The New Yorker: Why Abraham Lincoln Loved Infographics

A (too) short, intriguing piece on the early history of infographics and data mapping:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/why-abraham-lincoln-loved-infographics.html

As a consequence of the way our brains perceive our surroundings, we humans are visual creatures with a knack for finding patterns (sometimes even where they don't exist, hence conspiracy theories!). It's easy to see why infographics would appeal to those of us trying to make sense of large amounts of information, like leaders considering their constituencies and commanders looking over battlefields. I'd wager that infographics first came about in the late 1700s not because of any lack of interest in the format, but rather because it was significantly more difficult to gather the data necessary to populate them! Once there were more reliable and timely reports of populations, troop movements, &c., it seems inevitable that somebody would have had the notion to display the information in a visually succinct fashion.

The Civil War, by virtue of its chronological place in history, was the first major American engagement after the advent of proper infographics; it stands to reason that Lincoln would have been delighted with this useful new instrument at his disposal. It's also worthwhile to note that the Union Army would have been leaps and bounds ahead of the Confederates in its ability to gather the type of data best suited to infographics. Not only did the North have access to decades of records, it also had by far more extensive postal and transportation systems. Lincoln's maps and charts would have been significantly more comprehensive than what Jefferson Davis had.

Lincoln's extremely detailed slave population map

These days, we have precisely the opposite problem. Information is much easier to come by -- so much so that we're constantly inundated by facts and figures in the news. Infographics have become, rather than a tool for aggregation, a tool for selection and analysis. (This is, of course, aided by technologies unfathomable in Lincoln's time.) We like charts and graphs because they speak to that ancient part of our brains that latches onto patterns, turning the night sky into constellations and the landscape into mythology. They shape a flood of information into a cohesive narrative -- and narrative is essential to how humans define who we are and how we fit into this universe.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

The Guardian: Beijing Pilots Recycle-to-Ride Public Transit Program

This seems like a clever idea and incentive structure to address a very specific recycling problem, that of discarded plastic bottles, which cumulatively represent a significant threat to the environment (see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch):

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/04/beijing-recycling-banks-subway-bottles

One of the crucial elements of any mass behavioral shift is the incentive structure. Unfortunately, the average human being's sense of morality or duty doesn't stand up well to repeat inconvenience, if the inconvenience in question doesn't tangibly benefit him. (People are generally willing to perform isolated acts of kindness or charity, even if against greater obstacles, in large part because these incidents seem out of the ordinary and don't connote repeat obligation.)

This system set in motion in Beijing has two obvious advantages. One is the instantaneous reward mechanism: the recycled bottles are converted to currency at the station, and the currency can be immediately used to ride the subway. It doesn't require the average person to go out of their way or alter their routine; it can be as simple as recycling your empty water bottle at the end of the day as you head home, or taking your recycling to the subway station in the morning when you leave for work.

The second is that it also incentivizes the transit authority (and thereby the municipal government) to more aggressively promote recycling. Prior to the implementation of this infrastructure, the transit authority would only be motivated to encourage recycling for environmental reasons; citizens' recycling benefited the PET recycling industry, but not the government. Now, because the transit authority would be earning money through this new program (funds which presumably help pay for operation and maintenance of the subway system), there is a direct incentive for the government to encourage recycling.

Obviously, there are some kinks to be ironed out, such as ensuring that the machines themselves operated efficiently and that the bottles collected would be processed at an acceptable environmental standard. As a collection mechanism, however, this seems like a great idea to promote environmentalism that also makes economic sense. I can't wait for the MTA to install some bottle-recyclers of its own; perhaps this would also reduce the number of track fire delays (usually caused by trash thrown onto subway tracks).

io9: Parenting for Science

I found this story, wherein a professor experiments on his children, hilarious and a bit inspiring (such dedication to the scientific method!), which probably means that I shouldn't reproduce anytime soon...

http://io9.com/questionable-parenting-science-the-tickler-1558053188

Unsurprisingly, this happened two or three generations ago, when it was more socially acceptable for a psychologist to perform experiments on his young and unsuspecting kids in the name of science. (Then again, my father likes to recount the behavioral "experiments" he performed on us when my sister and I were small -- though they were neither as rigorous nor as scientific as Clarence Leuba's.) I'm surprised, though, that his wife was willing to go along with it! Usually, the more responsible parent has veto power over harebrained ideas involving the shared children.

This makes me wonder how many other scientists' children have had rather unorthodox upbringings that have contributed to scientific research. (I read recently in a biography of Alfred Loomis that quite a few members of his extended family, and even occasional house guests, were drafted as test subjects in his experiments.) I hope that in most of those cases, parental instinct would have tempered any potential for lasting damage...

Three Minute Photoshop Makeover, the Music Video

I've watched this video a few times this week, in part because the music is catchy, but mostly because its message is powerful:



http://www.policymic.com/articles/79585/watch-this-woman-get-a-complete-photoshop-makeover-in-3-minutes-flat

Body image, especially that of young women, has become increasingly prominent in our social discourse over the past decade or so. There's been, at one end, greater awareness of eating disorders and related insecurities; on the other end, there's been significantly wider recognition of this country's obesity problem. The former is often associated with standards of beauty as dictated by media and peer interaction, while the latter is often a consequence of economics and the vulnerability of children who don't know any better than to consume what appeals to them in the short term (and the adults who were raised that way).

This video deals with the former problem -- that of media perpetuating impossibly exacting ideals, which millions of young women attempt to imitate in real life, without the aid of Photoshop. While a proportion of the changes depicted can be accomplished with cosmetics, other changes, such as altering the symmetry of the singer's face, is not something that women can physically achieve. And while humans are instinctively more attracted to symmetrical faces with higher contrast, one cannot expect a mathematical level of symmetry in our natural, imperfect bodies.

We are visual creatures. When introduced to a pair of images, we all have opinions as to which one we find more aesthetically pleasing. But we, through millennia of civilization and progress, are more than our basest instincts, more than our visceral reactions. We are rational and more evolved creatures who value each other for qualities greater than appearance. While it makes sense for us to make reasonable attempts to look pleasing to others, our society now has the tools with which to project images that are unreasonable to imitate. The crucial part here, then, is to ensure that we all recognize that it would be unreasonable to expect each other, and ourselves, to look like that.

We are none of us aesthetic ideals. Even models, actors, beauty queens -- even those we have collectively deemed the most attractive specimens of our species -- have their own insecurities. We must learn, in our most vulnerable and susceptible years, that we are valued not for how closely we conform to our society's standards of beauty, but rather, for our contributions in areas deeper and more within our power to shape. In appearances, we are limited by genetics, by environment, by the hand we are dealt. In what lies beneath, we are bound by fewer and less arbitrary constraints.

Moreover, we cannot take it with us. At the end of the day, it's all transport. We keep the engine primed and the moving parts oiled so that we might achieve more, and live more happily, in our time. The parts of us that are not flesh -- these comprise what we have made of ourselves.

On another note: this video is a testament to the power of activist art. Slogans and speeches will only get us so far, after all. In order to effect change, people must want the change themselves -- and one of the most effective ways to influence somebody's viewpoint is by creating empathy and emotional connection. As much as I believe in solving problems rationally and logically, there are many situations where the visceral reaction evoked by imagery is a more powerful motivator. As Lincoln famously said to Harriet Beecher Stowe, "so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!"

NYTimes: Morality and Human Nature

I found this really interesting article a long while back, on the origins and development of the sense of morality in humans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?hpw

It's really validating for an optimist; I've always believed that people are fundamentally good. We are, methinks, born with a sense of natural law, of right and wrong -- and this is only a small exaggeration. It is usually those with innate psychological imbalances, or those exposed to corrupting social influences, or those who have been driven by circumstances to desperation and folly, &c., who do evil. Humans tend not to be evil by choice; evil is often motivated by lesser vices, such as laziness, pride, and so forth.

Anyhow, you should read the article for yourself; they talk about a lot of interesting case studies and experiments therein.

Universality

I realize that this post must strike the readership as deeply ironic, given -- well, given me -- but I find myself somewhat vindicated in this quotation:

Everyone, in some small sacred sanctuary of the self, is nuts.

~ Leo Rosten

Yes, he was a humorist. (So what?)

It's rather true, I find; even beyond the people I tend to hang out with, who are admittedly a self-selected and odd crowd, most people are really weird in some unexpected way (and in some expected ways, too). It's just that some people try harder to hide it than others.

Nationalism

I've spent the past quarter studying, in part, the development and evolution of nations in various classes. One of the recurring themes that really struck me was just how easy it was to get the masses to subscribe to, kill in the name of, fight and die for, an idea. On many occasions, it was the concept of the nation -- whether it was a piece of land or an ethnic group or a shared history. And then I found this quotation, which explains a whole lot:

Nationalist pride, like other variants of pride, can be a substitute for self-respect.

~ Eric Hoffer

It because many people want something to believe in, something to belong to, some higher purpose; we see it all the time with religious zealots and political extremists (the two often overlap). The nation is another such concept. People, I believe, can be good, or can think themselves good, if given even the slimmest chance to elevate their position. Nationalism is one such outlet.

There is such a thing as healthy nationalism, moderate and rational nationalism. It is only when people depend too much upon that one belief, when it becomes all that they live for, when they place all their hopes and dreams in it, that it becomes a vicious, dangerous force. Fanatics are the most dangerous sort of enemy, because they believe wholeheartedly that they are right, that they are defenders of the cause, that anyone who disagrees is mistaken at best, and evil at worst -- they are not easily dislodged by minor setbacks or lost battles. They become one with their purpose, so to speak, and are destroyed, heart and soul, with the defeat of their cause. It is a law of the nature to fight against one's own destruction, and laws of nature are more powerful than the laws of man.

NYTimes: Having a Sister Makes You Happier

A very interesting New York Times article I found today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/health/26essay.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

More technical details on the study:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/5089197/Having-a-sister-makes-you-happier-and-more-optimistic-say-psychologists.html

I have (for the few of you who don't know this) a younger sister. I can attest to the truth of the conclusion. We used to fight like cats and dogs, when we were much younger (I was about twelve, and she was about six); but as we grew older, we found that we understand each other as few others do. She does make me happier, and the one downside to going to school so far from home is that I don't see her as often as I would like.

I don't tell you this enough, Celine: I love you. I hope you knew this already.

NYTimes: Being Short isn't as Bad as You Think It Is

I was very small for most of my minority; those of you who knew me before college undoubtedly remember this. I was consistently both the shortest and skinniest kid in my class throughout middle school. I used to be able to comfortably fit into all sorts of tight spaces, including half-sized lockers, suitcases, dresser drawers, laundry hampers, &c. Needless to say, I was very good at hide and seek.

My parents, however, were understandably concerned, both about my outward appearance and about any psychological conditions that might have arisen, perhaps from poor self-esteem or ridicule by my peers. (I was admittedly a very odd child regardless, so I wasn't particularly affected by my classmates' opinions of me.)

Anyhow, this article ought to alleviate most of their concerns. Not to mention that I'm a very normal 5'4" (and a bit more on good days) nowadays, so this is all in the past. Mostly. I have way too many friends who are 5'10" and up (though they're mostly boys, so perhaps it's not as relevant).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/11brod.html?src=me&ref=health

Some of the most interesting and influential people in history have been very short. Here are two partial lists of famous short people; they include some of the world's most awesome people, such as Beethoven, Napoleon, Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Keats, Tolkien, Genghis Khan, Gandhi, Voltaire, Picasso, and James Madison. What a list!

http://www.tallmenshoes.com/heoffashpe.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/famous-short-people.html

BBC: Sexier Birds are Poorer Fliers

A very interesting take on evolutionary biology:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8738000/8738613.stm

Basically, Mother Nature is running P&L (profit and loss) calculations, balancing in the male bird population the need for speed and the need to impress girls. Come to think of it, human society acts much the same way. Men who dress very well will impress (certain types of) girls, increasing their breeding potential, but dressing very well will also attract the attention of thieves and brigands, not to mention lighten one's wallet, so to a certain extent, only people with means (both to purchase and to avoid getting mugged) will dress well. At least, that's how it should be. Humans are not always the most logical or intuitive of creatures.

NYTimes: Pay-What-You-Want Restaurants

A rather intriguing concept:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21free.html?hp

I like the idea very much (especially as a psychological experiment), but the implementation is necessarily very limited. It would only work, methinks, in relatively affluent neighborhoods (particularly in the current economic climate), where the average adult earned enough money to live comfortably without much debt -- the upper middle class, at least. The "working for food" option seems sound, as well, but it only fulfills the needs of a few people; it's unsustainable in poorer areas.

Still, it's a beautiful idea.

BBC: Volunteer Cosmonauts begin 18-Month Mars Simulation

Prepping for a Mars mission!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10197470.stm

It sounds... strangely fun. (This from a girl who would consider hiding in a tree for a year and writing a book, mind you.)

Also... a Mars mission! A whole slew of middle school sci-fi daydreams are coming true. Don't we live in interesting times?

(Five nerd points if you get the reference.)

The Egalitarian Nature of Human Fallibility

The souls of emperors and cobblers are cast in the same mold. The same reason that makes us wrangle with a neighbor creates a war betwixt princes.

~Michel de Montaigne

In the end, humans are humans. It becomes a matter of influence: how great will be the effect of an individual's follies?

I'm reading Montaigne for one of my history classes. Fascinating guy, and surprisingly religiously tolerant for his day.

In Our Image, After Our Likeness

The Greeks were the originators of skepticism, and for good reason. To wit:

Ethiopians imagine their gods as black and snub-nosed; Thracians blue-eyed and red-haired. But if horses or lions had hands, or could draw and fashion works as men do, horses would draw the gods shaped like horses and lions like lions, making the gods resemble themselves.

~ Xenophanes

Gods are creatures of our collective imaginations, fashioned "in our image, after our likeness". It is no coincidence that the Christian God is portrayed as a bearded white man. The gods of my ancestors, including the god traditionally considered my distant ancestor, were Asian-featured, with darker skin and black hair, all. Is it so surprising, then, that our most terrible ancient wars were fought in the names of beings greater than ourselves, but who embodied all that we were?

(Five history nerd points if you can name the titular reference.)

Masquerade

An observation regarding identity:

We all wear masks, and the time comes when we cannot remove them without removing some of our own skin.

~Andre Berthiaume

When you fake it long enough, is it really false? Oh, the teenaged angst abounds.

Seriously, though, how do we separate who we are from who we wish to be? Should we? Is the ultimate achievement, then, the complete merging of the two, such that there is no discernible distinction?

I want to write a poem, now. Hmm...

Never Exactly Even

Science is dangerous. Beautiful, but dangerous -- like tigers, or quicksilver.

The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.

~ Carl Sagan

Philosopher-scientists. We need more of those in the world. Or perhaps we just need everyone else to heed the ones who do exist.

BBC: (Mental) Gender Test

Basically, gender (as a psychological rather than a physical concept) is a sliding scale, rather than two discrete categories. The BBC website provides a very comprehensive test comprised of multiple components, like spatial recognition, EQ (emotional quotient), learning and lifestyle preferences, &c., which, when combined, yield a pretty good estimate of where the subject's mental gender falls on the scale. To wit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

I scored a 0 (that's a zero). Yes, exactly in the middle. I first took this test a few months ago, and I'm still trying to formulate a good comeback.

loltheorists: Schroedinger's lolcats

http://community.livejournal.com/loltheorists

For those of us who appreciate (corny) jokes about smart but dead white guys. Well, mostly dead. (I mean, most of them are dead -- the former phraseology makes them sound like zombies.)

With regard to the title of the post -- yes, I went there.

NYTimes: Can Animals Be Gay?

Yes they can! And herewith is evidence of such:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?src=me&ref=homepage

I feel vindicated in the face of all the homophobic Evangelicals and such in the world. Now we just need to get Congress on board.