Let’s Shake Up the Social Sciences

Via New York Times:

…the social sciences have stagnated. They offer essentially the same set of academic departments and disciplines that they have for nearly 100 years: sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology and political science. This is not only boring but also counterproductive, constraining engagement with the scientific cutting edge and stifling the creation of new and useful knowledge. Such inertia reflects an unnecessary insecurity and conservatism, and helps explain why the social sciences don’t enjoy the same prestige as the natural sciences.

Let’s Shake Up the Social Sciences - NYTimes.com

Points:

  • “…social scientists should devote a small palace guard to settled subjects and redeploy most of their forces to new fields like social neuroscience, behavioral economics, evolutionary psychology and social epigenetics, most of which, not coincidentally, lie at the intersection of the natural and social sciences.”
  • “It is time to create new social science departments that reflect the breadth and complexity of the problems we face as well as the novelty of 21st-century science.”
  • “We have not yet changed the basic DNA of the social sciences. Failure to do so might even result in having the natural sciences co-opt topics rightly and beneficially in the purview of the social sciences.”

'Man Of Steel' Sequel Will Feature Batman And Superman

Via Deadline:

The Superman logo was just superimposed with the Batman logo on the screen at the close of the much anticipated Warner Bros-Legendary Pictures panel inside the San Diego Convention Center at Comic-Con. This momentous DC Entertainment development from Warner Bros was not on the schedule, according to Deadline contributor Ross Lincoln covering the event.

'Man Of Steel' Sequel Will Feature Batman And Superman

Sci-fi fans will be delighted.

Automation Anxiety

Via Wilson Quarterly:

…technological advances have not reduced overall employment, though they have certainly cost many people their jobs. But now, with the advent of machines that are infinitely more intelligent and powerful than most people could have imagined a century ago, has the day finally come when technology will leave millions of us permanently displaced?

Judging by the popular press, the answer is yes, and there is plenty of alarming data leading some people to support that view. Between January 1990 and January 2010, the United States shed 6.3 million manufacturing jobs, a staggering decrease of 36 percent. Since then, it has regained only about 500,000. Four years after the official end of the Great Recession, unemployment is still running at a recession-like rate of around 7.5 percent, and millions of Americans have given up even looking for work.

Economists, struggling to disentangle the effects of technology, trade, and other forces, don’t have a certain answer to the question of whether this time is different.

Automation Anxiety | Wilson Quarterly

Points:

  • “Reading through the literature of the period [1960s], one is struck—and humbled—by how wrong so many smart people could be. Yet some got the story largely right. Automation did not upend the fundamental logic of the economy. But it did disproportionate harm to less-skilled workers. And some of its most important effects were felt not in the economic realm but in the arena of social change.”
  • “They [1960s thinkers] tended to view the challenge of automation as a problem of abundance—machines were finally yielding the long-promised benefits that would allow human beings to slough off lives of endless and usually unrewarding labor without sacrificing the good things in life.”
  • “…they [1960s thinkers] misunderstood the nature of abundance itself. Although the principle that human wants are insatiable is enshrined in every introductory economics course, it was somehow forgotten by intellectuals who themselves probably weren’t very materialistic, and who might only have been dimly aware of the great slouching beasts of retailing—the new shopping malls—going up on the edge of town.”
  • “Related to this misunderstanding about consumerism was the idea that the time was nigh when people would hardly have to work at all. Harried families in today’s suburbs will be astonished to learn that some critics even worried about what we would do with all that leisure time.”
  • “…the diminishing role of brawn had put us on the path toward a world in which gender roles would converge.”
  • Instead of automating repetitive tasks, technology today is climbing the cognitive ladder, using artificial intelligence and brute processing power to automate (however imperfectly) the functions of travel agents, secretaries, tax preparers, even teachers—while threatening the jobs of some lawyers, university professors, and other professionals who once thought their sheepskins were a bulwark against this sort of thing.”
  • “Perhaps the biggest lesson we can learn from the midcentury thinkers who worried about automation is that while there is cause for concern, there is no other way but forward. Like trade, automation makes us better off collectively by making some of us worse off. So the focus of our concern should be on those injured by the robots, even if the wounds are “only” economic.”

Unhappy Truckers and Other Algorithmic Problems

Via Nautilus:

modeling the real world, with constraints like melting ice cream and idiosyncratic human behavior, is often where the real challenge lies. As mathematicians, operations research specialists, and corporate executives set out to mathematize and optimize the transportation networks that interconnect our modern world, they are re-discovering some of our most human quirks and capabilities. They are finding that their job is as much to discover the world, as it is to change it.

Unhappy Truckers and Other Algorithmic Problems - Issue 3: In Transit – Nautilus

Points:

  • “…an ongoing question—the question—in computer science: whether or not P equals NP. As summarized with blunt elegance by MIT’s news office, “roughly speaking, P is a set of relatively easy problems, NP is a set of incredibly hard problems, and if they’re equal, then a large number of computer science problems that seem to be incredibly hard are actually relatively easy.” The Clay Mathematics Institute offers a $1 million reward to a meta-problem hovering like a mothership over the Car 54 challenge and its ilk: proving that P does or does not equal NP.”
  • “Until the early 1980s, UPS drivers used to have one simple goal: to get all the packages in their truck delivered by the end of the day.”
  • “But then, in 1982, the world changed: Next-day air delivery was introduced. Suddenly, there were an increasing variety of time “commits;” packages had to be at one address by 10:30 a.m., another by 1:30 p.m., another by noon. There were new time constraints for package pickups as well. It was no longer just an optimal routing problem, but an optimal scheduling problem. And the one thing UPS suspected was that it was not doing things optimally.”

Refresh Provides Creepy Dossiers on People to Avoid Awkward Small Talk

Via Lifehacker:

Refresh is an iOS app that's currently in private beta, though you can get access by signing in with your LinkedIn account credentials. The premise is simple: connect your social accounts and Refresh will create a dossier of things you should chit chat about. Like how I should mention to Whitson that I saw his post about playing way too many video games lately two and a half weeks ago (actual suggestion). If nothing else, this app highlights just how much of your personal life is readily available to third-party APIs.

Refresh Provides Creepy Dossiers on People to Avoid Awkward Small Talk

Another way to say “surveillance”?

Considering the Horror of Zuckerbergian Dystopias

Via New York Times:

Technologists are often utopianists. No one writer understands this bizarre world view better than Jaron Lanier. In his latest book, “Who Owns The Future?” Lanier critiques our current digital economy with an incredible wealth of insider’s knowledge, making a case that links rising income inequality to the spread of what he calls Siren Servers — data-gathering companies, basically. He warns that we have a bad track record of accurately predicting the speed with which technology advances and that, in the future, many more middle-class jobs will disappear to intelligent-seeming machines.

Considering the Horror of Zuckerbergian Dystopias - NYTimes.com

Ponder: “Whatever technological dystopia awaits us, it’s at once hilarious and mortifying to think that the road there might be paved with asinine status updates, cat pictures and listicles.”

Hardcover              Kindle

21st century risk management

Via Business Insider:

Many people think about risk management as a defensive strategy, a tool for minimizing exposure to economic crises or public-relations blowouts. But Russell Walker, a clinical associate professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at the Kellogg School of Management, argues that businesses should be thinking about risk management very differently. He has just written a book on the topic, Winning with Risk Management, published by World Scientific Press

21st century risk management - Business Insider

Points:

  • “…a company’s risk management strategy can actually bring it a competitive advantage.”
  • “Operational risks are the negative outcomes associated with executing a strategy. It’s often the case that we remember the very catastrophic, image-driven, external events: explosions, hazards, tornados, what have you. But many organizations fail not because of outside stresses, but because of challenges internally.”
  • “They’re [upsides of risk] largely ignored because risk has been presented as a downside, not necessarily as an upside. What is fascinating about risk and understanding your competitive position against risk is that if your competitor is to falter—if you could assist your competitor in some demise—their assets (be they market share, factories, brands, etc.) get transferred.”
  • “…a typical CEO tenure is 4–7 years. But it’s not uncommon for it to even be less. This suggests that a CEO, given his or her reward package, may take risks or make investments that maximize short-term results, and potentially expose the firm to larger risks later down the road.”