Sunday, June 30, 2013

The Most Dangerous Idea on Earth?

The Most Dangerous Idea on Earth?

By Stephen Cave and Friederike von Tiesenhausen Cave
Source: 
Financial Times

It is easy to see how you could be tempted. It might start with genetically screening your children for a lower risk of a hereditary cancer. Or perhaps with a pill that promised to keep your memory fresh and clear into old age.

But what if, while you were having your future children engineered to be cancer-free, you were offered the chance to make them musically gifted? Or, if instead of taking a memory-enhancing pill, you were offered a neural implant that would instantly make you fluent in all the world's languages? Or cleverer by half? Wouldn't it be difficult to say no? And what if you were offered a whole new body - one that would never decay or grow old?

A growing number of people believe these will be the fruits of the revolutions in biotechnology expected this century. And they consider it every individual's right to take advantage of these changes. They think it will soon be within our reach to become something more than human - healthier, stronger, cleverer. All we have to do is live long enough to be around when science makes these advances. If we are, then we may just live forever.

This idea, known as transhumanism, is steadily spreading from a handful of cranks and Star Trek fans into the mainstream and across the Atlantic. But it is an idea that Francis Fukuyama, famed for proclaiming the end of history when US-style liberal democracy triumphed in the cold war, has described as the most dangerous in the world.

In a world at war with terrorism, divided by religious fundamentalism and haunted by racism, sexism and countless other prejudices, how is it that transhumanism has earned the hotly contested title of the most dangerous idea on earth?

According to Nick Bostrom's "The Transhumanist FAQ", transhumanists believe "that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase". With the help of technology, we will be able to enhance our capacities far beyond their present state. It will be within our reach not only to live longer, but to live better.

Bostrom, a lecturer at the University of Oxford and the intellectual spearhead of the transhumanist movement in the UK, sees it as the natural extension of humanism - the belief that we can improve our lot through the application of reason. In the past, humanism has relied on education and democratic institutions to improve the human condition. But in the future, Bostrom claims, "we can also use technological means that will eventually enable us to move beyond what some would think of as 'human'".

Transhumanists are utopians. They foresee a world in which our intellects will be as far above those of our current selves as we are now above chimpanzees. They dream of being impervious to disease and eternally youthful, of controlling their moods, never feeling tired or irritated, and of being able to experience pleasure, love and serenity beyond anything the human mind can currently imagine.

But dreams of eternal youth are as old as mankind and no dreamer has yet escaped the grave. Why transhumanists believe they are different - and why Fukuyama considers them so dangerous - is because their hopes are based on technologies that are already being developed.

Around the world, there is a growing number of patients who are being helped through the insertion of electrodes and microchips into their brains. These "brain-computer interfaces" are returning sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf. They are even enabling the completely paralysed to control computers using only their thoughts.

According to computer scientist and writer Ramez Naam, it is only a matter of time before we can plug these interfaces into the higher brain functions. We will then be able to use them not only to heal but to enhance our mental abilities. Naam foresees a world in which we can do away with paraphernalia such as keyboards, accessing the enormous power of computers using our thoughts alone. It is the stuff of comic books: he predicts super-normal senses, X-ray vision, and sending e-mails just by thinking about it. We could lie in bed surfing the internet in our heads.

In his new book, More Than Human, Naam pins down the defining belief of transhumanism: that there is no distinction between treatment and enhancement. Practically and morally, they are a continuum. In a breathless account, he details the astonishing advances in medicine over the past 20 years. And he shows how the same technologies that could cure Parkinson's or give sight to the blind could also transform the able-bodied.

An ultra-liberal technophile, Naam gushes that "we are the prospective parents of new and unimaginable creatures". He is at his best when indulging his futurological visions, skipping through some of the trickier moral and social questions. He prophesies a revolution in human interaction whereby we can send pictures or even feelings direct into each other's brains and can read the thoughts of those too young, stubborn or sulky to communicate. Extrapolating from technologies that are already being developed, he argues that there will come a time when we are all linked together through a single worldwide mind.

In the self-consciously sober prose of the Transhumanist FAQ, a free online publication found on the World Transhumanist Association's website, Bostrom describes a yet more radical dream: that the integration of brains and computers will one day enable us to leave the confines of our grey matter altogether. The ultimate escape from the deterioration that flesh is prone to would be to have our minds "uploaded" on to new bodies made of silicone. Our new metal brains would be composed of super computers that would run our thought processes many times faster than their fleshy equivalents. We could even make back-ups of our minds and have ourselves reloaded in the event of emergencies.

The FAQ also pins the hopes of transhumanists on areas of research which are now only in their infancy, such as nanotechnology. Theorists believe that one day nanotechnology will enable us to build complex objects atom by atom. These nanotech "assemblers" would work like computer printers but in three dimensions. Just as a machine now will print out whatever we ask it to in two dimensions, in the future, these assemblers will, like a magic lamp, instantly create whatever we ask - anything from diamond rings to three-course dinners.

The holy grail of nanotechnology is to use it to help us live longer and healthier lives. With the ability to move atoms and molecules around, it will be possible to destroy tumours and rebuild cell walls and membranes. Ultimately, all diseases can be seen as the result of certain atoms being in the wrong place and therefore could be curable by nanotech intervention.

Transhumanists also foresee nanotechnology contributing to a second scientific revolution this century - the development of superintelligence. We will one day be able to build computers that can radically outperform the human brain. These superintelligent systems will not only be able to do sums faster than we can, but could be wiser, funnier and more creative. As the FAQ puts it, they "may be the last invention that humans will ever need to make, since superintelligences could themselves take care of further scientific and technological development".

But even the most optimistic of trans-humanists recognises that not all of these breakthroughs will happen tomorrow. So in order to be around to see this new dawn, many of them are investing in expensive insurance policies. For a few thousand pounds, you can ensure that as soon as you are declared dead, your body will be flown to one of the US's growing number of cryonics institutes. There your cadaver will be frozen in liquid nitrogen and thawed only when medical technology is capable of undoing the ravages of whichever disease caused your demise.

Needless to say, cryonics may not work - currently, the technology does not exist to reverse the damage caused by freezing, let alone lethal cancers. But there is no question that it will improve the odds of a comeback compared with the conventional alternative: rotting in a grave. As Bostrom puts it, "cryonics is the second worst thing that can happen to you."

The more laborious approach to sticking around long enough to become transhuman involves changing to a radically healthier lifestyle. In Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever, published in the UK this month, inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil and physician Terry Grossman offer a 450-page step-by-step guide to achieving immortality.

Like Bostrom and Naam, Kurzweil and Grossman are wowed by the potential of new technologies such as genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, and they sketch the ways in which they might add to the human life span. But for the ageing baby boomer generation to which they belong, keeping going long enough to reap these benefits is a real and pressing concern. The bulk of their book is therefore dedicated to a detailed compilation of cutting-edge health advice.

Although many of their recommendations - such as to eat more veg and take more exercise - are the stuff of all our New Year's resolutions, others are not for the half-hearted. They prescribe a regime of "aggressive supplementation" which would transform any kitchen into a pharmacy. For some vitamins they advocate between ten and 100 times the current recommended daily allowance. But despite its extraordinary ambitions, Fantastic Voyage is serious and extensively researched. Combined with the boldness of its prescriptions, this puts it in a league above most other health books on the shelf.

There is a long and colourful history of those who have striven for physical immortality, from the advocates of ingesting precious metals to the supporters of pickling oneself in wine. The one thing these advocates have in common is that they are now all 6ft under. To many, transhumanism will seem a continuation of this age-old and egoistic quest, updated with the modish language of science fiction.

But to transhumanists it is a mission to save the world. Every week, one million people die on this planet. So instead of bans and moratoria, transhumanists want to see greater investment in the kind of research that could make death through disease and old age entirely avoidable. In Kurzweil and Grossman's words, "even minor delays will result in the suffering and death of millions of people." For them, this makes it a moral imperative.

Fukuyama disagrees. He counsels humility before meddling with human nature. In last September's Foreign Policy magazine article, when he labelled transhumanism the world's most dangerous idea, he argued that "the seeming reasonableness of the project, particularly when considered in increments, is part of its danger." We might not all buy the fruits of transhumanism wholesale, but "it is very possible that we will nibble at biotechnology's tempting offerings without realising that they come at a frightful moral cost."

In his sophisticated and deeply researched book Our Posthuman Future, Fukuyama expands his case, arguing for caution on two main grounds. First, he believes the transhumanist ideal is a threat to equality of rights. Underlying the idea of universal human rights, he argues, is the belief in a universal human essence. The aim of transhumanism is to change that essence. What rights may superintelligent immortals claim for themselves? "What will happen to political rights once we are able to, in effect, breed some people with saddles on their backs, and others with boots and spurs?"

Fukuyama's second argument is based on what he calls the miraculous complexity of human beings. After hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, we cannot so easily be unpicked into good qualities and bad. "If we weren't violent and aggressive," he argues, "we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves; if we didn't have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn't be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love."

Fukuyama's answer to the threat of transhumanism is straightforward: stringent regulation. Despite the current deregulatory mood in America, his views chime with those of the anti-abortion right, a core constituency of the Bush administration. When President George W. Bush first came to power, he set up his Council on Bioethics to, as he put it, "help people like me understand what the terms mean and how to come to grips with how medicine and science interface with the dignity of the issue of life and the dignity of life, and the notion that life is - you know, that there is a Creator".

Members of the president's Council on Bioethics, on which Fukuyama sits, are widely credited with crafting Bush's stem cell policy, which saw a ban on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines. This propelled the question of regulating biotechnology to the top of the political agenda. During the Democratic Party Convention last year, presidential candidate John Kerry mentioned stem cell research more often than unemployment.

Much of the transhumanist literature has been written in response to Fukuyama's book and the edicts of the president's Council. Permeating their work is the sense that technologically they are advancing steadily, but politically the bio-conservatives are holding the centre ground. They therefore oscillate between proselytising the good news that technology is soon to free us from the bonds of mortality and plaintively arguing for the right to use this technology as they see fit.

In Citizen Cyborg, James Hughes maps what he sees as these emerging parties in bio-politics and their relationship to the ideologies and isms of the 20th century. A transhumanist, he nonetheless believes it is possible to find a middle way between the libertarians who advocate a technological free-for-all and the bio-conservatives who want the lot banned. He places himself within the traditions of both liberal and social democracy, arguing that "transhumanist technologies can radically improve our quality of life, and that we have a fundamental right to use them to control our bodies and minds. But to ensure these benefits we need to democratically regulate these technologies and make them equally available in free societies."

Contrary to Fukuyama, Hughes does not believe that the biotech wonders of the transhumanist era will create new elites. He argues that they could even strengthen equality by empowering those who are currently downtrodden: "a lot of social inequality is built on a biological foundation and enhancement technology makes it possible to redress that."

But despite his support for some regulation of transhumanist inventions, Hughes, like Naam, is unrelentingly technophile. At times this becomes a naive utopianism, such as when he claims that "technology is about to make possible the elimination of pain and lives filled with unimaginable pleasure and contentment." He rightly argues that in Our Posthuman Future, Fukuyama "treats every hypothetically negative consequence from the use of technology with great gravity, while dismissing as hype all the possible benefits". Unfortunately, he does not always recognise when he is mirroring that very mistake.

The biotechnology revolution has caused Fukuyama to revise his contention that we have reached the end of history - history rolls on, but driven by scientists instead of kings. What all these writers have in common is the firm belief that the biotech era will shake up the old political allegiances and create new dividing lines. On one side will be those who believe such meddling unnatural and unwise. On the other, those who want to take the offerings of the biotech revolution and become something more than human. Won't you be tempted?

Edited by: Lawyer Asad



Friday, June 28, 2013

Are Humans Getting Smarter or Dumber?

Are Humans Getting Smarter or Dumber?

What, if anything, is happening to humanity's brainpower?

By Stephanie Pappas / Source: LiveScience

Is humanity getting smarter or dumber with time? The answer may be both.

While IQ scores are rising at a remarkable rate, humans' underlying genetic potential for smarts could be on the decline, a new study suggests. The research found that by one measure of intelligence, the Victorians had modern folk beat.

The findings aren't without controversy — particularly whether or not the measurements used really reveal intelligence. Still, the study highlights the trouble with measuring intelligence over time: Smarts aren't defined as just one thing. What makes a person clever on the African Savannah could be nearly useless in the financial centers of Hong Kong.

"It's not simply that intelligence is going down or going up," said Michael Woodley, a psychologist at Umea University in Sweden who led the new research. "Different parts of intelligence could be changing in lots of different ways."

Are you smarter than your grandma?

The world is full of evidence that modern humans have more going on upstairs than their ancestors did: Smartphones. Heart transplants. A basic understanding that germs cause diseases.

Beyond these technological advances, though, is another hint that humans are getting smarter. It's called the Flynn effect, named after intelligence researcher James Flynn, an emeritus professor of the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Since IQ, or intelligence quotient, tests have been revised and standardized several times in the past 100 years, to see the Flynn effect, scientists have their volunteers take tests designed for previous generations. Flynn and his colleagues have found that all around the world, the new generations score higher on the old tests than the original test takers did.

The increases are no small matter, either — they vary by geography, but tend to be around three extra IQ points per decade.

Flynn and many other researchers suspect that rising IQ scores reflect improving modern environments. IQ is part heritable and part environmental; enrich a young child's environment with opportunities to learn, and they'll have a higher IQ later in life. Better nutrition, more schooling and more stimulation could also explain the Flynn effect.

So could the kind of thinking that people do today. If you asked someone in the 19th century the relationship between a dog and a hare, they'd likely go with something concrete, based on their real-life experience with the two animals, Woodley said. "The dog hunts the hare" might be a typical response.

Today, people are taught to think more abstractly. A modern person would be more likely to say that both dogs and hares are mammals, for example.

"These sort of heuristics and modern habits of thought have changed the way people have approached answering IQ tests," Woodley said.

The dulling of humanity

Even as the Flynn effect sends IQ scores skyrocketing, some researchers argue a darker view. Humans aren't getting smarter, they say. They're getting stupider.

In November 2012, Stanford University School of Medicine researcher Gerald Crabtree published two papers in the journal Trends in Genetics suggesting that humanity's intelligence peaked between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago.

Crabtree based this assertion on genetics. About 2,000 to 5,000 genes control human intelligence, he estimated. At the rate at which genetic mutations accumulate, Crabtree calculated that within the last 3,000 years, all of humanity has sustained at least two mutations harmful to these intellect-determining genes (and will sustain a couple more in another 3,000 years). Not every mutation will cause harm — genes come in pairs, and some weaknesses caused by mutation can be covered for by the healthy half of the pair, Crabtree wrote; but the calculation suggests that intelligence is more fragile than it seems.

Furthermore, he argued, intelligence isn't as evolutionarily important to humans today as it was when the species was hunter-gatherers. Thousands of years ago, failing to grasp the aerodynamics of throwing a spear when a lion was coming at you meant you were toast — no more passing along your genes to offspring. Modern man rarely faces such life-or-death tests of wits, Crabtree wrote.

Another theory holds that humanity's genetic capacity for intelligence is in decline because of a phenomenon called dysgenic mating. Since the mid-1800s, IQ and reproduction have been negatively correlated, studies have found. To put it bluntly, people who are more intelligent have fewer babies. Because intelligence is part genetic, some researchers argue that, if anything, IQs should be dropping.

Instead, scores are going up, creating a paradox for the dysgenic mating theory, Woodley said.

Understanding an intelligence paradox

Now, Woodley and his colleagues think they may have solved that paradox, and the news is not good.

To look back at historical intelligence, the researchers turned not to IQ tests, but to reaction time. Simple reaction time (the amount of time it takes to respond to a stimulus) is correlated with IQ, Woodley said, and not nearly as sensitive to cultural influences as IQ tests.

"The idea is that reaction times represent your ability to engage in very basic and elementary cognitive processing," he said.

In the 1880s, English scientist Sir Francis Galton measured reaction times in 2,522 young men and 888 young women from a wide variety of socioeconomic statuses. He found that men's average reaction time to a stimulus was 183 milliseconds, and women's was 187 ms. (Galton's reaction time studies were part of his work as the founder of the field of eugenics, the idea that only the "best" should reproduce. Eugenics was embraced by a variety of high-profile people in the early 1900s, most notably Adolf Hitler, who wanted to establish a "master race" of Aryans.)

Twelve similar studies to Galton's conducted after 1941, on the other hand, found an average reaction time for men of 250 ms and for women of 277 ms — markedly slower. A review study detailing those findings was published in The American Journal of Psychology in 2010.

Woodley and his colleagues expanded on the 2010 work, including additional data and matching the old and new studies to be sure they were measuring the same things. Despite the fact that timers have improved quite a bit since the 1880s, Woodley is confident that Galton's measurements are accurate. Galton used a pendulum-based machine to time reactions, and such machines are generally accurate within 10 ms, Woodley said.

Galton's data also behaves as you might expect it to behave if it were correct, Woodley said. For example, groups with more inbreeding performed worse on the reaction time test.

The new analysis was "crystal clear," Woodley said.

"We found a very, very robust trend with time, toward slowing speeds of reaction," he said, "which is consistent with the idea that the more stable, the more culturally neutral, the more genetically influenced components of intelligence have been declining rather than increasing."

What that suggests is that even as IQ scores rise with education and health, humanity's capacity to get smarter is shrinking. In essence, the Flynn effect might be hiding an underlying decline, a "psychometric dark matter" not visible on pen-and-paper intelligence tests, Woodley said.

"An analogy to use would be lower-quality seeds, but higher-quality fertilizers," he said, referring to this idea that a high-quality environment may be masking the decline in "smart" genes.

If true, the reasons are unknown. Possibilities range from exposure to neurotoxins in modern society to natural selection.

Smarter or dumber?

Not everyone sees the new reaction time findings as the final word, however.

"To sum up 100 years of research, there is a reliable correlation between measures of reaction time and measures of IQ, but the order of such correlations is far short of what would be required to use the former to explain the latter," said Theodore Nettelbeck, a psychologist at the University of Adelaide who researches intelligence.

In other words, Nettelbeck told LiveScience, using reaction time as a proxy for IQ leaves something to be desired. At best, he said, reaction times to complex stimuli might explain about 20 percent to 25 percent of the variation in IQs, and simple reaction times explain a lot less.

Nettelbeck also raised concerns about the various experiments analyzed in the new study and how comparable they might be.

"Not only would there be differences in the technologies for timing responses, which may or not influence the outcome measures; there would also be procedural differences in the numbers of trials from which means [averages] have been derived, instructions to participants, extent of prior practice, the nature of stimuli, the form of response keys, all of which can influence the length of response," he said.

Reaction time can also be tricky to interpret, said James Flynn, for whom the Flynn effect is named.

"A dull person has just as quick a peak reaction time as a brilliant person," Flynn told LiveScience. The difference is that someone with a low IQ typically can't stay focused and so their reaction times won't be consistent throughout an experiment; their scores vary more widely than those of high-IQ people.

"Is this really neural speed, or for a dull person, [or] is it much more difficult for them to be attentive to the task?" Flynn said.

Other factors play a role as well, he added. In studies of schoolchildren, kids in Hong Kong are quicker off the mark in reaction time tests than British kids. You could read those results to mean Chinese kids are smarter than Britons, Flynn said. Or perhaps Chinese kids are just more willing to take risks.

The good news is that even if Woodley and his colleagues are correct that the soil of the human mind is becoming less fertile, the species is not doomed to a slow decline into idiocy. Norway and Sweden are exceptions to the rule that less educated, lower-IQ people have more children, Flynn said. Both countries have few class differences and make birth control easily available. And with IQ scores still rising in most of the world, environment seems to be trumping possible genetic problems.

Edited by: Lawyer Asad

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Why Optimists Usually Win: How to 'Hypnotize' Yourself for Success

Why Optimists Usually Win: How to 'Hypnotize' Yourself for Success

People who look on the bright side can 'hypnotise themselves' to overcome challenges

By Rob Waugh / Source: Daily Mail UK

Thinking positively about something really might make it happen, psychologists say.

Simply anticipating something good can gear up hidden circuits in the brain to drive you towards it.
  
Thinking about a happy outcome plants a 'suggestion' in the mind, in a similar way to a hypnotist. 

Two psychologists at the University of Victoria, New Zeland said: 'Once we anticipate a specific outcome will occur, our subsequent thoughts and behaviors will actually help to bring that outcome to fruition.'

It can't work magic, obviously, but researchers say effects of suggestion are more powerful than people think and can change behaviours and even outcomes.

Thinking positively plants a powerful suggestion in the mind

If someone shy expects that a glass of wine will help him loosen up at a cocktail party, he will probably feel less inhibited, approach more people, and get involved in more conversations over the course of the evening.

And although he may give credit to the wine, his expectations of how the wine would make him feel played a major role, the researchers say.

Pyschologists Maryanne Garry and Robert Michael of Victoria University in New Zealand met with Irving Kirsch of Harvard, and the three pooled their research into the effects of suggestion.

'Once we anticipate a specific outcome will occur, our subsequent thoughts and behaviors will actually help to bring that outcome to fruition.'

Dr Garry said: 'We realized that the effects of suggestion are wider and often more surprising than many people might otherwise think.'

Many studies have shown that deliberate suggestion can influence how people perform in tasks, which products they prefer and even how they respond to medicines - the placebo effect.

Suggestion is much more powerful than thought

Dr Garry says the reason for this lies in our 'response expectancies', the ways in which we anticipate our responses in various situations.

The expectancies led to automatic responses which can lead to the outcome we were expecting all along.

And non-deliberate suggestions can have the same effect, said Dr Garry.

She said: 'Simply observing people or otherwise making them feel special can be suggestive.'

But this can be worrying 'because although we might then give credit to some new drug or treatment, we don't realize that we are the ones who are actually wielding the influence.'

The team say that unintentional suggestions have important implications for academic research.

Dr Garry said: 'In the scientific community, we need to be aware of - and control for - the suggestions we communicate to subjects.

'Recent research suggests that some of psychological science's most intriguing findings may be driven, at least in part, by suggestion and expectancies.

'For example, a scientist who knows what the hypothesis of an experiment is might unwittingly lead subjects to produce the hypothesized effect-for reasons that have nothing to do with the experiment itself.'

Outside the realm of the laboratory the effect can also be seen - for example in eyewitness identification, when the number of false identifications increase when the person organising the line-up knows who the suspect is.

The authors say it is still not clear where the boundary between suggestion and reality lies.

Dr Garry said: 'And, if a 'real' treatment and a 'suggestion' lead to a similar outcome, what differentiates between the two? 

'If we can harness the power of suggestion, we can improve people's lives.'

Edited by: Lawyer Asad

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Why Learning the Humanities Is a Key to Success

Why Learning the Humanities Is a Key to Success

Daniel Solove


Research Professor of Law at GW Law School and Founder of TeachPrivacy



A recent piece in the New York Times by Verlyn Klinkenborg discusses the withering of humanities in higher education: "The teaching of the humanities has fallen on hard times. So says a new report on the state of the humanities by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences." Students majoring in key humanities subjects are dwindling, and the article mentions rapidly fewer numbers of English majors. According to the article: "Undergraduates will tell you that they're under pressure — from their parents, from the burden of debt they incur, from society at large — to choose majors they believe will lead as directly as possible to good jobs. Too often, that means skipping the humanities."

Klinkenborg argues: "Writing well used to be a fundamental principle of the humanities. . . But writing well isn't merely a utilitarian skill. It is about developing a rational grace and energy in your conversation with the world around you." Moreover, Klinkenborg notes: "No one has found a way to put a dollar sign on this kind of literacy, and I doubt anyone ever will. But everyone who possesses it — no matter how or when it was acquired — knows that it is a rare and precious inheritance."

I think that this article is exactly right. I was an English major, and I took a wide array of humanities courses in college, from history to philosophy to psychology. I am extremely grateful for my deep humanities background.

Although I write in law and technology, I have found my background in humanities to be indispensable. It has helped me understand issues in a much more robust way. It has helped me think and express my ideas in ways that have had more impact and resonance.

It is true that humanities don't easily translate into money. But the humanities are like water – combine them with many things, and they can grow into something amazing.

In other words, good thinking and good writing alone won't bring millions of dollars, but when put to use in various careers, they will.

Here are some of the great skills that the humanities teach:

  • the ability to interpret texts
  • a greater creativity – thinking in new and different ways
  • the ability to see things from different perspectives
  • the development of a richer understanding of what other people are feeling and experiencing
  • a deeper understanding of human nature – why and how people behave and how to have more productive interactions and relationships
  • the ability to write clearly and in an organized manner
  • the ability to see how texts can be interpreted in different ways and how to marshal evidence to support an interpretation
  • the ability to listen – to read a text closely and pay attention to what the text is saying
  • the ability to think in more nuanced ways, to see how subtle differences can ultimately have a big impact
  • a richer understanding of how various behaviours and choices lead to good or bad outcomes
  • a more articulate, persuasive, and engaging way of expressing oneself

In so many careers, these skills are what separate the great ones from the rest of the flock.

I hope the humanities remain a vibrant part of higher education, for although the immediate return on investment may not be as clear, in the long run, an education in the humanities can readily turn to gold. And the benefits extend beyond money and career -- humanities deepen and enrich one's life and help one think in a more rounded and multidimensional way.

Daniel J. Solove is the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School, the founder of TeachPrivacy, a privacy/data security training company, and a Senior Policy Advisor at Hogan Lovells. 

Edited by: Lawyer Asad

Monday, June 24, 2013

90% of Illness Is Caused By the Mind

90% of Illness Is Caused By the Mind

Source: Silva Mind Body Healing

"90 percent of all illnesses are caused by the mind."

That's a famous quote from mind empowerment pioneer Jose Silva, the man credited with bringing modern meditation to the west.

Silva was convinced that if most illnesses are caused by the mind, they can also be REVERSED by the mind.

He spent over 4 decades of his life studying the human mind and collaborating with scientists and researchers, attempting to understand and awaken this possibility.

And what he found may just change the course of medical history.

I'd like to introduce you to The Silva Method - the organization that carries on Silva's legacy after his passing in 1999.

According to The Silva Method, meditation, visualization, and Alpha level exercises are the key to awakening the mind's natural healing ability.

An ability that empowers us to overcome stress, illness, pain...

And virtually any disease known to man.

Sounds almost too amazing? I'd find it hard to swallow too...

If it wasn't for the fact that The Silva Method is one of the most respected and established mind empowerment organizations on the planet.

Over the past 5 decades they've trained and worked with over 6 million people worldwide, including personal growth leaders like Jack Canfield, celebrities like Richard Bachman (author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull) and leading scientists like Mark Robert Waldman.

In fact award-winning oncologist Dr. O. Carl Simonton calls it "the single most powerful tool that I have to offer the patient."

Now here's where you come in.

The Silva Method publishes a bestselling home training program called Silva Mind Body Healing, which is the culmination of their research into the mind-body healing phenomenon.

The program contains Silva's full curriculum of immersive exercises, deep meditations and powerful techniques for melting away stress, managing pain and improving your overall health and wellbeing.

And because Silva's committed to delivering practical solutions for busy people, it takes no more than 10 minutes a day to practice.

I can't stress this enough - Silva is THE global authority on mind-body healing.

So if you or a loved one is dealing with any form of illness or ailment like diabetes, cancer, migraines, joint pains, depression etc...

Or even if you're just looking to manage stress, feel healthier and have more focus and energy in your career and personal life...

Edited by: Lawyer Asad

Sunday, June 23, 2013

How to Change Minds: 20 Persuasion Tricks

How to Change Minds: 20 Persuasion Tricks

Perfection is hard to achieve in any walk of life and persuasion is no different. It relies on many things going just right at the crucial moment; the perfect synchronisation of source, message and audience. But even if perfection is unlikely, we all need to know what to aim for.

To bring you the current series on the psychology of persuasion I've been reading lots of research, much more than is covered in recent posts. As I read, I noticed the same themes cropping up over and over again.

Here are the most important points for crafting the perfect persuasive message, all of which have scientific evidence to back them up.

1. Multiple, strong arguments: the more arguments, the more persuasive, but overall persuasive messages should be balanced, as two-sided arguments fare better than their one-sided equivalents (as long as counter-arguments are shot down).

2. Relevance: persuasive messages should be personally relevant to the audience. If not, they will switch off and fail to process it.

3. Universal goals: In creating your message, understand the three universal goals for which everyone is aiming: affiliation, accuracy and positive self-concept.

4. Likeability: ingratiating yourself with the audience is no bad thing—most successful performers, actors, lawyers and politicians do it. Likeability can be boosted by praising the audience and by perceived similarity. Even the most fleeting similarities can be persuasive.

5. Authority: people tend to defer to experts because it saves us trying to work out the pros and cons ourselves (read the classic experiment on obedience to authority).

6. Attractiveness: the physical attractiveness of the source is only important if it is relevant (e.g. when selling beauty products).

7. Match message and medium: One useful rule of thumb is: if the message is difficult to understand, write it; if it's easy, put it in a video.

8. Avoid forewarning: don't open up saying "I will try and persuade you that..." If you do, people start generating counter-arguments and are less likely to be persuaded.

9. Go slow: If the audience is already sympathetic, then present the arguments slowly and carefully (as long as they are relevant and strong). If the audience is against you then fast talkers can be more persuasive.

10. Repetition: whether or not a statement is true, repeating it a few times gives the all-important illusion of truth. The illusion of truth leads to the reality of persuasion.

11. Social proof: you've heard it before and you'll hear it again—despite all their protestations of individuality, people love conformity. So tell them which way the flock is going because people want to be in the majority.

12. Attention: if the audience isn't paying attention, they can't think about your arguments, so attitudes can't change. That's why anything that sharpens attention, like caffeine, makes people easier to persuade. And speaking of attention...

13. Minimise distraction: if you've got a strong message then audiences are more swayed if they pay attention. If the arguments are weak then it's better if they're distracted.

14. Positively framed: messages with a positive frame can be more persuasive.

15. Disguise: messages are more persuasive if they don't appear to be intended to persuade or influence as they can sidestep psychological reactance (hence the power of overheard arguments to change minds).

16. Psychologically tailored: messages should match the psychological preferences of the audience. E.g. some people prefer thinking-framed arguments and others prefer feel-framed arguments (see: battle between thought and emotion in persuasion). Also, some people prefer to think harder than others.

17. Go with the flow: persuasion is strongest when the message and audience are heading in the same direction. Thoughts which come into the audience's mind more readily are likely to be more persuasive.

18. Confidence: not only your confidence, but theirs. The audience should feel confident about attitude change. Audience confidence in their own thoughts is boosted by a credible source and when they feel happy (clue: happy audiences are laughing).

19. Be powerful: a powerful orator influences the audience, but making the audience themselves feel powerful increases their confidence in attitude change. An audience has to feel powerful enough to change.

20. Avoid targeting strong beliefs: strong attitudes and beliefs are very difficult to change. Do not directly approach long-standing ideas to which people are committed, they will resist and reject. Strong beliefs must be approached indirectly.

How to Change Minds

You should be aware that many of these factors interact with each other. For example when the message is strong but the source is dodgy, the sleeper effect can arise.

Argument strength is also critical. The basic principle is that when arguments are strong, you need to do everything to make people concentrate on them. When they're weak, it's all about distracting the audience from the content and using peripheral routes to persuade, such as how confidently or quickly you talk.

Weaving all these together is no mean feat, but look at most professionally produced persuasive messages and you'll see many of these principles on show. Incorporate as many as you can for maximum effect.

Edited by: Lawyer Asad

Thursday, June 20, 2013

The Essential Hallmarks of a Good Leader

The Essential Hallmarks of a Good Leader

Jamie Dimon


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at JPMorgan Chase



Over the years I have written about the importance of strong leadership in business and the essential qualities a leader must have. These qualities are timeless, and they are especially important when times get tough. In the face of difficult challenges, great leaders do not retrench. Just the opposite – they step up.

In a great company, you need to institutionalize and perpetuate a great culture and excellent leaders. To do this, you must do several things well, including the training, the retention of talent and the creation of a company that is continually learning. You must have a culture of character and integrity. This comes from fostering an open environment, where people speak their minds freely, to treating people with respect – at all levels, from the CEO to clerks in the mail-room – to setting the highest standards combined with recognizing and admitting mistakes.

Leadership is an honour, a privilege and a deep obligation. When leaders make mistakes, a lot of people can get hurt. Being true to oneself and avoiding self-deception are as important to a leader as having people to turn to for thoughtful, unbiased advice. I believe social intelligence and "emotional quotient," or EQ, matter in management. EQ can include empathy, clarity of thought, compassion and strength of character.

Good people want to work for good leaders. Bad leaders can drive out almost anyone who's good because they are corrosive to an organization; and since many are manipulative and deceptive, it often is a challenge to find them and root them out.

At many of the best companies throughout history, the constant creation of good leaders is what has enabled the organizations to stand the true test of greatness – the test of time. Look at our great military. We love hiring veterans – more than 5,000 in the past couple years. These veterans are outstanding employees and team members.

Below are some essential hallmarks of a good leader that I have written about in my previous letters to shareholders. While we cannot be great at all of these traits – I know I'm not – to be successful, a leader needs to get most of them right.

Discipline

This means holding regular business reviews, talent reviews and team meetings and constantly striving for improvement – from having a strong work ethic to making lists and doing real, detailed follow-up. Leadership is like exercise; the effect has to be sustained for it to do any good.

Fortitude

This attribute often is missing in leaders: they need to have a fierce resolve to act. It means driving change, fighting bureaucracy and politics, and taking ownership and responsibility.

High standards

Abraham Lincoln said, "Things may come
to those who wait ... but only the things left
by those who hustle." Leaders must set high standards of performance all the time, at a detailed level and with a real sense of urgency. Leaders must compare themselves with the best. Huge institutions have a tendency toward slowing things down, which demands that leaders push forward constantly. True leaders must set the highest standards of integrity
– those standards are not embedded in the business but require conscious choices. Such standards demand that we treat customers
and employees the way we would want to be treated ourselves or the way we would want our own mother to be treated.

Ability to face facts

In a cold-blooded, honest way, leaders emphasize the negatives at management meetings and focus on what can be improved (of course, it's okay to celebrate the successes, too). All reporting must be accurate, and all relevant facts must be reported, with full disclosure and on one set of books.

Openness

Sharing information all the time is vital –
we should debate the issues and alternative approaches, not the facts. The best leaders kill bureaucracy – it can cripple an organization 
– and watch for signs of politics, like sidebar meetings after the real meeting because people wouldn't speak their mind at the right time.

Equally important, leaders get out in the field regularly so as not to lose touch. Anyone in a meeting should feel free to speak his or her mind without fear of offending anyone else. 
I once heard someone describe the importance of having "at least one truth-teller at the table." Well, if there is just one truth-teller at the table, you're in trouble – everyone should be a truth-teller.

Setup for success

An effective leader makes sure all the right people are in the room – from Legal, Systems and Operations to Human Resources, Finance and Risk. It's also necessary to set up the right structure. When tri-heads report to co-heads, all decisions become political – a setup for failure, not success.

Morale-building

High morale is developed through fixing problems, dealing directly and honestly with issues, earning respect and winning. It does not come from overpaying people or delivering sweet talk, which permits the avoidance of hard decision making and fosters passive-aggressive behaviors.

Loyalty, meritocracy and teamwork

While I deeply believe in loyalty, it often is misused. Loyalty should be to the principles for which someone stands and to the institution: Loyalty to an individual frequently is another form of cronyism. Leaders demand a lot from their employees and should be loyal to them – but loyalty and mutual respect are two-way streets. Loyalty to employees does not mean that a manager owes them a particular job. Loyalty to employees means building a healthy, vibrant company; telling them the truth; and giving them meaningful work, training and opportunities. If employees fall down, we should get them the help they need. Meritocracy and teamwork also are critical but frequently misunderstood. Meritocracy means putting the best person in the job, which promotes a sense of justice in the organization rather than the appearance of cynicism: "here they go again, taking care of their friends." Finally, while teamwork is important and often code for "getting along," equally important is an individual's ability to have the courage to stand alone and do the right thing.

Fair treatment

The best leaders treat all people properly and respectfully, from clerks to CEOs. Everyone needs to help everyone else at the company because everyone's collective purpose is to serve clients. When strong leaders consider promoting people, they pick those who are respected and ask themselves, Would I want to work for him? Would I want my kid to report to her?

Humility

Leaders need to acknowledge those who came before them and helped shape the enterprise – it's not all their own doing. There's a lot of luck involved in anyone's success, and a little humility is important. The overall goal must be to help build a great company – then we can do more for our employees, our customers and our communities.

The grey area of leadership

There are many aspects of the leadership process that are open for interpretation. This grey area contributes to the complexity of the challenges that leaders – and those who govern them – face. I would like to share with you where I stand with regard to a few of these issues.

Successful leaders are hard to find

There are examples of individuals who have been thrust, wholly unprepared, into positions of leadership and actually perform well
– I think of President Harry Truman, among others. I would submit, however, that relying on luck is a risky proposition. History shows that bad or inexperienced leaders can produce disastrous results. While there are possibly innate and genetic parts of leadership (perhaps broad intelligence and natural energy), other parts are deeply embedded in the internal values of an individual; for example, work ethic, integrity, knowledge and good judgment. Many leaders have worked their entire lives to get where they are, and while perhaps some achieved their stature through accident or politics, that is not true for most. Anyone on a sports team, in government or in virtually any other endeavor knows when he or she encounters the rare combination of emotional skill, integrity and knowledge that makes a leader.

Successful leaders are working to build something

Most leaders I know are working to build something of which they can be proud. They usually work hard, not because they must
but because they want to do so; they set high standards because as long as leaders are going to do something, they are going to do the best they can. They believe in things larger than themselves, and the highest obligation is to the team or the organization. Leaders demand loyalty, not to themselves but to the cause for which they stand.

Nonetheless, compensation does matter

While I agree that money should not be the primary motivation for leaders, it is not realistic to say that compensation should not count at any level. People have responsibilities to themselves and to their families. They also have a deep sense of "compensation justice," which means they often are upset when they feel they are not fairly compensated against peers both within and outside the company. There are markets for talent, just like products, and a company must pay a reasonable price to compete.

Big business needs entrepreneurs, too

The popular perception is that entrepreneurs – those who believe in free enterprise – exist only in small companies and that entrepreneurs in small companies should be free to pursue happiness or monetary gain as appropriate. Free enterprise, entrepreneurship and the pursuit of happiness also exist in most large enterprises. And you, our shareholders, should insist on it. Without the capacity to innovate, respond to new and rapidly changing markets, and anticipate enormous challenges, large companies would cease to exist. The people who achieve these objectives want to be compensated fairly, just as they would be if they had built a successful start-up.

Performance isn't always easy to judge

Managers responsible for businesses must necessarily evaluate individuals along a spectrum of factors. Did these individuals act with integrity? Did they hire and train good people? Did they build the systems and products that will strengthen the company, not just in the current year but in future years? Did they develop real management teams? In essence, are they building something with sustainable, long-term value? Making these determinations requires courage and judgement.

One of the reasons I am so proud of our company is because of our great people, our great leaders. These past five years have been a period of turmoil, crisis and stress for our industry and sometimes for our company. What our people have accomplished during these difficult circumstances has been extraordinary – a testament to the critical importance of strong leaders.

Edited by: Lawyer Asad

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Richard Branson: Failure Is The Secret To Success

Richard Branson: Failure Is The Secret To Success

By Richard Branson / Source: Business Day

I recently hosted the annual Sunday Times Fast Track 100 event at my Oxfordshire home. It brings together leaders from the 100 fastest-growing private companies in Britain, a number of other leading entrepreneurs and a few aspiring entrepreneurs from the Branson Centre for Entrepreneurship in Johannesburg and from the British government's Start-Up Loans Scheme, which Virgin administers.

We spent the day listening to each other and sharing stories of achievement and innovation. There was lots of laughter and some great conversations. Looking at the people gathered around our dinner table, I had a wonderful opportunity to reflect on what makes a successful entrepreneur. I found myself going back to basics: the three key attributes that can make a real difference to a person's career.

While I've touched on these points before, some of the entrepreneurs' stories highlighted them in new ways. If you have these basics down, you can give your risky idea a go with the confidence that you're prepared to ride out any trying times ahead.

1. Keep it simple

The best and most successful ideas are those that improve people's lives. Their founders often have a simple plan focused on a single product or service, one that is prompted by frustration.

Paul Lindley, the founder of Ella's Kitchen, started his business because he could not get his daughter to eat. He wanted to create a convenient product that would make mealtimes fun for babies and young children, along with their parents.

Paul came up with the idea of producing colourful, tactile pouches filled with organic meals. The innovative recipes wowed parents and toddlers alike, and took market leaders such as Heinz and Hipp Organic in Britain by surprise, since their rather stale offerings relied on glass jars and traditional flavours. Ella's Kitchen has captured 19% of the market in the UK and copycats are packaging their products in pouches.

As he told his story, it was clear that Paul truly loves his work. He turned his momentary frustration about the difficulty of feeding his daughter into something that is making mealtimes more enjoyable for families.

2. If at first you don't succeed...

Few first ventures work out. It is how a novice entrepreneur deals with failure that sets that person apart. In fact, failure is one of the secrets to success, since some of the best ideas arise from the ashes of a shuttered business.

If you are an entrepreneur and your first venture wasn't a success, welcome to the club — every successful businessperson has experienced a few failures along the way. In the US, most investors will look at an entrepreneur's past failures before making a decision, not because they are worried about it but because they want to see that the person can withstand the occasional knock. Resilience is one of the hallmarks of an entrepreneur who stays in business in the long term.

Talking with the team who runs the Branson Centre in Johannesburg, I was heartened by Dylan Jonsson's story, as it shows that our entrepreneurs are learning from their mistakes and building new ventures. Dylan is a trained chef who started a restaurant, which then failed because of poor planning. However, he has since launched his next venture, A Thyme to Dine, which is a catering business that also sells four types of chocolate balsamic reductions he developed while running the restaurant.

This skill in identifying a winning formula despite his despair at seeing his restaurant close marks Dylan as one to watch. Some of his sauces and drink powders have been picked up by two national chains in South Africa and he is looking to start international sales soon.

3. Are you having fun yet?

If you don't like being an entrepreneur, you're doing it wrong. When you can't wait to get to work in the morning and you are generally having a good time, there is a far greater chance that you'll create a positive, innovative atmosphere and your business will flourish.

Keith Bete, a Branson Centre entrepreneur, epitomises this attitude perfectly. He founded Ubuntuism, a clothing venture based on Ubuntu, an African humanist philosophy that focuses on building a peaceful, prosperous community where riches are shared and people are treated with respect. His passion and enthusiasm is infectious: everyone he met at the conference wanted to buy a T-shirt and learn more about his company.

How have these three traits helped you in your career? Have you picked yourself up after a failure?

Edited by: Lawyer Asad