Your “Choice Muscle” Needs Fuel, Too

The New York Times’s John Tierney just published an article about making decisions, called “Do you Suffer from Decision Fatigue?“  It’s one of the best, most in-depth articles I’ve read about the physiology of decision-making.  It’s long, but if you’re into this sort of thing, I really recommend reading it.

(The article is a good followup to my post from a few months ago, which discussed what economists Sheena Iyengar and Tim Harford think about this topic.)

High level summary

  • Making decisions is difficult work, so we get tired of doing it.  At the end of the day after we’ve made many decisions, we either make worse decisions or no decisions at all.
  • We make better decisions when our brains have access to glucose.  This is why we frequently crave sugary foods after a series of tough decisions.  However, having a constant supply of glucose from protein-rich foods ensures better overall decision-making throughout the day.

And who has the best self control?

People with the best self-control are the ones who structure their lives so as to conserve willpower. They don’t schedule endless back-to-back meetings. They avoid temptations like all-you-can-eat buffets, and they establish habits that eliminate the mental effort of making choices. Instead of deciding every morning whether or not to force themselves to exercise, they set up regular appointments to work out with a friend. Instead of counting on willpower to remain robust all day, they conserve it so that it’s available for emergencies and important decisions.

“Even the wisest people won’t make good choices when they’re not rested and their glucose is low,” Baumeister points out. That’s why the truly wise don’t restructure the company at 4 p.m. They don’t make major commitments during the cocktail hour. And if a decision must be made late in the day, they know not to do it on an empty stomach. “The best decision makers,” Baumeister says, “are the ones who know when not to trust themselves.”

The post is available here.

Management by D20

A live frog is magnetically levitated, winning researchers the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in physics.

So.  Apparently the most efficient method of talent management in business is … promoting people at random.  And researchers from the University of Catania, Italy, just got a prize for proving it.

Last night, Harvard hosted the Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony.  Ig Nobel prizes are awarded to researchers who execute apparently random experiments, that yield surprising – and sometimes useful – results.  Awarded yearly in October, they’re given for achievements that “first make people laugh, and then make them think.”

The economics prize was given for creating new ways to invest money that maximize gain, and minimize financial risk.  It was awarded to Goldman Sachs, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Magnetar.

Here are the winners.

Read more of this post

Perfection in Imperfect Information


This is the third in a five-part series about information overload in the age of the Internet.

In economics, there’s a concept called “imperfect information.”  Counter-intuitively, some markets function poorly, or can’t function at all, if every stakeholder knows everything.  This leads us to the question, in what situation would be it good to have less than all of the information? Read more of this post

AI Against Aging

Ben Goertzel

Ben Goertzel is “the badass of the artificial intelligence research community.”  Additionally and professionally, he’s an AI researcher.  He currently leads Novamente LLC, a privately held software company that attempts to develop a form of strong AI, which he calls “Artificial General Intelligence”. He is also the CEO of Biomind LLC, a company that markets a software product for the AI-supported analysis of biological microarray data; and he is Director of Research of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence.

He started out the talk today by declaring, “The human body can be effectively understood as a very complex machine.”  With that as the background, he told us about research he’s conducted with Genescient.

Goertzel’s collaborating with the Irvine, CA-based firm to breed flies that live for a very, very long time.  Goertzel calls them “superflies,” because, he said, “they get laid more, are stronger, endure more stress, and resist infection.”

Goertzel and his team then gather data about these flies to find out how, and why, they live so long.  The team looked mostly at genetic reasons for longevity in the flies.  The conclusions were not surprising: there are “a lot of interlocking adaptations to make these flies live a long time.”

They used current AI technologies, via Open BioMind, to analyze the differences, point-by-point, between the genetic makeup of the normal flies and the superflies.  They zeroed in on the areas of the genetic code which are more relevant to aging.

While the talk didn’t have much to do with AI directly, his scientific approach to the quest to combat aging was interesting to learn about.  His quest to “crack the life extension problem” may or may not prove fruitful in the short-term.  In the long-term – who knows?

Goertzel just wrote an article for H+ Magazine.  It’s called AIs, Superflies, and the Path to Immortality.

Evolution of Post-Human Intelligence

Gregory Stock

Are our values changing based on our use of technology?

Gregory Stock, ”a biophysicist, best-selling author, biotech entrepreneur, and the former director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society at UCLA’s School of Medicine,” addressed this question in his talk.

It seems contradictory, Stock said.  We get to a singularity, an event that is basically opaque from our current perspective.  We don’t really know what’s going to happen when we get there.  Our current hypothesis is that we reach through the singularity and “maintain the values that we primates care about.”

“I think the reality is we don’t have a clue where this is going,” Stock said.  ”Human values are not going to survive in cyberspace.”

Have our human values already changed based on our technology use?  I think so.  At a very basic level, standards of social interaction have changed.  In a conversation with my father last night, we noted how long-form, hand-written letters used to be the standard for staying in contact.  Then, the telephone came along, followed by various phases of the internet.  The standards for maintaining relationships of any sort have changed drastically over time.  Instead of a five-page letter, a five-character text or tweet suffices.

Do you think our values already changed based on our internet use?  In what way? In ten years, what will we value?

In short, Stock asked, “Why would we expect human primate values to persist?”

One thing is certain, Stock said.  ”The future is going to get very very weird, very quickly.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 408 other followers