Letters Remain

  • In Evolution, Adaptability Beats Fitness

    The longest continuous evolution experiment was started in 1988 and is still ongoing. The study, examining the “evolvability” of Escherichia coli (E. coli), has recently surpassed 52,000 generations and has had a sample of the population frozen and saved every 75 days (every 500 generations). The wealth of data obtained is fantastic and these frozen ancestors have been the focus of a recent study that set out to find whether the eventual “evolutionary winners” displayed signs of their genetic superiority hundreds of generations earlier.

    To the researcher’s surprise, the bacterial winners in fact showed the absolute opposite: they were far inferior to the strains of bacteria that died out in later generations. To explain this they discovered that while these ancestors were conventionally less evolutionarily fit (they reproduced at a much slower rate), these “evolutionary winners” were much better at adapting to circumstances and at taking advantage of beneficial mutations. Adaptability trumped fitness.

    “[The idea of] selection for evolvability has been in the air for a long time, but this is one of the first real systematic and explicit demonstrations of this actually happening,” said evolutionary biologist and population geneticist Michael Desai of Harvard University […]

    The first surprise came when the team compared the fitness of four strains — two EWs [eventual winners] and two ELs [eventual losers] — and found that while all four strains had significantly higher fitness than the ancestral strain, the ELs appeared more fit than the EWs. Comparing the four strains directly confirmed the result: The two EW strains were at a significant disadvantage to the ELs. If these strains had not accumulated any more mutations, the researchers estimated the EWs would have gone extinct in just 350 additional generations. […]

    The results suggested that the EWs, while initially at a disadvantage, prevailed in the long-term because they were more likely to acquire more beneficial mutations. In other words, the EWs had greater evolvability.

    This seems like evolutionary evidence for the premise of Tim Harford’s latest book, Adapt.

    Tags:
     / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Against Behavioural Economics and Irrationality

    Praising Maurice Allais as the father of behavioural economics rather than Kahneman and Tversky,  John Kay introduces us to some of Allais’ ideas while simultaneously providing one of the finest arguments against the simplistic view of behavioural economics as the study of irrationality:

    The skill of piecing together sense from fragmented and inaccurate information is a central attribute of human intelligence. Literal interpretation, and insensitivity to context, are not marks of rationality but mental disorders. […]

    The [behavioural economics] experimenter’s trick is to construct an artificial situation in which normally sensible behaviour gives what he thinks is the wrong result. The “mistake” is detected in a meaningless problem designed solely to elicit the “mistake”. […]

    Allais was less concerned to show that our behaviour was irrational than to argue that the premises of rationality itself were irrational. […]

    Allais’ most famous experiment showed that we often treat very high probabilities very differently from certainties, although “rational” individuals would regard them as almost the same thing. But very high probabilities often are different from certainties: very high probabilities are usually derived from calculations whose relevance and validity are themselves uncertain. […]

    Irrationality lies not in failing to conform to some preconceived notion of how we should behave, but in persisting with a course of action that does not work. Sometimes in modern economics and political life, there is a big difference.

    The example Kay uses is a bit glib but does serve its purpose.That last paragraph, however, is the crux of it all. As you may have guessed, this is the Allais that designed the Allais paradox — an experiment in behavioural economics that shows the above wonderfully.

    Tags:
     / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Comedic Writing Tips… Again

    The use of inherently funny topics and words, at least one person, a little exaggeration and a touch of curiosity and danger: these are just some of the essential ingredients for successful humourous writing, says Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert.

    In an essay very similar to a post he wrote almost four years ago (previously), Adams tells us an amusing story about sex and French fries before dissecting it and explaining how to “write like a cartoonist” (i.e. with humour):

    The topic is the thing. Eighty percent of successful humor writing is picking a topic that is funny by its very nature. My story above is true, up until the exaggeration about the French fry in the sinus cavity. You probably assumed it was true, and that knowledge made it funnier.

    Humor likes danger. If you are cautious by nature, writing humor probably isn’t for you. Humor works best when you sense that the writer is putting himself in jeopardy. I picked the French-fry story specifically because it is too risqué for The Wall Street Journal. You can’t read it without wondering if I had an awkward conversation with my editor. […]

    Humor is about people. It’s impossible to write humor about a concept or an object. All humor involves how people think and act. Sometimes you can finesse that limitation by having your characters think and act in selfish, stupid or potentially harmful ways around the concept or object that you want your reader to focus on.

    Exaggerate wisely. If you anchor your story in the familiar, your readers will follow you on a humorous exaggeration, especially if you build up to it. […]

    Let the reader do some work. Humor works best when the reader has to connect some dots. […] The smarter your audience, the wider you can spread the dots. […]

    Animals are funny. It’s a cheap trick, but animal analogies are generally funny. It was funnier that I said, “my cheeks went all chipmunk-like” than if I had said my cheeks puffed out.

    Use funny words. I referred to my two schoolmates and myself as a troika because the word itself is funny. With humor, you never say “pull” when you can say “yank.” Some words are simply funnier than others, and you know the funny ones when you see them. (Pop Quiz: Which word is funnier, observe or stalk?)

    Curiosity. Good writing makes you curious without being too heavy-handed about it. My first sentence in this piece, about the French fry lodged in my sinus cavity, is designed to make you curious. It also sets the tone right away.

    Endings. A simple and classic way to end humorous writing is with a call-back. That means making a clever association to something especially humorous and notable from the body of your work. I would give you an example of that now, but I’m still having concentration issues from the French fry.

    via @brainpicker

    Tags:
     / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Myths About Introverts

    As introverts are a minority—a mere twenty-five percent of the population—there are many persistent misconceptions about the introvert personality among the majority. After reading The Introvert Advantage, Carl King decided to compile a list of myths about introverts, explaining why each misconception is false:

    1. Introverts don’t like to talk.
    2. Introverts are shy.
    3. Introverts are rude.
    4. Introverts don’t like people.
    5. Introverts don’t like to go out in public.
    6. Introverts always want to be alone.
    7. Introverts are weird.
    8. Introverts are aloof nerds.
    9. Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun.
    10. Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.

    The list itself is fairly obvious and pedestrian, but it’s King’s short descriptions that are truly insightful. For example, here are the explanations for myths four, five and six:

    Introverts intensely value the few friends they have. They can count their close friends on one hand. If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life. Once you have earned their respect as being a person of substance, you’re in.

    Introverts just don’t like to go out in public FOR AS LONG. They also like to avoid the complications that are involved in public activities. They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.” They’re ready to go home, recharge, and process it all. In fact, recharging is absolutely crucial for Introverts.

    Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve. But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with. They crave an authentic and sincere connection with ONE PERSON at a time.

    via Link Banana

    Tags:
     /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Commons Picture of the Year

    Every year, the Wikimedia Foundation — the parent organisation of many well-loved projects, such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote and Wikiversity — runs the Commons Picture of the Year competition.

    The aim of the competition is to identify “the best freely-licensed images from those that during the year have been awarded Featured picture status”; an accolade awarded by the community indicating that a picture is one of the finest released into the commons.

    With the first round of voting due to end on the 4th of May, the Fifth Annual Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition has now started. If you’re eligible, get voting: the winners and runners-up from previous years (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) are absolutely breathtaking and this year is sure to be no different.

    Tags:
     / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • The Source of Happiness

    When, after twenty years of marriage, Laura Munson’s husband told her “I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did.“, she chose to not believe him. Not because it didn’t hurt or that she wasn’t taking it personally, but because this wasn’t about her — it was about unmet expectations.

    In yet another touching Modern Love column (is there any other type?), Munson tells an enthralling story of marital and familial disquiet, but also manages to cut to the core of happiness: that the source is not to be found through external validation.

    I’d finally managed to exile the voices in my head that told me my personal happiness was only as good as my outward success, rooted in things that were often outside my control. I’d seen the insanity of that equation and decided to take responsibility for my own happiness. And I mean all of it.

    My husband hadn’t yet come to this understanding with himself. He had enjoyed many years of hard work, and its rewards had supported our family of four all along. But his new endeavor hadn’t been going so well, and his ability to be the breadwinner was in rapid decline. He’d been miserable about this, felt useless, was losing himself emotionally and letting himself go physically. And now he wanted out of our marriage; to be done with our family. […]

    I saw what had been missing: pride. He’d lost pride in himself. Maybe that’s what happens when our egos take a hit in midlife and we realize we’re not as young and golden anymore.

    When life’s knocked us around. And our childhood myths reveal themselves to be just that. The truth feels like the biggest sucker-punch of them all: it’s not a spouse or land or a job or money that brings us happiness. Those achievements, those relationships, can enhance our happiness, yes, but happiness has to start from within. Relying on any other equation can be lethal.

    My husband had become lost in the myth.

    Tags:
     / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Building a Brand In a Recession

    The recent recession saw sales of condoms, guns and burglar alarms soar. This is because, when fear enters our mind in terms of losing our job or of not being able to pay bills, we focus on two of our most basic drives: fear and sex.

    The key to selling and building a brand during financial crises, therefore, is simple: manage fear. Understand how it works and how it affects purchasing behaviour. This advice on brand-building during a recession comes from Martin Lindstrom, ex-advertising agency executive, author of Buyology, and one of TIME‘s 100 Most Influential People in the World, 2009.

    First, there’s always good news in bad times. A standard approach in this situation is to address consumers’ problems. And people always have problems. The fact is we rarely know what we want, but we have no trouble pointing out our difficulties. For example, no one knew they wanted an airbag, but everyone agreed they wanted safer cars.

    It’s therefore important to ask yourself what sort of problems are consumers facing during this economic recession? There are many. […] Convert problems into assets for your brand.

    Second, add a practical dimension to an irrational decision. No matter how much money you may have in the bank, or how secure your employment may be, it’s now fashionable to save your money and buy everything at a discount. What can a brand owner do? Particularly in light of the fact that a discounted brand typically takes seven years to recover!

    The answer is simple. Add a practical dimension to the equation. […]

    Third, you have to systematically remove fear. Hyundai did it. And a stream of new banks are doing it. Both have succeeded in identifying why consumers are reluctant to spend. Once this is understood, then you can harness it and build a better product by addressing the fear and finding a way to eliminate it. Your sales may be down. But do you know why? People are certainly buying less, and explanations like, “Well, there’s a recession going on out there,” are not helpful. What’s important is to understand the fundamental role of fear, and then turn it around to strengthen your brand. Some of the world’s most enduring grocery brands were built on the back of the Great Depression. Each one turned the threat into an opportunity.

    Tags:
     / / / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • The Best of Mark Bittman’s The Minimalist

    Earlier this year The New York Times published the last of Mark Bittman’s The Minimalist: a weekly column designed “to get people cooking simply, comfortably, and well”.

    To honour this occasion he reviewed the 1,000+ dishes that have appeared in his almost 700 columns, the culmination of which is a list of Mark Bittman’s favourite twenty-five recipes from thirteen years of writing The Minimalist:

    via Fat is Flavor (Where you can follow Carl’s progress as he makes all twenty-five of the dishes.)

    Tags:
     /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Food-Based Body Clock the Key to Jet Lag

    The primary cause of jet lag (or desynchronosis as it’s correctly known) is the disruption of our circadian rhythms based on the daily light–dark cycles we experience. However this is only the case when food is in plentiful supply, with new research suggesting that circadian rhythms based on food availability are able to override those of the light-dark cycle. This could offer us a simple and effective way of preventing jet lag: fasting for sixteen hours prior to your new time zone’s breakfast time.

    I mentioned this in passing two years ago (just before undertaking a 25-hour Sydney to London flight), but after recently coming across the study again I felt compelled to point to it in more detail.

    Researchers at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston have now pinpointed a second [biological clock] that is set by the availability of food. […]

    Clifford Saper, the senior author of the study, said this second clock probably takes over when food is scarce. It may have evolved to make sure mammals don’t go to sleep when they should be foraging for food to stay alive.

    Dr. Saper says long-distance travellers can probably use this food clock to adjust rapidly to a new time zone.

    “A period of fasting with no food at all for about 16 hours is enough to engage this new clock,” he said in a statement released with the study. Once you eat again, your internal clock will be reset as though it is the start of a new day […] and you should just flip into that new time zone in one day.

    Tags:
     / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Random Promotions Beat the Peter Principle

    The Peter Principle states that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence” (discussed previously). This principle is typically observed when promotions are rewarded based on an employee’s ability in their current position and provided there is sufficient difference between the two positions.

    In such circumstances, is there a simple way to ‘beat’ the Peter Principle? According to the research that won the 2010 Ig Nobel Prize for Management, yes: promote at random to prevent the principle from coming true (pdf, also: arXiv, doi).

    We obtained the counterintuitive result that the best strategies for improving, or at least for not diminishing,the efficiency of an organization […] are those of promoting an agent at random or of randomly alternating the promotion of the best and the worst members.

    The authors of the study have created a simulation so that you can see the random promotion strategy in action, and it’s worth remembering that this counterintuitive and (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek approach is just one of the possible solutions to the problem described by the Peter Principle.

    Reading up on this, I also came across the rather elegant Generalised Peter Principle, originating from observations regarding hardware at nuclear power plants:

    Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. […] There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope.

    Tags:
     / / / /

    Lloyd Morgan