Blog Assignment #4 - Edge Question

Bruce Sterling: http://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#sterling
Leonard Susskind: http://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#susskind

Bruce Sterling’s five-word response to the 2005 question was, “we’re in for climatic mayhem.” Without too much guessing, Mr. Sterling, author of Globalhead, is referring to the adverse effects of global warming and potentially disastrous climate changes in the future. He states that his prediction is part of his intuition, which is probably based on his factual reasoning. Perhaps, his statement conceals a deep sense of sarcasm, insinuating how those ignorant (which includes President Bush) of global warming constantly deny that the current climate change is a benign natural cycle. The undeniable “truth” Mr. Sterling is referring to is that anthropogenic warming and raising temperature levels are clearly evident and will lead to mayhem and destruction in the future, again contrary to the belief of “nonbelievers.” Although climate change requires immense volumes of data collection over long periods of time recently, scientists, some who have been pressured by the Bush Administration to downplay their findings, revealed that global climate change have been induced by humans and pose a danger to the world’s welfare. Mr. Sterling’s claim is most probably correct and maybe we are in for a ride.

Another intensely interesting response is a dialogue about probability theory created by Leonard Susskind, which is extremely logical and reason-based. In this dialogue, a “slow student” questions his professor about the facts in his own coil flip experiment. At several instances, he reaches the conclusion that the number of heads and number of tails will adhere to the calculated margin of error, especially if given a “large” number of enough flips. To his confusion and dismay, Dr. Susskind responses with only “probablies.” Having taken a college course on decision theory, I find that this conversation is quite fascinating. According to the law of large numbers, the percentage difference between heads and tails will become smaller and smaller as the number of flips increase. Eventually, given enough flips the percentage difference between heads and tails become absolutely tiny. However, there is still that margin of error, which the professor stated, and, of course, there is also no certain guarantee that the percentage of heads and tails will be about 50-50. Yet, based on probability theory and statistical mechanics, the percentage of heads and tails should be near equal as the professor stated. When the professor says that he would be “surprised” if it were not the case, I interpret it as the professor would be expecting that the law of large numbers is intact. In the end of the dialogue, Dr. Susskind writes, “If I were to flip a coin a million times I'd be damn sure I wasn't going to get all heads…I'd be so sure that I'd bet my life or my soul…I'm absolutely certain the laws of large numbers—probability theory—will work and protect me. All of science is based on it.” Without a doubt I agree that the chances of flipping a coin a million over one trial is near impossible (and with good reason), as getting all heads when the coin is flipped one million times is 1 to 2 raised to the millionth power. Maybe after the 2^1,000,000 trial, which means you would have to flip the coin 1,000,000 X 2^1,000,000 times, you may have succeed in obtaining all heads just once—not good odds to bet on…

My Unproven Truth: We have preconceptions of everyone we as soon as that person—a stranger—enter into our perception, and thus we subconsciously make judgments before we even make verbal communication with other people. Furthermore, I believe that we associate that stranger based on the past appearances of acquaintances who radiate a similar appearance and style. Physically, we create ingrained biased perceptions and immediately form emotions about that stranger, who we never have interacted before, as a result. The constant frequency of perception that instantaneously triggers our emotions layers into the fat of prejudice. Most times, it is difficult to push against and change our emotion on what we reason as our "core" beliefs, which drives that formation of the first impression. Yet, although difficult, our prejudices can be conquered through cultural interaction and willed acceptance (in other words, compelled, whether by thyself or by others). Through further reasoning, delving deep into the mind, willingly shaping the subconscious, and gaining more life experiences, we hold the power to alter our emotional responses when we see people and have the ability to genuinely adapt a new, positive attitude and language during these situations.

TedTalks - Barry Schwartz

This guy is my decision making hero: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_schwartz.

Steven Levitt makes the analogy of gangs to economics: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=s_levitt. Great parallels...