Isegoria

Even Babies May Be Good Judges of Character:

In a study that suggests that people may begin evaluating one another for trustworthiness even earlier than believed, researchers showed infants a demonstration in which different shapes played the good guy or the bad guy. Then the infants were allowed to choose one to play with.

The good guy won almost every time.

In the case of Circle, a small wooden character with big eyes, that would be Triangle, who helped him when he was struggling up the hill — not Square, who gave him a good shove back down.

Of course, when the roles were reversed and Triangle was cast as the hinderer, as the researchers called him, the infants preferred Square. (The shapes were moved by a researcher out of the sight of the infants.)

After repeated demonstrations, the infants, 6 and 10 months old, were presented with the helper and the hinderer. They almost always reached for the helper. The study appears in the November 22 issue of Nature; the lead author is J. Kiley Hamlin of Yale.

Mammoths Blasted by Meteor Impact — directly:

About 34,000 years ago, a herd of mammoths found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time. Analysis of seven tusks, purchased from a Canadian fossils vendor, show the ancient beasts were blasted by an exploding meteor.

“The only reasonable explanation is that a meteor exploded somewhere near where these animals were standing,” Richard Firestone, a nuclear analytical chemist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory said at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco.

Scientists aren’t sure if the animals died from their wounds, although the populations of several ice-age beasts decreased dramatically at about the same time of the suspected meteor strike. At least one creature, a bison, did survive, as its skull shows bone grew in after a fragment embedded, Firestone said.

“It was certainly a bad day,” he said.

An amateur scientist, Allen West, got the idea to look at fossils for meteorite fragments in an attempt to find evidence of what wiped out the Clovis people of North America, as well as several large mammals, about 13,000 years ago.

After sifting through thousands of tusks at a Phoenix, Ariz., fossil show, he found one with a burnt hole in it and tested it with a magnet, as many meteors contain iron.

The magnet stuck. West bought the tusk for $200 and asked to look through the company’s warehouse, which contained another 15,000 fossils. He found more evidence of micrometeorite impacts in a batch of tusks from eastern Siberia.

Some of the tusks had hundreds of tiny holes, made by burning fragments of the exploded meteor. The punctures all face the same direction, consistent with a blast from the sky.

It’s not quite the Lucifer’s Hammer scenario, but it’s still lethal if you’re the one under the air burst…

The Claim: A Little Alcohol Can Help You Beat a Cold. The reality?:

Then, in 2002, researchers in Spain followed 4,300 healthy adults, examining their habits and susceptibility to colds. The study, in The American Journal of Epidemiology, found no relationship between the incidence of colds and consumption of beer, spirits, Vitamin C or zinc. But drinking 8 to 14 glasses of wine per week, particularly red wine, was linked to as much as a 60 percent reduction in the risk of developing a cold. The scientists suspected this had something to do with the antioxidant properties of wine.

Ed Boyden, who leads MIT’s Neuroengineering and Neuromedia Group, explains How to Think:

When I applied for my faculty job at the MIT Media Lab, I had to write a teaching statement. One of the things I proposed was to teach a class called “How to Think,” which would focus on how to be creative, thoughtful, and powerful in a world where problems are extremely complex, targets are continuously moving, and our brains often seem like nodes of enormous networks that constantly reconfigure. In the process of thinking about this, I composed 10 rules, which I sometimes share with students. I’ve listed them here, followed by some practical advice on implementation.

1. Synthesize new ideas constantly. Never read passively. Annotate, model, think, and synthesize while you read, even when you’re reading what you conceive to be introductory stuff. That way, you will always aim towards understanding things at a resolution fine enough for you to be creative.

2. Learn how to learn (rapidly). One of the most important talents for the 21st century is the ability to learn almost anything instantly, so cultivate this talent. Be able to rapidly prototype ideas. Know how your brain works. (I often need a 20-minute power nap after loading a lot into my brain, followed by half a cup of coffee. Knowing how my brain operates enables me to use it well.)

3. Work backward from your goal. Or else you may never get there. If you work forward, you may invent something profound — or you might not. If you work backward, then you have at least directed your efforts at something important to you.

4. Always have a long-term plan. Even if you change it every day. The act of making the plan alone is worth it. And even if you revise it often, you’re guaranteed to be learning something.

5. Make contingency maps. Draw all the things you need to do on a big piece of paper, and find out which things depend on other things. Then, find the things that are not dependent on anything but have the most dependents, and finish them first.

6. Collaborate.

7. Make your mistakes quickly. You may mess things up on the first try, but do it fast, and then move on. Document what led to the error so that you learn what to recognize, and then move on. Get the mistakes out of the way. As Shakespeare put it, “Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt.”

8. As you develop skills, write up best-practices protocols. That way, when you return to something you’ve done, you can make it routine. Instinctualize conscious control.

9. Document everything obsessively. If you don’t record it, it may never have an impact on the world. Much of creativity is learning how to see things properly. Most profound scientific discoveries are surprises. But if you don’t document and digest every observation and learn to trust your eyes, then you will not know when you have seen a surprise.

10. Keep it simple. If it looks like something hard to engineer, it probably is. If you can spend two days thinking of ways to make it 10 times simpler, do it. It will work better, be more reliable, and have a bigger impact on the world. And learn, if only to know what has failed before. Remember the old saying, “Six months in the lab can save an afternoon in the library.”

Two practical notes. The first is in the arena of time management. I really like what I call logarithmic time planning, in which events that are close at hand are scheduled with finer resolution than events that are far off. For example, things that happen tomorrow should be scheduled down to the minute, things that happen next week should be scheduled down to the hour, and things that happen next year should be scheduled down to the day. Why do all calendar programs force you to pick the exact minute something happens when you are trying to schedule it a year out? I just use a word processor to schedule all my events, tasks, and commitments, with resolution fading away the farther I look into the future. (It would be nice, though, to have a software tool that would gently help you make the schedule higher-resolution as time passes…)

The second practical note: I find it really useful to write and draw while talking with someone, composing conversation summaries on pieces of paper or pages of notepads. I often use plenty of color annotation to highlight salient points. At the end of the conversation, I digitally photograph the piece of paper so that I capture the entire flow of the conversation and the thoughts that emerged. The person I’ve conversed with usually gets to keep the original piece of paper, and the digital photograph is uploaded to my computer for keyword tagging and archiving. This way I can call up all the images, sketches, ideas, references, and action items from a brief note that I took during a five-minute meeting at a coffee shop years ago — at a touch, on my laptop. With 10-megapixel cameras costing just over $100, you can easily capture a dozen full pages in a single shot, in just a second.

An old “last word” column in New Scientist looks at Life in a Glass:

How long can a human being live for if their sole source of food or drink is beer? And do different beers — ale, lager, stout, mild — confer a better chance of survival?

Beer has had a reputation since antiquity as being a staple in the diet, often called “liquid bread”. In ancient Egypt, workers received beer as part of their salary, as did the ladies-in-waiting of Queen Elizabeth I of England. In 1492, one gallon of beer per day was the standard allocation for sailors in the navy of Henry VII.

This high reputation for beer came about because it was made from malted barley, which is rich in vitamins. This is still true today. A quick check using nutritional tables shows that a pint can provide more than 5 per cent of the daily recommended intake of several vitamins, such as B9, B6 and B2, although other vitamins such as A, C and D are lacking.

It is of course unethical to conduct an experiment to see whether one can live on beer alone. However, during the Seven Years War of 1756-63, John Clephane, physician to the English fleet, conducted a clinical trial. Three ships were sent from England to America. One — the Grampus — was supplied with plenty of beer, while the two control ships — the Daedalus and the Tortoise — had only the common allowance of spirits. After an unusually long voyage due to bad weather, Clephane reported that the Daedalus and Tortoise had 112 and 62 men respectively requiring hospitalisation. The Grampus, on the other hand, had only 13, arguably a clear-cut result.

Needless to say, the sailors’ allowance of eight pints of beer per day is no longer within the accepted confines of current moderate alcohol consumption. One can only speculate on the state of their livers. Living on beer alone may be a fantasy for some, but it is not a good health strategy.

As I’ve noted before, Guinness is good for you:

A pint of the black stuff a day may work as well as an aspirin to prevent heart clots that raise the risk of heart attacks.

Drinking lager does not yield the same benefits, experts from University of Wisconsin told a conference in the US.

Unsupervised children are more sociable and more active:

• Children allowed out without adult supervision are more active, being found at home less often. Statistically, they are more likely to be found playing out or visiting the homes of friends than children who aren’t allowed out alone.
• Children walk faster and take a more direct route when an adult is present, but they do not use more energy than unaccompanied children. This is because unsupervised children move in a more meandering fashion as they investigate their environment and socialise with other children.
• Access to local open space is a significant factor in determining whether boys are allowed out of the house without an adult. 71% of those with access to open space were allowed out, compared to just 51% of those without such access.
• Of the three types of activity monitored during the study (walking, unstructured play and participation in organised clubs), walking used up the most activity calories.