The blameless fanatic

Was reading a bit about automatic writing by Yeats this morning and his interest in the occult, which led to discovering a text from Sinnett called Esoteric Buddhism. Like many morning reading sessions, one click led to another, and I found a few quotes I wanted to save for posterity's sake. Warnings against fundamentalism and fear of The Other are on my mind a lot lately...but the beauty of the bold type deserves to be saved (my emphasis added).

Perhaps to understand the hatred of the fanatic, we must study how one acquires a blamelessly devoted attitude of mind:

"Nothing can produce more disastrous effects on human progress, as regards the destiny of individuals, than the very prevalent notion that one religion followed out in a pious spirit, is as good as another, and that if such and such doctrines are perhaps absurd when you look into them, the great majority of good people will never think of their absurdity, but will recite them in a blamelessly devoted attitude of mind." (Sinnett 1885, pp. 194–195; Guénon 2004, p. 126.)

Sinnett, A. P. (1885) [1883]. Esoteric Buddhism (5th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall Ltd

"It is priestly imposture that rendered these gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is the belief in God and gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them." (Barker 1924, Letter 10.)

Kuthumi; et al. (1924). Barker, A. T. (ed.). The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett from the Mahatmas M. & K. H. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers

Metacogs

From The Atlantic:

We cling to myths like “the 10 percent brain”—which holds that the vast majority of our thinking power remains untapped—in part because we hope the minds of the future will be stronger than those of today. It’s as much a personal hope as a hope for civilization: If we’re already running at full capacity, we’re stuck, but what if we’re using only a small fraction of our potential? Well, then the sky’s the limit.

But this dream has a dark side: The possibility of a dystopia where an individual’s fate is determined wholly by his or her access to cognition-enhancing technology. Where some ultra-elites are allowed to push the limits of human intelligence, while the less fortunate lose any chance of upward mobility. Where some Big Brother–like figure could gain control of our minds and decide how well we function.

Or we could integrate into AI, becoming the closest thing to God that will ever exist.

Enchantment

A little nugget from David Brooks today:

Basically, they have to take the enchantment leap. This is when something dry and utilitarian erupts into something passionate, inescapable and devotional. Sometimes a student becomes enraptured by the beauty of math, and becomes a mathematician. Soldiers doing the drudgery of boot camp are gradually bonded into a passionate unit, for which they will risk their lives. Anybody who has started a mere job and found in it a vocation has taken the enchantment leap.

In love, of course, the shift starts with vulnerability, not calculation. The people involved move from selfishness to service, from prudent thinking to poetic thinking, from a state of selection to a state of need, from relying on conscious thinking to relying on their own brilliant emotions.

When you look at all the people looking for love and vocation today, you realize we live in a culture and an online world that encourages a very different mind-set; in a technical culture in which humanism, religion and the humanities, which are the great instructors of enchantment, are not automatically central to life.

I have to guess some cultures are more fertile for enchantment — that some activities, like novel-reading or music-making, cultivate a skill for it, and that building a capacity for enchantment is, these days, a countercultural act and a practical and fervent need.

Something to reflect on -- do the arts cultivate the capacity for enchantment? Does science?

The ADHD "Natural Fix"

NYT:

Normally, when someone is unfocused and at rest, there is synchrony of activity in brain regions known as the default mode network, which is typically more active during rest than during performance of a task. (In contrast, these brain regions in people with A.D.H.D. appear functionally disconnected from each other.) Dr. Mattfeld found that adults who had had A.D.H.D as children but no longer had it as adults had a restoration of the normal synchrony pattern, so their brains looked just like those of people who had never had it.

WE don’t yet know whether these brain changes preceded or followed the behavioral improvement, so the exact mechanism of adult recovery is unclear.

But in another measure of brain synchrony, the adults who had recovered looked more like adults with A.D.H.D.

In people without it, when the default mode network is active, another network, called the task-positive network, is inhibited. When the brain is focusing, the task-positive network takes over and quiets the default mode network. This reciprocal relationship is necessary in order to focus.

Both groups of adult A.D.H.D. patients, including those who had recovered, displayed simultaneous activation of both networks, as if the two regions were out of step, working at cross-purposes. Thus, adults who lost most of their symptoms did not have entirely normal brain activity.

Dismal Disconnect

I read the other day that 80-some percent of college graduates do not have a job lined up after May. This is not surprising. Today I was reading that solutions to this problem look far and away, since colleges, students, and employers do not share the same perspectives:

"Busteed said that 96 percent of the college provosts Gallup surveyed believed their schools were successfully preparing young people for the workplace. “When you ask recent college grads in the work force whether they felt prepared, only 14 percent say ‘yes,’ ” he added. And then when you ask business leaders whether they’re getting enough college grads with the skills they need, “only 11 percent strongly agree.” Concluded Busteed: “This is not just a skills gap. It is an understanding gap.” ...the success stories shared a lot of the same attributes that Gallup found to be differentiating. In successful programs, said Auguste, “students got as much applied, hands-on experience as possible, whether in a classroom or on a job site. Schools, colleges and training centers had close partnerships with regional employers, industry groups and skilled trade unions to stay up to date on job-relevant skills. And students or working learners got a lot of coaching and guidance to understand how to trace a direct path between their training today and careers tomorrow.”

Pretty discouraging...

The appearance of genius

Brooks writes today:

First, awareness of the landscape of reality is the highest form of wisdom. It’s not raw computational power that matters most; it’s having a sensitive attunement to the widest environment, feeling where the flow of events is going. Genius is in practice perceiving more than the conscious reasoning. 

There may be no universally-conceded definition of genius, nor gifted, nor even intelligence. This take on it has a strong ring of truth. Genius is seeing more than knowing.

Brooks has been on a deep kick lately. Trying to reach for a Pulitzer or something?

Creative combinations: Lennon and McCarthy

Brooks thinks that Lennon's chaos and depression needed McCarthy's meticulous pop to make a final product. And he thinks all creativity relies upon the dialectic:

But sometimes it happens in one person, in someone who contains contradictions and who works furiously to resolve the tensions within. When you see creative people like that, you see that they don’t flee from the contradictions; they embrace dialectics and dualism. They cultivate what Roger Martin called the opposable mind — the ability to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. If they are religious, they seek to live among the secular. If they are intellectual, they go off into the hurly-burly of business and politics. Creative people often want to be strangers in a strange land. They want to live in dissimilar environments to maximize the creative tensions between different parts of themselves.

Another interesting note is that ADHD and giftedness are hard to distinguish, thought to be parallel, and may be in "co-petetion" [sic] with one another. The ADHD helps generate constant novelty, while the giftedness acts as a filter, recognizing good ideas from bad. Although tons of people say things about how famous writers, inventors, scientists, etc., were ADHD or 2e, the truth is that you have to have focus and drive to be successful on that level. And drive is not necessarily easy to get or keep.

PS: I'm reading Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land right now.

Commitments

When do beliefs and facts collide?

When you decide at the outset that something is true, your commitment may blind you to contrary evidence and rational expectations. Let's compare the intellectual commitments of science versus, say, politics or religion: In science, we presume the uniformity of nature. This means we assume that the laws of gravity, electromagnetism, etc., are fundamental properties of the universe, rather than contingent features that are subject to change. This presumption is useful because it allows us to interpolate and extrapolate data. A simple example would be inferring the age of the earth from geological processes, or isotope decay, or measuring the distance to stars. This premise is very, very difficult to falsify.

And that's the beauty of skepticism: start with very basic assumptions, and continue to question them as new evidence and information arises. Religious belief is quite different for two main reasons: 1) some religions require obedience and faith that is defined as without evidence, and 2) the commitments of religious people are sometimes so complex that they don't even realize how difficult their position is to defend. The first reason is rather clear and doesn't need much elaboration, in the sense that belief in a Garden of Eden or Resurrection or whatever clearly defies common sense and every scientific principle known to man.

Tell me what you think about your motivation

The secret of effective motivation? Steer away from instrumental (external) consequences and incentives. Focus on cultivating the internal drive. Sounds good and all...but how easy / practical is that?

The Angel of Death

...has a face that looks a lot more like a malignant neoplasm than a heart attack.

That's the bottom line from this article at the NYT. The top causes of death are rapidly changing even as we lower the overall mortality rate. Cancer is on the verge of overtaking heart disease. Of course each country and culture will have slightly varying percentages.

As the author astutely points out, cancer is much more complex to "cure" than many other death risk factors. Our cellular machinery has an inbuilt capacity to regenerate tissue and that will always leave the door open for malfunction.

IQ revisited

I believe I explicitly pointed out once or twice that I don't put much stock in IQ tests in general. Since I've never had my IQ tested, I guess I get to play both sides of the fence on the issue of whether or not cognitive ability can really be measured, and how much it matters. And by matters I mean for 80% of us, not so much for the 10% at the very top and 10% at the very bottom of the scale. Because we all know that if 80% of us want to learn something, and put a lot of effort into it, we probably can. For those other 10%, effort is much less important.

What the internet does

Not going to try to make a deep post here. I think we all forget sometimes just how radically the internet has upset the world. Its full effects have still not shaken out.

Philosopher's Stone in NYT

I really like a lot of the stuff I read there, and today's reading was no exception:

Kant’s insight was that, in order for the knowledge we get from our senses at any given moment in time to mean anything, our minds must already be distinguishing it and combining it with the information we get in prior and subsequent moments in time. Thus there is no such thing as a pure impression in time — no absolute, frozen moment in which we know the sun is rising now without being able to infer anything from it — because such a pure moment without a before or after would be nothing at all...

Two books

I never get around to reading books anymore. Maybe soon. Young children just aren't helping me with productivity...although they may be providing me with two things that seem pretty important to most people: the meaning of life and an afterlife.

Organization psych in NYT Mag

Adam Grant's money quote:

Organizational psychology has long concerned itself with how to design work so that people will enjoy it and want to keep doing it. Traditionally the thinking has been that employers should appeal to workers’ more obvious forms of self-interest: financial incentives, yes, but also work that is inherently interesting or offers the possibility for career advancement. Grant’s research, which has generated broad interest in the study of relationships at work and will be published for the first time for a popular audience in his new book, “Give and Take,” starts with a premise that turns the thinking behind those theories on its head. The greatest untapped source of motivation, he argues, is a sense of service to others; focusing on the contribution of our work to other people’s lives has the potential to make us more productive than thinking about helping ourselves.

Great read. I will check out the book.

Genius

I found a few interesting resources from this page that I wanted to highlight / bookmark. I am reading through Basic Neurochemistry (Siegel, 8th) right now and am interested as a scientist in the effort to model intelligence based on the brain. There are a lot of variables that people try to plug into equations to predict IQ: brain volume overall, correlations between the amount and/or ratio white matter (myelin sheathing), gray matter, folding, interhemispheric interaction, density, wave patterns...etc.

Now that all this money is supposed to be poured into the Brain Activity Map Project or whatever they'll call it, I just figured I'd put out my prediction:

We tend to think of the brain in computer-related terms. The speed at which it processes information. How its "circuits" are designed and how signals propagate through them. But there is something as a biochemist that leads me to reject the binary on/off nature. Rather than thinking of neurons as in an "on / off" state, and trying to model the brain like a CPU, it is important to realize that the strength of the signal is a function of chemistry. The actual electrochemical potential (voltage) that we are discussing here goes back to the concentration of ions and transmitters. And since this concentration can vary, so can signal strength.

So now imagine trying to model a very simple brain, like C. elegans, studied by Bargmann and others,  with only 300 or so neurons. In the simplest computing model, you would have the firing patterns of the neurons mapped so that, for instance, odor recognition lights up a certain portion of the brain in a certain sequence. But this assumes each of these neurons to be in a true "on/off" state. They are more along a spectrum of signal strength. Let's say for simplicities' sake you round off the observed concentrations into 10 brackets (zero, near-zero...near-maximum, maximum). The complexity inherent in mapping 300 different possibilities is exponentially magnified because it isn't 2^300, but instead it is now 10^300. So now you've gone from 2 * 10^90 to 1 * 10^300 possible "states". And if you aren't mathematically inclined, 10^90 is more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. You would have to assemble 10^200 universes to approach the number atoms equal to the possible states in C. elegans brain.

Where would we put that kind of map, assuming a computer could draw it for us? ;) And do you think that reading it would be any different than an ant reading Melville?

As I've said before, I don't put too much stock in IQ tests that fall within one standard deviation or so from the mean, but I put a lot more in them when the measurement indicates significant outliers. I put zero stock in the effort to link brain activity meaningfully to behavior or intelligence.

Procrustean Bed

I like Taleb. He was a lot like Roubini back in the day (07-08). And his collected sayings are definitely worth consideration:

1. “Academia is to knowledge what prostitution is to love; close enough on the surface but, to the non-sucker, not exactly the same thing.” 
2. “Social media are severely antisocial, health foods are empirically unhealthy, knowledge workers are very ignorant, and social sciences aren’t scientific at all.” 
3. “In science you need to understand the world; in business you need others to misunderstand it.” 
4. “Education makes the wise slightly wiser, but it makes the fool vastly more dangerous.” 
5. “In nature we never repeat the same motion; in captivity (office, gym, commute, sports), life is just repetitive-stress injury. No randomness.” 
6. “Economics cannot digest the idea that the collective (and the aggregate) are disproportionately less predictable than individuals.” 
7. “Catholic countries had more serial monogamy than today, but without the need for divorce—life expectancy was short; marriage duration was much, much shorter. “ 
8. “You never win an argument until they attack your person.” 
9. “The characteristic feature of the loser is to bemoan, in general terms, mankind’s flaws, biases, contradictions, and irrationality—without exploiting them for fun and profit.” 
10. “To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week’s newspapers.” 
11. “People focus on role models; it is more effective to find antimodels—people you don’t want to resemble when you grow up.” 
12. “The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary. My only measure of success is how much time you have to kill.” 
13. “Some books cannot be summarized (real literature, poetry); some can be compressed to about ten pages; the majority to zero pages.” 
14. “They think that intelligence is about noticing things that are relevant (detecting patterns); in a complex world, intelligence consists in ignoring things that are irrelevant (avoiding false patterns).” 
15. “The best way to spot a charlatan: someone (like a consultant or a stockbroker) who tells you what to do instead of what not to do.” 
16. “The main difference between government bailouts and smoking is that in some rare cases the statement ‘this is my last cigarette’ holds true.”

Kon Leong on career/goals

A wise guy. In the good way:

If you experiment in different jobs and functions in those two or three years out of school, you will have a much better shot at finding your sweet spot. And the sweet spot is the intersection between what you’re really good at and what you love to do. If you can find that intersection, you are set. A lot of people would kill for that because, at 65, they’re retiring and never found it. So don’t put so much emphasis on initial compensation. Don’t listen to all the harping from the family. Try to find your sweet spot and, once you find it, invest in that. You don’t want to get degrees just to do work you don’t really like. If you’re miserable, even if you make a lot of money, that’s still 40 years of your life.

He says a lot of other smart things in the interview, so it's worth reading (e.g., his innate strength is that he can "zoom in, zoom out")...

Execution is everything

I think my football coach friends can related to this concept very well:

Ideas, in a sense, are overrated. Of course, you need good ones, but at this point in our supersaturated culture, precious few are so novel that nobody else has ever thought of them before. It’s really about where you take the idea, and how committed you are to solving the endless problems that come up in the execution. The more I experienced this frustration firsthand, the more I came to appreciate how naturally suited I am to the job I used to think I never wanted to have when I grew up.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I would claim this really applies to scientific research as well, despite that Holy Grail/Eureka mentality of science (e.g., string theory, cancer cures...). It's not that people haven't come up with a number of novel approaches to solving a problem much like your own. It's that they either gave up on them or started working on them to run into a problem that technology has since changed or solved.

Phases of the moon

As most people know, the month is lunar and the year is solar. But there is no nice 12:1 equivalent in reality, and the months have varying numbers of days. As a result, solar years will contain different numbers of lunar cycles. This year we had the pleasure of seeing 13 full moons; last night (Fri) was the final one. See a cool video showing the moon's cycles below: