,” he says. “The appetite to be part of this project has been huge. Writers have seized the opportunity to showcase their thoughts, their dreams, their anxieties and their opinions about our future.”
 
For New Scientist editor Sumit Paul-Choudhury, Arc is an opportunity to explore new territory.  “We’ve known for many years that our readers are fascinated by the future and all the possibilities it raises. But as a magazine of science fact, we can’t indulge that fascination very often,” he explains. “Arc will explore the endless vistas opened up by today’s science and technology. While it’s a very different venture from New Scientist, it will share its unique combination of intelligence, wit and charm.”
 
John MacFarlane, Online Publisher of New Scientist, says “I am thrilled to be involved in the launch of this new title. The combination of superb content and an innovative digital publishing model make for a very exciting project and I am sure a broad range of readers will love Arc.”
 
Arc 1.1 will be available from mid-February 2012 on iPad, Kindle and as a limited print edition.

This sounds interesting. Although science fiction authors might not be the best sources for actually predicting the future, they certain can write about it well.

Source: arcfinity

Tests Cast Doubt on F.A.A. Restrictions on Kindle and iPad - Nick Bilton via NYTimes.com ⇢

Nick Bilton does some real science, and proves that the FAA’s restrictions on electronics during take-off and landing is not based on actual emissions from the devices. It’s all security theater.

The Federal Aviation Administration has its reasons for preventing passengers from reading from their Kindles and iPads during takeoff and landing. But they just don’t add up.

Since I wrote a column last month asking why these rules exist, I’ve spoken with the F.A.A., American Airlines, Boeing and several others trying to find answers. Each has given me a radically different rationale that contradicts the others. The F.A.A. admits that its reasons have nothing to do with the undivided attention of passengers or the fear of Kindles flying out of passengers’ hands in case there is turbulence. That leaves us with the danger of electrical emissions.

For answers, I headed down to EMT Labs, an independent testing facility in Mountain View, Calif., that screens electrical emissions of gadgets that need to pass health, safety and interference standards.

Before I share the results of the tests EMT ran, let me explain what this means. Every electronic device throws off electrical emissions. This is the slight hum of energy that emanates from a device when in use. Labs like EMT test electronics of all sizes to ensure that they meet government standards and will not interfere with other electronics when in use.

Gadgets are tested by monitoring the number of volts per meter coming off a device. The F.A.A. requires that before a plane can be approved as safe, it must be able to withstand up to 100 volts per meter of electrical interference.

When EMT Labs put an Amazon Kindle through a number of tests, the company consistently found that this e-reader emitted less than 30 microvolts per meter when in use. That’s only 0.00003 of a volt.

“The power coming off a Kindle is completely minuscule and can’t do anything to interfere with a plane,” said Jay Gandhi, chief executive of EMT Labs, after going over the results of the test. “It’s so low that it just isn’t sending out any real interference.”

But one Kindle isn’t sending out a lot of electrical emissions. But surely a plane’s cabin with dozens or even hundreds will? That’s what both the F.A.A. and American Airlines asserted when I asked why pilots in the cockpit could use iPads, but the people back in coach could not. Yet that’s not right either.

“Electromagnetic energy doesn’t add up like that. Five Kindles will not put off five times the energy that one Kindle would,” explained Kevin Bothmann, EMT Labs testing manager. “If it added up like that, people wouldn’t be able to go into offices, where there are dozens of computers, without wearing protective gear.”

Bill Ruck, principal engineer at CSI Telecommunications, a firm that does radio communications engineering, added: “Saying that 100 devices is 100 times worse is factually incorrect. Noise from these devices increases less and less as you add more.”

Bilton doesn’t mention what anyone who took undergraduate physics knows: the inverse square law, which applies to gravity, light, sound, and all electromagnetic radiation, where the force involved is inversely proportional to the square of the distance involved. This means that there is a steep fall off of the power of any radiating source with distance. That’s why theatrical spotlights are less intense on the stage than at the light source, or why magnets attract (or repel) objects close to them but not those farther away.

The same holds with electrostatic force, which is known as Coulomb’s law.

via Wikipedia

Coulomb’s law states that: “The magnitude of the Electrostatics force of interaction between two point charges is directly proportional to the scalar multiplication of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them.”

So, anyone with a moderate exposure to college physics would have predicted the results from the EMT labs. But that won’t lead to any change at the FAA, because we live in la-la-land, where science has no hold and dark age superstition is law.

Some Degree Of Separation

The six degrees of separation meme has surfaced again, based on new research from Facebook — in collaboration with researchers at the Università degli Studi di Milano — that suggests the average path length from one Facebook user to another has fallen to 4.74, and has been shrinking as Facebook has grown larger.

The N degrees of separation idea was first suggested in a short story by the Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy:

Stowe Boyd, Everything is Different

In Albert-László Barabási’s Linked, the author explains that the origin of the “six degrees of separation” notion that underlies all social networking theory was the brain child of a Hungarian writer, Frigyes Karinthy. In 1929, Karinthy published his forty-sixth book, a collection of short stories entitled Everything Is Different (Minden masképpen van), which is now out of print and apparently lost to us.

Albert-László Barabási, from Linked

The short story collection was a critical failure and soon sank into obscurity. It has been out of print ever since. […] But there is one story, entitled “Lánceszemek,” or “Chains,” that deserves our attention.

“To demonstrate that people on Earth today are much closer than ever, a member of the group suggested a test. He offered a bet that we could name any person among earth’s one and a half billion inhabitants and through at most five acquaintances, one of which he knew personally, he could link to the chosen one,” writes Karinthy in “Lánceszemek.” And indeed, Karinthy’s fictionaly character immediately links a Nobel prizewinner to himself, noting that the Nobelist must know King Gustav, the Swedish monarch who hands out the Nobel prize, who is in turn a consummate tennis player and plays occasionally with a tennis champion who happens to be a good friend of Karinthy’s character. Remarking that linking to celebrities is easy, Karinthy’s character demands a more difficult assignment. Next he tries to link a worker in Ford’s factory to himself: “The worker knows the manager in the shop, who knows Ford; Ford is on friendly terms with the general director of Hearst Publications, who last year became friends with Árpád Pásztor, someone I not only know, but is to the best of my knowledge a good friend of mine — so I could easily ask him to send a telegram to the general director telling Ford that he should talk to the manager and have the worker in the shop quickly hammer together a car for me, as I happen to need one.” Though these short stories have been neglected, Karinthy’s 1929 insight that people are linked by at most five links was the first published appearance of the concept we know today as “six degrees of separation.”

And Now, Everything Is Different

The “six degrees” meme was rediscovered decades later by Stanley Milgram, who engendered an entire branch of science through his groundbreaking investigations into social networking. His initial foray into the field nearly confirmed Karinthy’s magic number five. Milgram’s research was astonishingly similar to Karinthy’s Ford example — getting random people in various Midwestern cities to pass along a letter through their personal contacts, heading toward one of two Massachusetts residents. And after all was said and done, the average number of hand-offs in the successful cases turned out to be 5.5; rounded up, this is the core for the “six degrees of separation” concept.

Another few generations have passed since Milgram’s 1967 experiment, and the principles of social networks have entered the popular mindset. We think of the world as a much smaller place than those that came before us. We are living in McLuhan’s global village, where one person’s actions can lead to a cascade of effects across the Globe: not through some disembodied “invisible hand,” but by the interaction of people who are known to each other. Our ability to influence those that we know means that what we do can propagate through the social matrix that shapes our world, and can open doors, shift political debate, or quell a rumor.

And because we know that this is how the world wags — that even the least networked of us is connected to everyone if he is connected to at least one other person — now, everything is different. So, we have lifted the title of Karinthy’s forgotten book to serve as the initial piece for this journal, dedicated to social networking in business, because now everything is different.

The world of business — where “networking” has been a gerund for decades — is rediscovering the latent power of social networks. Personal and business relationships are being reappraised in light of social networking technology and techniques, in ways that were too costly or simply impossible prior to the twenty-first century.

While the Facebook researchers nodded their heads at Milgrams work, I dug out this old piece and reproduced in its entirety, so that people can see that the idea is much older, and was originally projected to be five degrees, which is the approximate number offered up by this new research. And Milgram’s working hypothesis might just as well have been rounded down to 5, as well.

There is no doubt that as people become more socially connected, as a general rule, the mean path length across the entire world will drop. As that happens, the world grows smaller, and what happens to someone far away can feel as if it was next door.

We can only hope that this will lead to a great sense of community and solidarity, instead of the squabbling and feuding that dominates world affairs.

A Brief Guide to Embodied Cognition: Why You Are Not Your Brain - Samuel McNerney ⇢

Good recap of the rise of embodied cognition as a rich field of inquiry, and especially George Lakoff’s contributions:

Samuel McNerney via Scientific American

Metaphors We Live By [by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson] was a game changer. Not only did it illustrate how prevalent metaphors are in everyday language, it also suggested that a lot of the major tenets of western thought, including the idea that reason is conscious and passionless and that language is separate from the body aside from the organs of speech and hearing, were incorrect. In brief, it demonstrated that “our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.”

After Metaphors We Live By was published, embodiment slowly gained momentum in academia. In the 1990s dissertations by Christopher Johnson, Joseph Grady and Srini Narayanan led to a neural theory of primary metaphors. They argued that much of our language comes from physical interactions during the first several years of life, as the Affection is Warmth metaphor illustrated. There are many other examples; we equate up with control and down with being controlled because stronger people and objects tend to control us, and we understand anger metaphorically in terms of heat pressure and loss of physical control because when we are angry our physiology changes e.g., skin temperature increases, heart beat rises and physical control becomes more difficult.

This and other work prompted Lakoff and Johnson to publish Philosophy in the Flesh, a six hundred-page giant that challenges the foundations of western philosophy by discussing whole systems of embodied metaphors in great detail and furthermore arguing that philosophical theories themselves are constructed metaphorically. Specifically, they argued that the mind is inherently embodied, thought is mostly unconscious and abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. What’s left is the idea that reason is not based on abstract laws because cognition is grounded in bodily experience (A few years later Lakoff teamed with Rafael Núñez to publish Where Mathematics Comes From to argue at great length that higher mathematics is also grounded in the body and embodied metaphorical thought).

As Lakoff points out, metaphors are more than mere language and literary devices, they are conceptual in nature and represented physically in the brain. As a result, such metaphorical brain circuitry can affect behavior. For example, in a study done by Yale psychologist John Bargh, participants holding warm as opposed to cold cups of coffee were more likely to judge a confederate as trustworthy after only a brief interaction. Similarly, at the University of Toronto, “subjects were asked to remember a time when they were either socially accepted or socially snubbed. Those with warm memories of acceptance judged the room to be 5 degrees warmer on the average than those who remembered being coldly snubbed. Another effect of Affection Is Warmth.” This means that we both physically and literary “warm up” to people.

The last few years have seen many complementary studies, all of which are grounded in primary experiences:

• Thinking about the future caused participants to lean slightly forward while thinking about the past caused participants to lean slightly backwards. Future is Ahead

• Squeezing a soft ball influenced subjects to perceive gender neutral faces as female while squeezing a hard ball influenced subjects to perceive gender neutral faces as male. Female is Soft

• Those who held heavier clipboards judged currencies to be more valuable and their opinions and leaders to be more important. Important is Heavy.

• Subjects asked to think about a moral transgression like adultery or cheating on a test were more likely to request an antiseptic cloth after the experiment than those who had thought about good deeds. Morality is Purity

Studies like these confirm Lakoff’s initial hunch – that our rationality is greatly influenced by our bodies in large part via an extensive system of metaphorical thought.

We live in a universe 13.7 billion years old, but we do not understand the nature of dark energy, which is slowing it down

via Robert Kirshner, The Universe, Dark Energy and Us

The New York Times

About

Web anthropologist, futurist, author. My focus is the future, and the tectonic forces pushing business, media, and society into an unclear and accelerating future. more.

Working on longer format projects, Sign up for the newsletter.

GigaOM Research analyst and curator.

Also writing beaconstreets.com.

Contact me. or ask me a question.



My Vizify profile.

Socialogy

  • John Hagel | John offers up some great insights, like the fact that passion is lower the larger that businesses get.

  • Euan Semple | A chat with my old pal, and the author of Organizations Don't Tweet, People Do

  • Will McInnes | The author of Culture Shock and managing director of Nixon/McInnes

  • Jennifer Magnolfi | An interview with the woman who said, 'Work is not a place you go, it's a thing you do'.

  • Hot Now

  • What Drives Us? | A draft chapter of my book, discussing motivations, Maslow's hierarchy, and fluidarity.

  • Socialogy: Interview With John Hagel | I Speak with Joh Hagel about the innovation at the edge.

  • Complex organisation arises from webs of interaction among causal factors | So, it turns out that DNA is, in fact, a great metaphor for business culture, but only after you realize that DNA is not a few hundred off-on switches, but instead a universe of unknowable complexities, that we can interact with, and understand at some abstract cartoonish level, but not control, and never fully comprehend.

  • Bitcoin May Be the Global Economy’s Last Safe Haven | Paul Ford

  • Innovators Get Better With Age | Companies make a mistake by relying too much on the innoations of the young, because Nobel laureats don't come into their prime until their 50s.

  • Oldie

  • Infodemics | 2009 | Passing incomplete or inaccurate information about some risk event can make people take actions that increase the damage of the event itself.