A Tech Geek on Why We Need the Humanities

John Seely Brown: What has done more to kind of change my understanding of what I do that was so far from my original training might just be simply reduced to the fact that kind of a pathetic conversation I had a long time ago with my mother when I was ten years old, 12 years old.  She was trying to get me to read.  I held this book and I said, you know, “Mom, . . .” and she came from the fine arts, etcetera. . . . I said, “You know, this 300-page book could be reduced to a half a dozen equations.  When you hand me a set of equations, I’ll read it.  I’m not going to spend the time to read this book.”

Well, about 15 years later I realized that fine literature, museums, paintings, etcetera, can have a nuance to them that I never understood.  They actually breathed life in a way I didn’t even know about that we didn’t really capture in physics and mathematics like I first was brought up.  And so I would say the joy of New York, there’s the amount of art in this city, the amount of literature, the number of reading clubs that I happen to kind of stumbled into where people take very seriously, you know, close reading of books, close reading of art, close reading of music.  That imbues a kind of nuance, a kind of texture, that often we get stripped away in kind of a very much of an instrumental engineering point of view.

I think if we really want to re-instate a true state of innovation in the United States, we have to find a new way to bring the humanities much more forward into our thinking.  And I think that humanities has some responsibility of actually figuring out how to help us imbue nuance into how we see the world.

Directed / Produced by
Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd

John Seely Brown argues that foregrounding the Humanities is our only hope of sustaining innovation in the United States.

Algorithmic catastrophe: How news feeds reprogram your mind and habits

The most powerful editors in the world? Algorithms.

Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • According to a Pew Research poll, 45% of U.S. adults get at least some of their news from Facebook, with half of that amount using Facebook as their only news outlet.
  • Algorithms on social media pick what people read. There's worry that social media algorithms are creating filter bubbles, so that they never have to read something they don't agree with and thus cause tribal thinking and confirmation bias.
  • The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.
  • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Keep reading Show less

Psychological gym experiment proves the power of mind over matter

It isn't mind over matter as much as mind properly working with matter.

DENVER, CO - MAY 16: Brian and Monica Folts workout on treadmills at Colorado Athletic Club Tabor Center on May 16, 2018 in Denver, Colorado. The couple runs marathons and compete in Ironman triathlons and train on on treadmills. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
Mind & Brain
  • A new Stanford study finds believing you have genetic predispositions for obesity and low exercise endurance changes your physiology.
  • Participants told they had a protective obesity gene had a better response than those told they did not, even if they did not actually have the gene.
  • Runners performed poorly after learning they did not have the gene for endurance, even if they actually have the gene.
Keep reading Show less

Why this 2015 NASA study is beloved by climate change skeptics

The findings of the controversial study flew in the face of past research on ice gains in Antarctica.

NASA
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A 2015 NASA study caused major controversy by claiming that Antarctica was gaining more ice than it was losing.
  • The study said that ice gains in East Antarctica were effectively canceling out ice losses in the western region of the continent.
  • Since 2015, multiple studies have shown that Antarctica is losing more ice than it's gaining, though the 2015 study remains a favorite of climate change doubters to this day.
Keep reading Show less