Edge 342 — May 3, 2011
(7,100 words)

The Third Culture

The Argumentative Theory
A Conversation
with Hugo Mercier

MUSEUM OF MODERN ART - ACCESS TO TOOLS: PUBLICATIONS FROM THE WHOLE EARTH CATALOG 1968- 1974

"Some of the Corpses are Amusing"

Edge In The News

TheScientist, DePers, PsychCentral, SunStar, Aftenpoften.no, IlSole, reasonline



THE ARGUMENTATIVE THEORY
A Conversation with Hugo Mercier

Introduction

Last July, opening the Edge Seminar, "The New Science of Morality", Jonathan Haidt digressed to talk about two recently-published papers in Behavioral and Brain Sciences which he believed were "so important that the abstracts from them should be posted in psychology departments all over the country."

One of the papers "Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory," published by Behavioral and Brain Sciences, was by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. 

"The article,” Haidt said, "is a review of a puzzle that has bedeviled researchers in cognitive psychology and social cognition for a long time. The puzzle is, why are humans so amazingly bad at reasoning in some contexts, and so amazingly good in others?"

"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, "The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things."

"Now, the authors point out that we can and do re-use our reasoning abilities. We're sitting here at a conference. We're reasoning together. We can re-use our argumentative reasoning for other purposes. But even there, it shows the marks of its heritage. Even there, our thought processes tend towards confirmation of our own ideas. Science works very well as a social process, when we can come together and find flaws in each other's reasoning. We can't find the problems in our own reasoning very well. But, that's what other people are for, is to criticize us. And together, we hope the truth comes out."

Dan Sperber, an influential French social and cognitive scientist, is widely recognized as being among the most brilliant cognitive scientists writing about reason, language, culture, and human evolution. Hugo Mercier, his former student, is a post-doc at University of Pennsylvania and coauthor with Sperber of a number of papers.

Their Argumentative Theory has already generated much excitement in the academic community. Reaction — from heated rejection to enthusiastic acceptation — have never been indifferent. The paper has created a storm of interest and controversy and has has attracted attention well beyond academic circles. Sharon Begley (Newsweek) and Jonah Lehrer (Wired) were among the many journalists who wrote stories.  In addition, many leading thinkers have taken note.

Gerd Gigerenzer finds this view on reasoning is most provocative as "reasoning is not about truth but about convincing others when trust alone is not enough. Doing so may seem irrational, but it is in fact social intelligence at its best." Steven Pinker notes that "The Argumentative Theory is original and provocative, has a large degree of support, and is strikingly relevant to contemporary affairs, including political discourse, higher education, and the nature of reason and rationality. It is likely to have a big impact on our understanding of ourselves and current affairs."

And Jonathan Haidt says the “the article is one of my favorite papers of the last ten years. I believe that they have solved one of the most important and longstanding puzzles in psychology: why are we so good at reasoning in some cases, but so hopelessly biased in others? Once I read their paper, I saw the argumentative function" of reasoning everywhere — particularly in the reasoning of people I disagreed with, but also occasionally even in myself. They're on to a very powerful idea with many social and educational ramifications."

JB


HUGO MERCIER
is a cognitive scientist and a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He did his doctoral work under Sperber's supervision on reasoning and argumentation and he has published many articles on the argumentative theory, several of them in collaboration with Sperber.


THE ARGUMENTATIVE THEORY

[Mercier:] Dan Sperber came up with the argumentative theory because he was taking stock of what was happening in the world of psychology at large. A lot of people in psychology were accumulating evidence that the mind, and reasoning in particular, doesn't work so well. Reasoning produces a lot of mistakes. We are not very good in statistics, and we can't understand very basic logical problems.

We do all these irrational things, and despite mounting results, people are not really changing their basic assumption. They are not challenging the basic idea that reasoning is for individual purposes. The premise is that reasoning should help us make better decisions, get at better beliefs. And if you start from this premise, then it follows that reasoning should help us deal with logical problems and it should help us understand statistics. But reasoning doesn't do all these things, or it does all these things very, very poorly.
                                 
But for some reason, psychologists are unable to challenge this basic premise that reasoning really is supposed to help us. And that's why Dan Sperber came up with the idea that reasoning doesn't have this function of helping us get better beliefs and make better decisions. Instead, reasoning is for argumentation. Dan's basic idea is that the function of reasoning, the reason it evolved, is to help us convince other people and to evaluate their arguments.
                                 
Here we have a radically different idea that stands apart from the common wisdom in psychology, cognitive science, and even in philosophy. In Western thought, for at least the last couple hundred years, people have thought that reasoning was purely for individual reasons. But Dan challenged this idea and said that it was a purely social phenomenon and that the goal was argumentative, the goal was to convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.
                                 
And the beauty of this theory is that not only is it more evolutionarily plausible, but it also accounts for a wide range of data in psychology. Maybe the most salient of phenomena that the argumentative theory explains is the confirmation bias.
                                 
Psychologists have shown that people have a very, very strong, robust confirmation bias. What this means is that when they have an idea, and they start to reason about that idea, they are going to mostly find arguments for their own idea. They're going to come up with reasons why they're right, they're going to come up with justifications for their decisions. They're not going to challenge themselves.
                                 
And the problem with the confirmation bias is that it leads people to make very bad decisions and to arrive at crazy beliefs. And it's weird, when you think of it, that humans should be endowed with a confirmation bias. If the goal of reasoning were to help us arrive at better beliefs and make better decisions, then there should be no bias. The confirmation bias should really not exist at all. We have a very strong conflict here between the observations of empirical psychologists on the one hand and our assumption about reasoning on the other.
                                 
But if you take the point of view of the argumentative theory, having a confirmation bias makes complete sense. When you're trying to convince someone, you don't want to find arguments for the other side, you want to find arguments for your side. And that's what the confirmation bias helps you do.
                                 
The idea here is that the confirmation bias is not a flaw of reasoning, it's actually a feature. It is something that is built into reasoning; not because reasoning is flawed or because people are stupid, but because actually people are very good at reasoning — but they're very good at reasoning for arguing. Not only does the argumentative theory explain the bias, it can also give us ideas about how to escape the bad consequences of the confirmation bias.
                                 
People mostly have a problem with the confirmation bias when they reason on their own, when no one is there to argue against their point of view. What has been observed is that often times, when people reason on their own, they're unable to arrive at a good solution, at a good belief, or to make a good decision because they will only confirm their initial intuition.
                                 
On the other hand, when people are able to discuss their ideas with other people who disagree with them, then the confirmation biases of the different participants will balance each other out, and the group will be able to focus on the best solution. Thus, reasoning works much better in groups. When people reason on their own, it's very likely that they are going to go down a wrong path. But when they're actually able to reason together, they are much more likely to reach a correct solution.
                                 
The confirmation bias is one of the main phenomena that the argumentative theory can explain. Another one quickly is what psychologists call 'reason-based choice.' When we make a decision, people try to reason about their decision. They try to see if they are making the right choice. But while they are trying to make the right choice, the effect their reasoning has on their decision is not necessarily to drive them towards a good decision, but simply to drive them towards a decision that they can justify.
                                 
Because reasoning is just trying to find arguments, it is going to find arguments for the different options. And the option that is the best supported is going to be the one that wins, even if it's not necessarily the best decision. These are just two of the many phenomena that the theory can explain. But the theory also has practical applications beyond providing us with a deeper understanding of psychology. I'm just going to cite two, maybe the most important.
                                 
One of them pertains to education.

People have noticed that it's difficult to teach kids abstract topics like mathematics or physics. One method, the method that has maybe been the most effective at teaching kids these difficult topics has been corroborative learning. Over the last 30 years, education researchers have noticed that the best way to teach kids difficult or abstract problems is to put them in groups and to have them reason together about the topic. If you take a group of kids and you give them a problem to solve together, and you give them certain constraints, then you obtain a much, much deeper understanding than you would ever obtain if the kids were on their own. That is the first important practical consequence of our theory.
                                 
The second one is in politics.

The theory fits in very well with the idea of deliberative democracy. In deliberative democracy, the idea is that people should argue with one another more often, and that instead of simply using voting as a way of aggregating opinion, people should instead be deliberating with one another, they should be discussing their ideas, they should be sharing their points of views and criticizing each other's point of view.
                                 
And as this huge movement in political science tries to argue for deliberative democracy, they performed experiments to show the validity of this technique. Indeed, it has been shown to work quite effectively in quite a few cases. And our theory can both provide an explanation for why deliberative democracy can be helpful and effective. It can also help us perfect the way deliberative democracy can work by making us better understand how it works, and in what circumstances it can really help.
              
Up to now, our work has mostly been one of reviewing the literature in psychology and trying to aggregate all these results. There is a huge literature in empirical psychology, coming from social psychology, from decision making, from reasoning, showing that people have all these sort of biases. And then also this literature, as I was saying, in education, in political science. We've been reviewing that literature, and rather than trying to do our own little experiments, we have been trying to make sense of these thousands and thousands of data points to integrate them into a single theory.
                                 
This activity accounts for most of our work, and I believe that there is a place for it in psychology. Rather than doing experimental empirical research, we take a step back and look at what has been done and make sense of it.
                                   
Imagine, at some point in the past, two of our ancestors who can't reason. They can't argue with one another. And basically as soon as they disagree with one another, they're stuck. They can't try to convince one another. They are bound to keep not cooperating, for instance, because they can't find a way to agree with each other. And that's where reasoning becomes important.
                                 
We know that in the evolutionary history of our species, people collaborated a lot. They collaborated to hunt, they collaborated to gather food, and they collaborated to raise kids. And in order to be able to collaborate effectively, you have to communicate a lot. You have to tell other people what you want them to do, and you have to tell them how you feel about different things.
                                 
But then once people start to communicate, a host of new problems arise. The main problem posed by communication in an evolutionary context is that of deceiving interlocutors. When I am talking to you, if you accept everything I say then it's going to be fairly easy for me to manipulate you into doing things that you shouldn't be doing. And as a result, people have a whole suite of mechanisms that are called epistemic vigilance, which they use to evaluate what other people tell them.
                                 
If you tell me something that disagrees with what I already believe, my first reaction is going to be to reject what you're telling me, because otherwise I could be vulnerable. But then you have a problem. If you tell me something that I disagree with, and I just reject your opinion, then maybe actually you were right and maybe I was wrong, and you have to find a way to convince me. This is where reasoning kicks in. You have an incentive to convince me, so you're going to start using reasons, and I'm going to have to evaluate these reasons. That's why we think reasoning evolved.
                                   
Dan Sperber is the first author to come up with this theory — reasoning is for argumentation — in a well-formed way. He was influenced by the two best-known evolutionary psychologists, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, who introduced him to the idea that the human mind was mostly made up of mechanisms designed by evolution for a specific function.

Dan took this idea further, in the direction of massive modularity, and he applied it quite successfully in a variety of domains. The basic idea of evolutionary psychology is to take the power of natural selection and evolutionary theory and apply it to the human mind. It has encountered a lot of resistance in the past, partly for political reasons, because people thought evolutionary psychology necessarily had to be on the right of the political spectrum and that there was a danger that by saying that too many things were innate, that you could, for instance, say that one race was inferior to another — or those sort of things.

But even if we discount these political attacks that might have been founded at some point (but are probably not anymore) there is one main attack against evolutionary psychology that remains— which is that evolutionary psychologists are mostly telling 'just-so' stories. The idea here is that they are just coming up with evolutionary theories of why something evolved, and you can't falsify them, and so they're not scientific.
                                 
That this is not true at all, and that evolutionary psychologists are following the same methodology as any evolutionary biologist. They are taking inspiration from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and they are trying to derive new theories about how the mind works and what is the function of different cognitive mechanisms. But then they can really test these hypotheses. The way it works is basically you say that that mechanism X (in our case, reasoning) has a given function. We think that reasoning, in our case, has the function of arguing. And then you can see if this function fits with the way reasoning works.
                                 
Imagine you're doing that with an artifact. If you have a hammer, and you make the hypothesis that the hammer is designed to screw screws, then you can try to screw something with a hammer, and it's not going to work so well, so you can discard your hypothesis. It's not true that a functional hypothesis is not falsifiable. You can easily take your hypothesis and say, this is wrong, this doesn't work.
                                 
And in our case, what we've done is we've said, okay, we are going to postulate that the functioning of reasoning is to argue, and we're going to see where this leads us and see whether the empirical evidence supports our idea or not. And the way you do that is you take the hypothesis about the function of reasoning, and you derive predictions about what reasoning should do, when it should work well, when it should not work well, how it should work, etc.

That's what we did. We predicted that reasoning would work rather poorly when people reason on their own, and that is the case. We predicted that people would reason better when they reason in groups of people who disagree, and that is the case. We predicted that reasoning would have a confirmation bias, and that is the case.
                                 
When you take all of these predictions, it becomes very hard to say that the theory is wrong or even that the theory is not falsifiable, because if these predictions had turned out to be false, then the theory would have been falsified. It's possible to develop evolutionary theories of the human mind. Not only is it possible, it opens up a very important heuristic to understand the mind. If you don't use evolutionary theory it's likely that you're going to end up using your intuitions about what the mind is supposed to do. And these intuitions have no reason to be right.
                                 
Then again, the starting point of our theory was this contrast between all the results showing that reasoning doesn't work so well and the assumption that reasoning is supposed to help us make better decisions. But this assumption was not based on any evolutionary thinking, it was just an intuition that was probably cultural in the West, people think that reasoning is a great thing.

And they never challenge that intuition. It's something that evolutionary psychology could have done a long time ago, and if people had perhaps taken more time and had taken evolutionary psychology more seriously, they might have been able to revise this likely faulty premise a while ago.

I already cited two of the many consequences for the argumentative theory — one for education and one for politics. But even in our personal lives it's quite important to keep in mind that when we're reasoning on our own, it's quite possible that we're going to arrive at false conclusions and misleading decisions. If you take a very intuitive example, let's say you have a quarrel with your partner and you go to brood over what happened in your room. And you keep thinking about why it was all his or her fault, and why you did everything that was possible to make things right, and you know it really has nothing to do with you. You find many, many reasons why you didn't do anything wrong, and it's all the other person's fault.

On the other hand, if you had discussed the same thing with someone who might have been more neutral, then that person might have been able to tell you that perhaps you did something that wasn't quite right, and maybe there your partner was actually correct. In our lives, it is important to keep in mind the pitfalls that individual reasoning can lead us to, and this can stop us from making poor decisions because we've been trapped by our confirmation bias.

In our theory, what's important to keep in mind is that reasoning is used in a very technical sense. And sometimes not only laymen, but philosophers, and sometimes psychologists tend to use "reasoning" in an overly broad way, in which basically reasoning can mean anything you do with your mind.

By contrast, the way we use the term "reasoning" is very specific. And we're only referring to what reasoning is supposed to mean in the first place, when you're actually processing reasons. Most of the decisions we make, most of the inferences we make, we make without processing reasons. For instance, if you are going to cross the street and you see a car coming towards you, you don't have to reason and say well, because the car is coming towards me and because it's coming quite fast, maybe I had better not cross now. It comes up fairly spontaneously.

Or to take another example, when you're shopping for cereals at the supermarket, and you just grab a box of cereal not because you've reasoned through all the alternatives, but just because it's the one you always buy. And you're just doing the same thing. There is no reasoning involved in that decision.

By contrast, you can reason about the same choices. For instance, if once again you're back in the supermarket aisles, and you have to make the same choice, but this time you have to buy some chocolate spread and you never bought chocolate spread before, you're going to look at the different brands, you're going to look at the prices, you're going to look at their calorie content, and then you're going to reason through the tradeoffs, etc. And in that case, you're considering reasons why you should buy one chocolate spread and not the other.

And here you're using reasoning. It's only when you're considering reasons, reasons to do something, reasons to believe, that you're reasoning. If you're just coming up with ideas without reasons for these ideas, then you're using your intuitions.

We have been lucky enough that the main paper describing the theory was published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, the main journal in cognitive science. The journal is perfect for presenting the theory, because it claims that people reason better when they reason together. And the journal 's format is such that the published paper is followed by commentaries by leading figures in the field, after which the authors have the opportunity to reply. We've had these very interesting exchanges with several important figures in the field, and it was very useful and satisfying.

And we've published other papers. We hope to make our ideas known to a wider audience, not only in academia, which it already has done to a large extent, but also beyond academia as well. Given the practical consequences, we see it being integrated into decision-making in areas as disparate as building organizations, education, and politics, etc.

[PERMALINK]


MUSEUM OF MODERN ART — ACCESS TO TOOLS: PUBLICATIONS FROM THE WHOLE EARTH CATALOG 1968-1974


Stewart Brand, 1971 (Rolling Stone

Introduction 
By John Brockman

 

In the MOMA exhibit ACCESS TO TOOLS: Publications from theWhole Earth Catalog 1968-1974, David Senior, Bibliographer of the MoMA Library gives due credit to Stewart Brand's early years as member of the USCO ("US" company), an anonymous group of artists whose installations and events combined multiple audio and visual inputs, including film, slides, video, lighting, music, and random sounds. That's where I first met Stewart Brand in 1965. We hit it off immediately and have been in touch consistently for the past forty-six years, and from the outset, he has been one of the key advisors and contributors to Edge.

Edge is pleased to point its readers to the online MOMA exhibit about Brand's influential early work. For background about those years, check out the introduction to the the Edge excerpt of "Stewart Brand Meets the Cybernetic Counterculture" from Fred Turner's book From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism.

STEWART BRAND is the founder and original editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, (Winner of the National Book Award). He is cofounder and co-chairman of The Long Now Foundation.

April 18–July 26, 2011

The Museum of Modern Art

11 West 53 Street  New York, NY 10019
(212) 708-9400 

Mezzanine, The Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Education and Research Building

Also online: View The exhibition site

Whole Earth Catalog, spring 1969

In 1968, Stewart Brand founded the Whole Earth Catalog. Brand’s goals were to make a variety of tools accessible to newly dispersed counterculture communities, back-to-the-land households, and innovators in the fields of technology, design, and architecture, and to create a community meeting-place in print. The catalogue quickly developed into a wide-ranging reference for new living spaces, sustainable design, and experimental media and community practices. After only a few years of publication it exploded in popularity, becoming a formidable cultural phenomenon.

Function, from Whole Earth Catalog

Books, selected and described by the editorial staff and organized in sections titled Understanding Whole Systems, Shelter and Land Use, Communication, and Community, were the primary resources the Whole Earth Catalog offered. This exhibition of printed matter in the collection of The Museum of Modern Art Library surveys these publications and summarizes the history of the catalogue project. The selection does not represent all the subjects the catalogue featured, but it reflects the publication’s focus on experimental ideas in design and technology and the dialogue between theorists and practitioners these ideas raised.

Advertisement for Whole Earth Catalog in Whole Earth Catalog

This exhibition is organized by David Senior, Bibliographer, MoMA Library.


Introducing the Whole Earth


 

Tulane Drama Review, fall 1966

Prior to publishing the Whole Earth Catalog, Stewart Brand was a member of the art collective USCO, known primarily for its experimental light and sound environments and film projections mounted in museums, dance clubs, theaters, and universities. This feature about USCO includes an image of a pinback button by Brand reading, “Why haven’t we seen a photograph of the whole Earth yet?” He distributed the button widely as part of a campaign for public access to images taken during United States space missions. He believed that a picture of the entire planet would be a unifying force in the management of global ecological challenges.



Whole Earth Catalog, spring 1969

The release of photographs taken during early space missions coincided with the first issues of the Whole Earth Catalog. Brand pioneered the publication and dissemination of the images, putting them on the covers of the first catalogue, in fall 1968, and all successive issues. Throughout its run, the catalogue consistently advertised the pictures and provided instructions for ordering them from the government.


Thomas Albright and Charles Perry. The Last Twelve Hours of the Whole Earth Catalog, in Rolling Stone,no. 86 (July 8, 1971).

[PERMALINK]


"Some of the Corpses are Amusing"

 

While walking through MOMA en route to the Exhibit of Stewart Brand's Whole Earth publications, I recalled another USCO collaboration in which USCO artist Judi Stern and I collaborated on the silk-screen on metalized mylar version of the poster I created for the Monkee's movie, HEAD. The poster is part of MOMA's permanent collection and is usually on display.

John Brockman (American, born 1941)
Judy Stern

Head 1969

Poster for a film directed by Bob Rafelson
Silkscreen on aluminized Mylar

Gift of Columbia Pictures, 1969

This poster promoted the 1968 psychedelic comedy film Head, written by Bob Rafelson and Jack Nicholson and directed by Rafelson. John Brockman, a young producer associated with Andy Warhol's Factory, created the trailer and adversting for the film using images of his own head, even though he does not appear in the film.Head's starsare the Monkees, the "prefab four," created for a mid-1960s American television series. The Monkees approached this project as a chacne to disassociate themselves rom the media machine that had created them. (They sing, "Hey, hey, we're the Mondees / You know we love to please / A manufactured image / With no philosophies.") The plotless film presents series of wacky vignettes filled with pop-culture parodies and musical numbers.

The original b&w poster, the basis of a national ad campagn by Columbia Pictures, had nothing to do with my own head. (But then, neither did the movie). It was based on the cropped photograph of the screen of a television set in the Columbia studios in Burbank on which the one-minute version of the silent movie trailer of my head was playing. In the mylar version, the viewer sees his or her own head reflected while looking at the silk-screened image. Same also on the record album cover I designed using mylar. The press missed the point; but the art world certainly got it.

While I searched the MOMA site for a link to the poster (to no avail),  I came across a rather strange Website called "Some of the Corpses Are Amusing", in which somebody put in an extraordinary amount of time presenting a very detailed report on a somewhat obscure movie made 43 years ago. It's more than anyone can possibly ever want to know about the movie HEAD or my role in it.

[click here]

HEAD, by the way, was the first of six movies produced by Bob Rafelson, Bert Schneider, and Steve Blauner (BBS Productions), a company that was also a community that also included Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, and Peter Fonda. Even me. Their second movie, Easy Rider changed Hollywood forever. Other films included Five Easy Pieces and The Last Picture Show. (The entire collection along with a documentary was just issued in a boxed set.)

"There was a lot of work put into the HEAD piece on their website," wrote one of the Hollywood people involved in making the movie, "not flattering or accurate sometimes, but detailed. Stuff I either didn't know or forgot (hard to distinguish these days).

As regards their reporting on my role, detailed as it is, it's not what happened. And don't even try to guess. Only a handful of people know the real story and no one is about to tell it ... yet. Toward the late 60s, the Monkees, through their TV show, records, merchandise, were the biggest act in show business. At the time I was told they were bigger than The Beatles and Elvis combined. The story behind my involvement in HEAD is not about celebrity culture, music or art. It is an interesting story about business. As Gregory Bateson used to point out, the map is not the territory, the thing is not the thing, and in this case, my head is not ...

But give the Corpse crowd credit for effort, and and also applause for pointing to the seminal role USCO played in the set of ideas Stewart Brand and I have been talking about for years. Brand's main USCO connection was the engaging and charismatiic artist Steve Durkee, who left USCO around 1968 and today is known as Shaykh Abdullah Nooruddeen Durkee, a Muslim scholar, thinker, author, and translator. I frequently collaborated with the Beat poet Gerd Stern. Below are photos of the Shaykh (May 2007) and Stern (1980).

For more on this scene, download Gerd Stern's oral history, compiled and archived by UC-Berkeley: "From Beat Scene Poet to Psychedelic Multimedia Artist in San Francisco and Beyond, 1948-1978"


GERD STERN (Excerpt): "When I had been working with John Brockman in New York, we got a lot of publicity — The New York Times magazine — and there was national and international interest in our work. People would call up and ask us things. One time we got a call from Hollywood, from Bert Schneider and Bob Rafelson, asking us if we would be interested in consulting with them about a project that they were doing at the time. Bert is the son of the former head of Columbia pictures, Abe Schneider. A very substantial force in the industry. They met us in New York, and they explained to us that they were doing this film with the Monkees, and it was a very far-out film. They were both big heads. Mucho smoke, in quantities that were impossible for me to even conceive of. The Monkees were not exactly what we thought of as our kind of culture, but they brought us out and paid us royally. John got the lion's share: he wound up with a yellow Jaguar sports car out of this gig. This is still during the days of USCO at the church, what we're talking about, more or less. It was winding down; I think it was after Barbara and Steve had left for the coast."

"We weren't quite sure of how to handle this scene, but it was interesting; it was a very odd movie, the way it was shaping up. It had a lot of surrealistic aspects to it. The problem that they had was how to promote and how to name it and just kind of--we were communications experts, right? We were friends with and worked with McLuhan, and all these things and they were hip. I decided a great name for the picture would be "Head." Don't ask me why. It seemed like a name that people would really grab on to — and they loved it. Then I said, "The poster has to be somebody's head. It's gotta be a really wild poster."

Enjoy. ...

[...Continue to Some of the Corpses Are Amusing]

[PERMALINK]



May 1, 2011

Channeling the Microbiome
By Sarah Greene

This year, Edge.org’s annual question asked scientists “What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit?” Stewart Brand’s wonderfully articulate response begins by recalling Carl Woese’s estimate that bacteria make up 80 percent of Earth’s biomass:

Microbes run our atmosphere. They also run much of our body. The human microbiome in our gut, mouth, skin, and elsewhere, harbors 3,000 kinds of bacteria with 3 million distinct genes. (Our own cells struggle by on only 18,000 genes or so.)…This biotech century will be microbe enhanced and maybe microbe inspired….Confronting a difficult problem we might fruitfully ask, “What would a microbe do?”

No surprise that the originator of the Whole Earth Catalog and cofounder of one of the Internet’s first robust communities, “The WELL” (Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link), would invoke the emerging field of “sociomicrobiology.” Pioneered by my one of my doctoral advisors at Cornell, E. Peter Greenberg (now at the University of Washington), this discipline uses the term quorum sensing—broadly defined as a decision-making process used by decentralized groups to coordinate behavior—to describe the biochemistry and molecular biology of environmental sensing and communication in bacteria. Of particular interest are the mechanisms by which bacteria switch from a nomadic existence to life in a biofilm, where living en masse helps them survive the action of antibiotics.

....continue



April 4, 2011

Channeling the Microbiome [google translation]
By Kristel Segeren & Arjan Terpstra

Creates new media technologies are now happy or not? A new breed of e-philosophers brings the head racing. We picked the best thinkers on: people with the most extreme views on your Internet, games or smartphone use.

Games are not just games, friendly people. No, his "happiness machines'. A brutal ramming game God of War is not a stupid escapism, but a way of "positive emotions" to call, strengthen relationships, "to achieve something in life." Games have an intrinsic value: you can really be a better person along.

Signed: Jane McGonigal, author of the bestselling American Reality is Broken. Why Games Make Us Better And How They Can Change The World. After years of having worked in game design, she is by her book guru of the moment the game has become. Last month, at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, she was one of the main speakers. Game developers and journalists hanging on her every word, clapping their hands part towards this new star in the circuit of lectures on technology.

And why? Because they are games (and by extension new media) will benefit. In the three or four decades that the medium is video games, the general idea about escapism that gaming is hollow, something that humanity at its best is less sociable, and at worst sadistic, amoral and violent. Is it any wonder that an average game developer sees the sun shining in a speech in which the 'exodus to virtual life and salvation of man is seen, not as a threat?

 

....continue



May 3, 2011

Analyzing the Thinking Process: Interview with Diane Halpern
By Jamie Hale

Diane Halpern is a professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College; she is the former president of the American Psychological Association and former president of the Western Psychological Association. Halpern has won many awards for her teaching and research, including the 2002 Outstanding Professor Award from the Western Psychological Association, the 1999 American Psychological Foundation Award for Distinguished Teaching, and the Silver Medal Award from the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. She has also authored a variety of books.

Here are some of Halpern’s views on the thinking process.

What is the goal of critical thinking? Is critical thinking rational thinking?

Critical thinking is good thinking or clear thinking—it involves analyzing the thinking process as well as the outcome. People who think well (use the skills of critical thinking) make better decisions across all areas of their lives. It is reasoned thinking—supporting beliefs and actions with good reasons.

....continue



April 6, 2011

Internet and modern parenting
By Janette Toral

LAST week, I started reading the book “Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?,” which has a compilation of insights from several thinkers and edited by John Brockman.

I am not yet finished with the book but the insights I gained have brought about interesting questions and I’m sure if you read the book, it will also make you ponder.

 

....continue



April 3, 2011

The Brain Is No longer Alone
By PER KRISTIAN BJØRKENG

To think of how the Internet has changed our way of thinking. What can be more difficult than that? More woolly? The only thing that is certain is that an answer with two lines below do not exist. But let's try. Try to think, as we think today, the new way.
It will be global. Three words should stay, "Digital thoughtfully effects" in the search field. 117 million hits. No relevant results on the first page. Obviously it is a question worth asking....

....continue



April 3, 2011

Ecosystem Stories
By Luca De Biase

The enormous impact of technology Internet users in the narrative, the political coordination, day to day organization, individual action has occurred so quickly that the questions about its cultural consequences are still unanswered. What becomes of the memory in the era of the Internet? What happens to research, to philosophy, to the astonishment? How to change the thinking of those who dive into the network? To answer these questions, I met some years ago Bodei Remo, Professor of the History of Philosophy at the University of Pisa. The architecture of the university invited to tune in to the long duration of culture, furniture denounced the limited resources devoted to philosophical research by the University, the computer on the desk reminded of the urgency of the questions....

....continue



March 29, 2011

From the Edge: What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody's Cognitive Toolkit?
By Ronald Bailey

This interesting David Brooks column in today's New York Times alerted me to the Edge.org's latest World Question: What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody's Cognitive Toolkit? What particularly caught my attention was 2002 Economics Nobelist Daniel Kahneman's entry on the "focusing illusion" which he summarizes as: "Nothing In Life Is As Important As You Think It Is, While You Are Thinking About It." Kahneman asserts:

Education is an important determinant of income — one of the most important — but it is less important than most people think. If everyone had the same education, the inequality of income would be reduced by less than 10%. When you focus on education you neglect the myriad other factors that determine income. The differences of income among people who have the same education are huge.

Kahneman is reminding us that we all know lots of people who did really well in their elite (and not-so-elite) universities and who are now not making extraordinary amounts of money.

My own answer would be that people's thinking would strongly benefit from a greater understanding of economics. Happily, it turns out that behavioral scientist Dylan Evans agrees:

It is not hard to identify the discipline in which to look for the scientific concept that would most improve everybody's cognitive toolkit; it has to be economics. No other field of study contains so many ideas ignored by so many people at such great cost to themselves and the world. The hard task is picking just one of the many such ideas that economists have developed.

On reflection, I plumped for the law of comparative advantage, which explains how trade can be beneficial for both parties even when one of them is more productive than the other in every way. At a time of growing protectionism, it is more important than ever to reassert the value of free trade. Since trade in labor is roughly the same as trade in goods, the law of comparative advantage also explains why immigration is almost always a good thing — a point which also needs emphasizing at a time when xenophobia is on the rise.

In the face of well-meaning but ultimately misguided opposition to globalization, we must celebrate the remarkable benefits which international trade has brought us, and fight for a more integrated world.

I've only just begun to dip into the various answers to the Edge.org question, but another answer that I strongly agree with is from the Economist's digital editor Tom Standage who points out that "you can show something is definitely dangerous, but not definitely safe." As he correctly notes:

A wider understanding of the fact that you can't prove a negative would, in my view, do a great deal to upgrade the public debate around science and technology....Scientists are often accused of logic-chopping when they point this out. But it would be immensely helpful to public discourse if there was a wider understanding that you can show something is definitely dangerous, but you cannot show it is definitely safe.

The result of the public's failure to understand this is the continuing rise of the most pernicious idea of the 21st century so far, the precautionary principle.

....continue


THE EDGE QUESTION BOOK SERIES
Edited by John Brockman
HARPER PERRENNIAL — ONLINE & BOOKSTORES

"An intellectual treasure trove"An intellectual treasure trove...Best three or four hours of intense, enlightening reading you can do for the new year""
San Francisco Chronicle


IS THE INTERNET CHANING THE WAY YOU THINK? (*)
The Net's Impact On Our Minds And Future

Edited By John Brockman
Harper Perennial

"Edge is an organization of deep, visionary thinkers." —Atlantic.com

NOW IN BOOKSTORES AND ONLINE!


[click to enlarge]

Contributors include STEVEN PINKER on how the mind adapts to new technologies • NASSIM N TALEB on the destruction of precise knowledge • RICHARD DAWKINS on the consequences of infinite information • NICHOLAS CARR in the future of deep thought • HELEN FISHER on finding love and romance thought the Net • Wikipedia cofounder LARRY SANGER on the promise and pitfalls of the "hive mind" • SAM HARRIS on the wired brain • BRIAN ENO on finding authenticity in a world of endless reproduction

Other thinkers include tech theorists TIM O'REILLY, CLAY SHIRKY. DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF, and EVGENY MOROZOV; founding Wired editor KEVIN KELLY; Google Executive MARISSA MAYER; computer scientists JARON LANIER; Philosopher DANIEL C. DENNETT; physicists FRANK WILCZEK, MARTIN REES, LISA RANDALL, LEE SMOLIN; psychologist MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI; geneticist GEORGE CHURCH; novelists TOM McCARTHY and DOUGLAS COUPLAND; actor ALAN ALDA; artists MARINA ABRAMAMOVIC and AI WEIWIE; X Prize founder PETER H. DIAMANDIS; science historian GEORGE DYSON; and TED Conferences curator CHRIS ANDERSON.

"Edge, the high-minded ideas and tech site. (New York Times Week In Review)

"The answers are remarkable." (Sueddeutsche Zeitung)

"Edge is an organization of deep, visionary thinkers on science and culture." (The Atlantic Wire)

"The German Internet debate is stuck in the nineties. Brockman's question this year sets the chord for questions that take us beyond this set of attitudes. (Frank Schirrmacher, Feuilleton Editor & Co-Publisher, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)

"If you have more time and think your attention span is up to it, we recommend you enjoy the whole scope of their length and diversity by visiting edge.org." (Ana Gershenfeld, Publico [Lisbon] Weekend Magazine Cover Story)

(* based On The Edge Question 2010: "How Is The Internet Changing The Way You Think?")



THIS WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING: IDEAS THAT WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE (*)
Edited by John Brockman
Harper Perennial


[click to enlarge]

Contributors include: RICHARD DAWKINS on cross-species breeding; IAN McEWAN on the remote frontiers of solar energy; FREEMAN DYSON on radiotelepathy; STEVEN PINKER on the perils and potential of direct-to-consumer genomics; SAM HARRIS on mind-reading technology; NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB on the end of precise knowledge; CHRIS ANDERSON on how the Internet will revolutionize education; IRENE PEPPERBERG on unlocking the secrets of the brain; LISA RANDALL on the power of instantaneous information; BRIAN ENO on the battle between hope and fear; J. CRAIG VENTER on rewriting DNA; FRANK WILCZEK on mastering matter through quantum physics.

"a provocative, demanding clutch of essays covering everything from gene splicing to global warming to intelligence, both artificial and human, to immortality... the way Brockman interlaces essays about research on the frontiers of science with ones on artistic vision, education, psychology and economics is sure to buzz any brain." (Chicago Sun-Times)

"11 books you must read — Curl up with these reads on days when you just don't want to do anything else: 5. John Brockman's This Will Change Everything: Ideas That Will Shape the Future" (Forbes India)

"Full of ideas wild (neurocosmetics, "resizing ourselves," "intuit[ing] in six dimensions") and more close-to-home ("Basketball and Science Camps," solar technology"), this volume offers dozens of ingenious ways to think about progress" (Publishers Weekly — Starred Review)

"A stellar cast of intellectuals ... a stunning array of responses...Perfect for: anyone who wants to know what the big thinkers will be chewing on in 2010. " (New Scientist)

"Pouring over these pages is like attending a dinner party where every guest is brilliant and captivating and only wants to speak with you—overwhelming, but an experience to savor." (Seed)

(* based On The Edge Annual Question — 2009: "What Will Change Everything?)



WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT
Edited by John Brockman
With An Introduction By BRIAN ENO


[2008]

Contributors include: STEVEN PINKER on the future of human evolution • RICHARD DAWKINS on the mysteries of courtship SAM HARRIS on why Mother Nature is not our friend NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB on the irrelevance of probability ALUN ANDERSON on the reality of global warming ALAN ALDA considers, reconsiders, and re-reconsiders God LISA RANDALL on the secrets of the Sun RAY KURZWEIL on the possibility of extraterrestrial life BRIAN ENO on what it means to be a "revolutionary" HELEN FISHER on love, fidelity, and the viability of marriage…and many others.

"The splendidly enlightened Edge Website (www.edge.org) has rounded off each year of inter-disciplinary debate by asking its heavy-hitting contributors to answer one question. I strongly recommend a visit." The Independent

"A great event in the Anglo-Saxon culture." El Mundo

"As fascinating and weighty as one would imagine." The Independent

"They are the intellectual elite, the brains the rest of us rely on to make sense of the universe and answer the big questions. But in a refreshing show of new year humility, the world's best thinkers have admitted that from time to time even they are forced to change their minds." The Guardian

"Even the world's best brains have to admit to being wrong sometimes: here, leading scientists respond to a new year challenge." The Times

"Provocative ideas put forward today by leading figures."The Telegraph

"The world's finest minds have responded with some of the most insightful, humbling, fascinating confessions and anecdotes, an intellectual treasure trove. ... Best three or four hours of intense, enlightening reading you can do for the new year. Read it now." San Francisco Chronicle

"As in the past, these world-class thinkers have responded to impossibly open-ended questions with erudition, imagination and clarity." The News & Observer

"A jolt of fresh thinking...The answers address a fabulous array of issues. This is the intellectual equivalent of a New Year's dip in the lake — bracing, possibly shriek-inducing, and bound to wake you up." The Globe and Mail

"Answers ring like scientific odes to uncertainty, humility and doubt; passionate pleas for critical thought in a world threatened by blind convictions." The Toronto Star

"For an exceptionally high quotient of interesting ideas to words, this is hard to beat. ...What a feast of egg-head opinionating!" National Review Online



WHAT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT?
Today's Leading Thinkers on Why Things Are Good and Getting Better
Edited by John Brockman
Introduction by DANIEL C. DENNETT



[2007]

"The optimistic visions seem not just wonderful but plausible." Wall Street Journal

"Persuasively upbeat." O, The Oprah Magazine

"Our greatest minds provide nutshell insights on how science will help forge a better world ahead." Seed

"Uplifting...an enthralling book."The Mail on Sunday



WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?
Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
Edited by John Brockman
Introduction by STEVEN PINKER
Afterword by RICHARD DAWKINS


[2006]

"Danger — brilliant minds at work...A brilliant bok: exhilarating, hilarious, and chilling." The Evening Standard (London)

"A selection of the most explosive ideas of our age." Sunday Herald

"Provocative" The Independent

"Challenging notions put forward by some of the world's sharpest minds" Sunday Times

"A titillating compilation" The Guardian

"Reads like an intriguing dinner party conversation among great minds in science" Discover



WHAT WE BELIEVE BUT CANNOT PROVE?
Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty
Edited by John Brockman
Introduction by IAN MCEWAN


[2006]

"Whether or not we believe proof or prove belief, understanding belief itself becomes essential in a time when so many people in the world are ardent believers." LA Times

"Belief appears to motivate even the most rigorously scientific minds. It stimulates and challenges, it tricks us into holding things to be true against our better judgment, and, like scepticism -its opposite -it serves a function in science that is playful as well as thought-provoking. not we believe proof or prove belief, understanding belief itself becomes essential in a time when so many people in the world are ardent believers." The Times

"John Brockman is the PT Barnum of popular science. He has always been a great huckster of ideas." The Observer

"An unprecedented roster of brilliant minds, the sum of which is nothing short of an oracle — a book ro be dog-eared and debated." Seed

"Scientific pipedreams at their very best." The Guardian

"Makes for some astounding reading." Boston Globe

"Fantastically stimulating...It's like the crack cocaine of the thinking world.... Once you start, you can't stop thinking about that question." BBC Radio 4

"Intellectual and creative magnificence" The Skeptical Inquirer



Edge Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit private operating foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.


John Brockman, Editor and Publisher
Russell Weinberger, Associate Publisher

contact: [email protected]
Copyright © 2011 By Edge Foundation, Inc
All Rights Reserved.

|Top|