Subscribe to our Technology & Innovation newsletter
Google VP Warns All Memory of 21st Century May Be Lost
We could lose the ability to interpret digital data as software progresses and leaves old ways of coding data behind.
Vint Cerf, a vice president at Google and one of the father's of the internet, warned that our collective memory of the 21st century could be lost forever if digital content — from spreadsheets and text documents to family photos and home videos — becomes unrecognizable as a result of software's inexorable progression.
Presented at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cerf's warning about a "digital Dark Age" seems counterintuitive. Whereas a photograph can burn and disappear forever, digital content is easily copied and can be stored in many locations with ease — in principle, digital content will exist forever. But we are not at risk of losing the data itself, according to Cerf. Rather we could lose the ability to interpret the data as software progresses and leaves old ways of coding data behind.
As programmer Clay Johnson explains in his Big Think interview, code writers now play an indispensable role in preserving human culture:
"I think it’s time for software developers to really step up and understand that their role in society is actually pretty vital. Our definition of literacy is rapidly changing. ... We have a new form of digital literacy, and 30 years from now someone saying 'I'm not a computer person' or 'I'm not a technology person' will be the equivalent of someone today saying 'I don’t know how to read.'"
Malcolm Gladwell live | How to re-examine everything you know
Join Radiolab's Latif Nasser at 1pm ET on Monday as he chats with Malcolm Gladwell live on Big Think.
18 September, 2020
Big Think LIVE
Add event to your calendar
<p>In a time when we're all forced to be distant, we are directed into mind states of introspection, examination, and, too often, confusion. <strong>Malcolm Gladwell joins Big Think Live</strong> to discuss this unique moment in time with <strong>Radiolab's Latif Nasser.</strong> </p><p>Together, they'll dive into Gladwell's latest season of Revisionist History, as well as the choices journalists and media figures make in recounting current events, social and political movements, history, and the ever-elusive concept of the truth.</p>
<p>Ask your questions for Malcolm Gladwell during the audience Q&A!</p><p><strong>Join the live stream at 1pm ET on Monday, September 21.</strong></p><h2>STREAMING LINKS</h2><p><strong><a href="https://edge.bigthink.com/live_streams/109" target="_self">Big Think Edge</a> | <a href="https://youtu.be/IwlgwVL-kqw" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">YouTube</a> | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom/posts/10157659025933527" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Facebook</a></strong></p><p>--</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
Humans evolved for punching, study confirms
University of Utah research finds that men are especially well suited for fisticuffs.
07 February, 2020
Image source: durantelallera/Shutterstock
Surprising Science
- With males having more upper-body mass than women, a study looks to find the reason.
- The study is based on the assumption that men have been fighters for so long that evolution has selected those best-equipped for the task.
- If men fought other men, winners would have survived and reproduced, losers not so much.
<p>According to biologist <a href="https://www.biology.utah.edu/people/details.php?id=61" target="_blank">David Carrier</a> of the University of Utah, "In mammals in general, the difference between males and females is often greatest in the structures that are used as weapons." Men, on average, have 75% more upper-body muscle mass and 90% greater upper-body strength than females, and a new study authored by Carrier suggests why: Eons of male-to-male interpersonal aggression, and more specifically, punching.</p><p>The research is published in the <a href="https://jeb.biologists.org/content/223/2/jeb212365" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Experimental Biology</em></a>.</p>
Built for mayhem
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjY2NDIyMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzk4NTQ2OX0.my6nML12F3fEQu3H4G0BScdqgaMZkRQHxgyj-Cmjmzk/img.jpg?width=980" id="906fc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dd77af7a881631355ed8972437846394" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: Ollyy/Shutterstock
<p>The researchers are, of course, talking averages here, not stating a rule: There are plenty of accomplished female pugilists, as well as lots of males who have no idea how to throw a punch.</p><p>Even so, says co-author <a href="https://www.wofford.edu/academics/majors-and-programs/biology/faculty-and-staff" target="_blank">Jeremy Morris</a> says, "The general approach to understanding why sexual dimorphism evolves is to measure the actual differences in the muscles or the skeletons of males and females of a given species, and then look at the behaviors that might be driving those differences."</p><p>Carrier has been interested in the idea that millennia of male fighting has shaped certain structures in male bodies. Previous research has reinforced his hunch:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://jeb.biologists.org/content/216/2/236" target="_blank">When a hand is formed into a fist, its structure is self-protective</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://unews.utah.edu/flat-footed-fighters/" target="_blank">Heels planted firmly on the ground augment upper-body power</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24909544" target="_blank">A study examined facial bone structure as being especially well-suited for taking a punch</a>.</li> </ul> <p>(That last one is our favorite. Do you know the German word "<a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Backpfeifengesicht" target="_blank">backpfeifengesicht</a>?" It's an adjective describing "a face that badly needs a punching.")</p><p>"One of the predictions that comes out of those," asserts Carrier, "is if we are specialized for punching, you might expect males to be particularly strong in the muscles that are associated with throwing a punch."</p>Testing the theory
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjY2NDIzMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzMxMTE2MH0.UXJICMy57UPYUWskhK98alctOrPidJL9yxMkz3HDQrM/img.jpg?width=980" id="98718" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b12287684ac3e740b70392e6433a6b8f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: Ollyy/Shutterstock
<p>The researchers measured the punching — and spear-throwing — force of 20 men and 19 women. The assumption was that early humans were punchers <em>and</em> spear-throwers.</p><p>Prior to testing, each participant had filled out an activity questionnaire so that "we weren't getting couch potatoes, we were getting people that were very fit and active," says Morris.</p><p>For punching, participants operated a hand crank that required movement similar to throwing a haymaker. The purpose of the hand crank was to spare participants any damage that might be inflicted on their fists by throwing actual punches. Subjects were also measured pulling a line forward over their heads to assess their strength at throwing a spear.</p><p>Even though all of the participants, male and female, were routinely fit, the average power of males was assessed as being 162% greater than females. There were no gender differences in throwing strength recorded. Other untested, though presumably likely, hand-to-hand combat activities come to mind including tackling, clubbing, running, kicking, scratching, and biting.</p><p>Carrier's takeaway: "This is a dramatic example of sexual dimorphism that's consistent with males becoming more specialized for fighting, and males fighting in a particular way, which is throwing punches."</p>Boys will be boys
<p>It, er, strikes us as odd that, even in science fiction — hi-tech weaponry notwithstanding — the hero <em>is</em> going to wind up duking it out with some bad guy, or alien, in the climactic battle. What is it about men punching, anyway? Are they more sexually attractive? The study suggests so:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>The results of this study add to a set of recently identified characters indicating that sexual selection on male aggressive performance has played a role in the evolution of the human musculoskeletal system and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in hominins.</em></p><p>It's tough to contribute to the gene pool after being killed in battle.</p><p>Also, while the authors aren't <em>quite</em> saying that males' historical fighting role is mandated by biology and not by social expectations, neither are they quite <em>not</em> saying it.</p><p>As Carrier explain to <a href="https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/carrier-punch/" target="_blank">theU</a>: "Human nature is also characterized by avoiding violence and finding ways to be cooperative and work together, to have empathy, to care for each other, right? There are two sides to who we are as a species. If our goal is to minimize all forms of violence in the future, then understanding our tendencies and what our nature really is, is going to help."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
To be a great innovator, learn to embrace and thrive in uncertainty
Innovators don't ignore risk; they are just better able to analyze it in uncertain situations.
19 September, 2020
David McNew/Getty Images
Personal Growth
Madam C.J. Walker, born Sarah Breedlove, was America's first female self-made millionaire.
<p> She pioneered a line of hair care and beauty products for people of color early in the 20th century, and the recent Netflix series "Self Made" details the story of this talented innovator and the challenges she overcame on the way to her success.</p><p>To accomplish her goals, she had to face overwhelming uncertainties. How would she finance her business? Would her partnerships fail? Would her products sell? Would ruthless competition and racism get in her way? Madame Walker's future was far from certain when she began her journey, but that did not dissuade her.</p><p>It is tempting to think that innovators are a breed apart or perhaps lucky to be in the right place and time. But research shows this is not the case. So what characteristics do innovators like Madam Walker have that lead them to the seemingly serendipitous moment? What makes for a successful innovator or entrepreneur?</p><p>I am a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qxpLL24AAAAJ" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">researcher and professor</a> who studies strategy and entrepreneurship. I am also myself an entrepreneur, angel investor and board member for startups and innovative firms. Pop culture might have you believe it is a tolerance for or even an obsession with risk that makes great innovators. But in fact, research has for decades demonstrated that innovators and entrepreneurs are <a href="https://hbr.org/2009/12/the-innovators-dna" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">no more risk-taking than the average person</a>.</p><p>Generally, innovators are much more comfortable making decisions under conditions of uncertainty than the average person. Additionally, innovators tend to have a set of skills that allows them to better navigate this uncertainty. My experience and research has shown that not only are these abilities effective, but they can also be learned and practiced and anyone can improve their innovation skills.</p>
<h2>What is risk? What is uncertainty?</h2><p>Risk is when the factors determining success or failure are out of your control but the odds of success are known – a game of dice, for example. You can't control whether a 2 or a 12 is rolled, but you know the odds.</p><p>Uncertainty is when the factors determining success or failure are not necessarily out of your control, but are simply unknown. It is accepting a challenge to play a game that you do not completely know the rules of. Innovators tend to be more willing to venture into the unknown, and therefore are more likely to engage in ambitious projects even when <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206305279486" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">outcomes and probabilities</a> are a mystery.</p><p>Interestingly, risk and uncertainty appear to trigger <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00927" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">activity in different parts of the brain</a>. Functional magnetic resonance imaging has allowed researchers to discover that risk analysis is a largely rational and calculation-driven process, but uncertainty triggers the ancient fight-or-flight part of the brain. This research would suggest that experienced innovators are better able to maintain their analytical capabilities in spite of the adrenaline and instinctual response that arises when confronting uncertainty.</p><p>Innovators don't ignore risk; they are just better able to analyze it in uncertain situations.</p>
<h2>Skills of innovation can be learned</h2><p>The chemical response to risk and uncertainty may be hardwired in our brains, but that doesn't mean you are either born an innovator or not. Innovative capacity can be learned.</p><p>Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen and the late Clay Christensen spent years investigating the characteristics of successful innovators and broadly divide the skills of innovation into two categories: <a href="https://hbr.org/2009/12/the-innovators-dna" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">delivery skills and discovery skills</a>.</p><p>Delivery skills include quantitative analysis, planning, detail-oriented implementation and disciplined execution. These are certainly essential characteristics for success in many occupations, but for innovation, discovery must come before delivery.</p><p>Discovery skills are the ones more involved in developing ideas and managing uncertain situations. The most notable are:</p><ul><li>The ability to draw connections between seemingly disparate ideas and contexts.</li><li>A tendency to question assumptions and the status quo.</li><li>A habit of looking at what is contributing to a problem before rushing to a solution.</li><li>The frequent use of systematic experimentation to prove hypotheses about cause and effect.</li><li>The ability to network and broaden a set of relationships, even without an intentional purpose.</li></ul><p>Like any skills, these can be learned and cultivated through a combination of guidance, practice and experience. By asking the right questions, being observant or mindful, experimenting and networking with the right supporters, innovators will be more likely to identify opportunity and succeed.</p><p>My colleagues' and my own research and experience are summed up in our book "<a href="https://www.titaniceffect.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Titanic Effect</a>." We describe the PEP model of successful entrepreneurs and innovators. It stands for passion, experience and persistence.</p><p>Successful innovators are passionate about the problem they are solving and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1212" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">share this passion</a> with friends and family, potential customers, supporters and other stakeholders.</p><p>Innovators also tend to have personal experience with the problem they are solving, and this yields valuable insight and firsthand knowledge.</p><p>Finally, innovation takes persistence. As Walker experienced, growing a business – even with proven products – does not happen overnight. It takes someone willing to push the boulder uphill to make it happen, and often, the more disruptive the innovation, the longer society may take to embrace it. Madam Walker amply <a href="https://www.titaniceffect.com/blog/2020/7/17/self-madewhat-can-startups-learn-from-madam-cj-walker" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">personifies the PEP model</a>.</p>
<h2>Innovation now and in the future</h2><p>
During this pandemic, many people might be inclined to batten down the hatches, tighten their belts and ride things out by sticking to what they already know.
</p><p>
But uncertainty and change create opportunity and a <a href="https://store.hbr.org/product/the-innovator-s-solution-creating-and-sustaining-successful-growth/16444" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">need for innovation</a>. The pandemic has created or exacerbated many problems that are ripe for innovative solutions.
</p><p>
Practices that were until recently on the fringe of acceptance – such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-telemedicine-is-great-when-you-want-to-stay-distant-from-your-doctor-but-older-laws-are-standing-in-the-way-134885" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">telehealth</a>, food or grocery delivery, <a href="https://theconversation.com/chess-is-taking-over-the-online-video-game-world-and-both-are-changing-from-this-unlikely-pairing-143790" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">e-sports</a> and online education – are now being accepted by mainstream society. As with anything relatively new, there is lots of room for radical improvement.
</p><p>Now is not the time to put blinders on and close your eyes to uncertainty. If you build your discovery skills, you are more likely to create opportunity and persist through uncertainty. Like Walker, anyone can cultivate the abilities to navigate uncertainty and create positive change. Innovators are not a breed apart.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143876/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/todd-saxton-301452" target="_blank">Todd Saxton</a>, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/iupui-2368" target="_blank">IUPUI</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-be-a-great-innovator-learn-to-embrace-and-thrive-in-uncertainty-143876" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Study: Private prisons result in more inmates, longer sentences
The Labour Economics study suggests two potential reasons for the increase: corruption and increased capacity.
18 September, 2020
Politics & Current Affairs
After adopting strict sentencing laws in the '80s and '90s, many states have turned to for-profit prisons to handle growing prison populations. A new study in Labour Economics found that privately-run prisons correlate with a rise in incarceration rates and sentence lengths. While evidence is mixed, private prisons do not appear to improve recidivism or cost less than state-run facilities.
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>The '80s and '90s witnessed a rash of strict sentencing laws. Voters who lived through the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates" target="_blank">rise of violent crime in the '60s and '70s</a> offered full-throated support for such laws. Anxious to woo such voters, legislators hawked <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">tough-on-crime</a> rhetoric and passed ever-punitive legislation, such as Reagan's creation of mandatory minimum sentences through <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986</a>.</p><p>In hindsight, the consequences are as obvious as they are unsettling. Stricter laws gave judges less latitude in sentencing, and prison populations skyrocketed across the country. By 1990, state prison populations reached <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf" target="_blank">115 percent of their highest capacity</a>. Unable to house their new charges, nor garner equally enthusiastic support for the taxes necessary to fund building new facilities, some states turned to for-profit prison companies to manage the influx. As of 2019, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/1/20989336/private-prisons-states-bans-califonia-nevada-colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 states</a> incarcerate people in for-profit prisons.</p><p>Given this history, it's not without irony that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537120301123" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a new study published in Labour Economics</a> found privately-run prisons don't help states manage incarceration. The presence of such prisons may actually increase the number of incarcerated individuals as well as their sentence lengths.</p>
Cool hand rebuke
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjY1NTYyOH0.0MCPKN3If94mYCNf3mMNrnTvJXjXN_bKLhgk9203EXk/img.jpg?width=917&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=453" id="1627b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d76421ba1ea0de4b09956b97e80c384" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />A chart showing prison population rates (per 100,000 people) in 2018. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
<p>Researchers at Washington State University sought to determine how the availability of private prisons affected rates of incarceration in the United States. To answer that question, they performed a regression analysis on state and individual data from 1989 to 2008. Their analysis revealed a positive correlation.</p><p>As the number of private-prison beds increased per capita, so too did sentence lengths and the number of incarcerated people per capita. All told, the increase was 178 prisoners per million population per year. That comes to a taxpayer-funded bill between approximately $2-10 million annually—assuming those additional prisoners are housed in privately-run facilities. When it comes to increased sentence lengths, Gregmar Galinato, a professor in WSU's School of Economic Sciences who co-authored the study, notes that not all crimes are judged equally.</p><p>"For crimes like property damage, fraud, or non-violent drug crimes—crimes where judges have more leeway in sentencing—states saw higher sentencing rates and significant increases in sentence lengths when private prisons were established," he <a href="https://news.wsu.edu/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/" target="_blank">said in a release</a>.</p><p>The researchers advanced two potential explanations for this interstate discrepancy. The first is good old-fashioned <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/mississippi-closes-private-prison-walnut-grove.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">corruption</a>. In states where they operate, for-profit companies can incentivize legislators to push for stricter sentencing laws and bribe judges to inflate sentence lengths.</p><p>A haunting modern example is the "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-seeks-close-books-kids-cash-scandal-n408666" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kids for Cash</a>" scandal. In 2007, the Juvenile Law Center began receiving reports that hundreds of Pennsylvania juveniles were being tried and sentenced without defense lawyers present as representation. An investigation revealed that Robert Powell, a co-owner of two private juvenile prisons, was paying off two judges to return guilty verdicts and severe sentences to bolster incarceration at his facilities.</p><p>The second explanation is simply the availability of prison beds. As Galinato explains, judges become more hesitant to send non-violent offenders to prison in states where capacity is a concern. However, privately-run prisons reduce such concerns, making it easier for judges to mete out harsher punishments.</p>Who profits with for-profit prisons?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="97ac37e6c7f6f22ec130ea2d56871701"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dB78NV2WpWc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>The Labour Economics study suggests that privately-run prisons do convicts a few favors at the moment of sentencing. However, proponents of private prisons often point to other benefits when making their case. Specifically, they argue that private prisons reduce operating costs, stimulate innovation in the correctional system, and reduce recidivism—the rate at which released prisoners are rearrested and return to prison.</p><p>In regard to recidivism, the research is mixed. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank">One study</a> compared roughly 400 former prisoners from Florida, 200 released from private prisons and 200 from state-run facilities. It found the private-prison cohort maintained lower rates of recidivism. However, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00006.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">another Florida study</a> found no significant rate differences. And two other studies—one from <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oklahoma</a> and another out of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016813478823" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Minnesota</a>, both comparing much larger cohorts than the first Florida study— found that prisoners leaving private prisons had a greater risk of recidivism.</p><p>The research is also inconclusive regarding cost savings. <a href="https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/economics_of_private_prisons.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Hamilton Project analysis</a> noted that such comparisons are difficult because private prisons, like all private companies, are not required to release operational details. In comparing what studies were available, the authors estimate the costs to be comparable and that "in practice the primary mechanism for cost saving in private prisons is lower salaries for correctional officers"—about $7,000 less than their public peers. They add that competition-driven innovation is lacking as the three largest firms control nearly the entire market.</p><p>"We aren't saying private prisons are bad," Galinato said. "But states need to be careful with them. If your state has previous and regular issues with corruption, I wouldn't be surprised to see laws being more skewed to give longer sentences, for example. If the goal is to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals, increasing the number of private prisons may not be the way to go."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Videos
The art of asking the right questions
What exactly does "questions are the new answers" mean?
Scroll down to load more…
