Sorry - I didn't realize that this last TED post was marked as a draft. Here it is...
---------------------
Chris responds to Wired's Smiling through the Apocalypse article suggesting that the TED program is ignoring the economic crisis.
"This is a nightmare, which will pass away with the morning. ...But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. " - John Maynard Keynes, 1930
He makes a good point. However, his comments immediately following Juan Enriquez's talk (to the effect of "enough of that" - I'd have to go back to my post that day, or perhaps to Twitter to get the exact quote) certainly contributed to the criticism, which I believe is partially deserved.
We're going to have a terrific performance here in Palm Springs (Kids' Table Collective)-- lots of energy. People seem to feel very comfortable with each other by now.
Nate Silver
Statistician
What's the matter with Kansas? But really, it's what's the matter with Arkansas?
He says "When we think of Arkansas, we have a lot of negative connotations." -- um, who is "we"? But yes, there seems to be more race-determined voting.
Biggest factors that seem to drive race-based voting: education and the type of neighbors you have.
Is racism predictable? - YES, he says.
General social survey - asked "Does anyone of the opposite race live in your neighborhood?" In rural communities a yes response is only about 30%
People in monoracial vs mixed neighborhoods respond almost identically regarding Affirmative Action, but when asked about banning interracial marriage or voting for a person of another race for President, the differences are marked.
Alex Tabarrok
First half of the 20th century was a disaster - multiple walls - political, trade, communication
By the end of the 20th century, we'd begun breaking down many of these walls - growth had spread to almost every part of the globe.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me." - Thomas Jefferson
If you're going to have a disease, it's better to have a common one, than a rare one - more incentive to produce drugs - larger markets save lives. If China and India were as rich as the US is today, the market for cancer drugs would be 8x what it is today.
Larger markets increase the incentive to produce new ideas. So how do we maximize the incentive to produce new ideas? By having one market - one world.
Today, less than one-tenth of 1% of the population are scientists and engineers. US has long been an idea leader. But the US is losing ground - that's a good thing, because for too long, the US has shouldered the burden. If the whole world were as wealthy as the US, there would be 5x as many scientists and engineers.
We ALL benefit when another country gets rich - creates greater demand and greater supply of ideas. Economics of ideas suggests optimism.
Okay, that's all well and good...but are we going to be uplifted only by scientists?
Pete Alcorn
Looking at UN population data, it looks like we're leveling off and all predictors show that will happen and we'll have declining population growth.
Declining population drives down demand for housing and therefore property costs drop, lifting a heavy burden off the poor.
Scarce labor drives wages up, again, lifting the poor.
He sees a period of re-enlightenment in about 150 years as the effects of declining population are felt.
Bruce Buenode Mesquita
We can predict the future scientifically. We can also use this knowledge to engineer it. Uses game theory which assumes people:
- Are rationally self-interested.
- Have values and beliefs
- Face limitations.
Who is rational? If you go by the definition "they do what is in their best interest" then almost everyone is.
But how do you get people to change behavior they believe is in their best interest? You have to influence them in ways so that they see new benefits in new behaviors.
What percent of the time is the model right even when the experts are wrong? CIA says 90% of the time.
What do we need to know in order to predict?
- Who has a stake?
- What do they say they want?
- How focused are they on the problem at hand compared to other issues?
- How much clout could they bring to bear?
We don't need to know: How they got to this point
We can predict behavior based on those factors based on 2 things - they
care about the outcome and they care about getting credit.
On to Iran - some predictions:
What is Iran going to do about nuclear weapons?
In policy path simulations with 150 equalling "build a bomb", 130="make enough weapons-grade fuel, 115=only produce enough weapons-grade fuel for research
100=only civilian nuclear energy development
When plotting current factors based on the most international pressure and the least international pressure. The model predicts an equillibrium will be reached by 2010, will make enough WGF to show they can do it and increase national pride, but won't make enough to build a bomb.
How secure is the theocratic regime?
Current info shows the moneyed interests are increasing in power - this indicates that more stability, less radicalism is likely to be supported.
Nicholas Negroponte
Suggested a low-cost laptop for kids back in 1982. Now we're thinking in a year the nettop market will be 50%.
750k in hands of kids
250k in route
Oh snap, he just threw it on the floor! Guess it's durable. ;)
Kids - found they are teaching their parents how to read and write
Commercial markets will do everything to stop this from happening.
OLPC is going to olpc - now people understand, so we're going to a phase where everyone is copying it. We'll make it open source from beginning to end.
Dan Ariely
Ariely is the author of Predictably Rational, which I'm pretty sure is over there (<-- left sidebar, page down a little). It's a really cool read.
When he was hospitalized for burns over 70% of his body, he noticed that nurses had a particular way of removing bandages. What is the right approach to removing a bandage? Nurses in his department went for the ripping and said that this was the best way to minimize pain.
After studying pain, the nurses were wrong - we don't process duration in the same way as intensity. It would have been better to go slowly, to start with more painful areas and move to less painful areas to show improvement trend and it would have been better to provide recovery breaks.
Enron - was it a few bad apples or were people capable of mass irrational behavior like this? In his tests, he didn't find a lot of people who cheat a lot - he saw a lot of people who cheated a little. Cost benefit analysis - what's the risk versus the reward. You would expect that the amount of money for questions would increase cheating - but no. As the probability of getting caught increased, people cheated the same amount.
Two forces - we all want to feel good about ourselves, but we can cheat a little and still feel okay. Personal fudge factor. How do you test for that?
Tasks - 1) recall 10 books read in high school vs. 10 commandments: the ones who tried to recall the commandments didn't cheat. So they tested with people signing an honor code - this also kept people from cheating.
Then they tried to increase the fudge factor. He would put cans of Coke in common fridges. He would also put dollar bills in the same fridges. The Cokes would disappear, the dollars wouldn't.
"Taking a pencil from work feels a lot different than taking a dime."
When paid with a token that could be exchanged for money, subjects cheated twice as much.
Then he prepaid students, did the test and gave subjects the chance to pay back what they didn't earn. They injected actors who pretended to solve all the problems very quickly. Did that make others cheat more? They were in Pittsburgh at Carnegie-Mellon, when the actor getting up had a CMU shirt on, cheating went up. When the actor wore a Pitt shirt, cheating went down. When someone is in the in group and cheats, it sets a norm. But when someone from the out group cheats, awareness of cheating goes up.
Think about this in terms of the stock market...chilling. When you remove the action from money (risky commodities like bundled mortgage funds), what happens?
Many of our intuitions are wrong, but do we test them?
One nurse told him that he didn't take her own pain into consideration - having to remove the bandages from someone she liked, knowing it was painful. She thought her intuition was right and the prospect of pain made it difficult to consider doing an experiment to test that intuition.
-----------------------------------
Sorry peeps, I didn't blog the rest of the day. I'll post some pictures from the Kids' Table Collective, which is basically a parody/commentary on TED. The TED experience was blended with the Wizard of Oz (thanks to a TED@PalmSprings short talk about the inspiration for the Wizard) and I didn't blog this either because I was too busy laughing my head off.
Jamie Cullum did an awesome performance - my favorite was a mash-up of "Singing in the Rain" by Gene Kelly with "Umbrella" by Rihanna.
At the end of the conference, Jamie Cullum took the stage again to play "Imagine" and I don't know what was happening in Long Beach, but in Palm Springs, there was much standing arm-in-arm, hand-in-hand and singing. Utterly hokey but also just right.
Farewell, TED2009!