Image source: The DNA Life (artwork by Fong Qi Wei)

In an opinion piece at the NYTimes, Jay Belsky, a professor of Human Development at UC Davis, argues that funding and developmental programs for children could be more effectively allocated based on genetic information. Belsky cites research from a forthcoming issue of the journal Development and Psychopathology that provides evidence that children show varying levels of susceptibility to their environments and stress, and that this variability in response can be traced to specific genes. Thus, children with one type of gene are orchids--highly sensitive to their environments, and more responsive to interventions--while children with another type are dandelions--less susceptible to environmental factors as well as less responsive to interventions. For this reason, Belsky labels resilience a double-edged sword: children who are resilient are not as adversely affected by negative or unsupportive environments, but they also don't see the same boost from developmental programs aimed at improving life outcomes. While this is, in and of itself, an interesting and thought-provoking finding, Belsky takes it one step further by suggesting that we should use DNA sequencing to identify and target children that will be more responsive to interventions - arguing both in terms of efficiency and ethicality. This recommendation is qualified by the need for additional research and technology, but he envisions the following:

"One might even imagine a day when we could genotype all the children in an elementary school to ensure that those who could most benefit from help got the best teachers. Not only because they would improve the most, but also because they would suffer the most from lower quality instruction. The less susceptible — and more resilient — children are more likely to do O.K. no matter what. After six or seven years, this approach could substantially enhance student achievement and well-being."

 Of course, this is a bit of a slippery slope. While Belsky is not a proponent of abandoning the resilient children altogether, it is hard not to see this as the most likely outcome. There is a sense of "well, the dandelion children will do fine no matter what, so what difference does it make?" Belsky suggests that other forms of intervention can be found for these types of children, but in a society that seemingly values cost-effectiveness and efficiency above all else, the quickest, cheapest fix is to genotype all children, put the orchids with the best teachers and the most funding/programs, and put the dandelions with the sub-par teachers and less funding/programs. Then, ultimately, everyone will come out in the middle. I don't want to harp on Belsky too much because I do think he makes some good points, and he tries to argue that it shouldn't be just about saving money, but there is still something unsavory to the idea of using a person's resilience against them. Especially, when we have no idea what the limits to that resilience may be.

Image source: Nord West Drift Boats

Last week I posted the first video in The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows' web series, and now I'm posting the second one. I fear that with every video's release, I will simply repost here, but how beautiful is the observation that we are like a rower, going through life facing backwards? And even more beautiful, the thought of what it would be like if we instead faced forward, slowly moving into our memories instead of away from them. 

"You'd become nothing other than yourself, reveling in your own weirdness. "

Image source: 123RF

Daniel Pink has a new show that aired on National Geographic last night. The show, called Crowd Control, is described on its home page as what you "get when you cross hidden cameras, the BIG Piano, 50,000 commuters and a team of behavioral scientists, builders and engineers?  Answer: National Geographic Channel's new fun and fact packed undercover science intervention show, Crowd Control." That's quite the pitch: in each episode viewers should learn something new, see how behavioral science can be used to make people make better decisions, and be entertained. It will be interesting to see if the appeal of behavioral economics, which has made the jump from journal articles to best-selling books, can now be translated across the air waves. 

Image source: Convention on Biological Diversity

Information is Beautiful posted an infographic for the data on diversity released by a bevy of technology companies recently. The infographic makes the comparison across industries, within industries, and to the baseline (general population) easy. As the chart shows, the major tech companies are pretty similar in their representation of women, whites, and minorities, though they are behind some of their non-tech counterparts when it comes to employing women (compare to "Top 50 U.S. Companies"), Latinos, and African-Americans (especially the socially-oriented tech companies). Further, most tech companies also have a higher percentage of Asian employees, so, while some groups may be underrepresented within their employee pool, they are employing a relatively higher percentage of other minorities.  To be clear, this comparison is just descriptive - it's not clear from the infographic or the accompanying write-up whether there are statistically significant differences in tech vs. non-tech companies and employee profiles. I also have no comment on whether this employee makeup is "right" or "wrong," though I do applaud these companies for releasing the data and information necessary to compile this visualization and for making an effort to be more transparent.

Image source: Information is Beautiful

Image source: http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/

Anyone who has read my "research" tab knows I'm a little obsessed with risk-taking behavior (okay, a lot obsessed). I find the decision to take a chance, to play out the roll of a dice, to let yourself succumb to an uncontrollable outcome, absolutely fascinating. I also am amazed by the differences that exist between personal assessments of risk (risk perception) and absolute or actuarial assessments. So, when I saw an article in the NY Times today about Clif Bar dropping five well-known and accomplished climbers due to uncomfortable feelings about the level of risks they were taking, I saw the collision of all of my general research interests.

So, here's the story: Clif Bar, a well-known maker of energy/protein bars sponsors several athletes, including five professional rock-climbers who are featured in a new documentary making the rounds called Valley Uprising. Clif was one of the major financial contributors to that film, but has since pulled their sponsorship of many of the climbers featured in the film (but not of the film itself). So what changed? According to a statement made by the company, "We concluded that these forms of the sport are pushing boundaries and taking the element of risk to a place where we as a company are no longer willing to go." The company adds, “We understand that some climbers feel these forms of climbing are pushing the sport to new frontiers. But we no longer feel good about benefiting from the amount of risk certain athletes are taking in areas of the sport where there is no margin for error; where there is no safety net.” In some ways, Clif is saying that it sees the risk that the climbers are no longer able to see, and for the athletes' sake, maybe taking away the monetary incentive to take on more and more risk is a good thing. But, what the company doesn't address is how this risk affects them: Clif isn't willing to have a sponsored athlete die, and the probability of death or grave injury that these athletes are now facing has passed some threshold that Clif no longer feels safe with. In other words, there is no safety net for their corporate image. Despite Clif's motives, it's still an interesting marketing dilemma: here is a company that builds its brand on chasing adventure, and inherent in those adventurous activities is a level of risk that other sports or activities don't entail. So to suddenly decide that they are no longer comfortable with this greater risk as a company policy seems like a weird about-face that could erode their brand. At what point does risk go from reward to liability?

Ultimately, I agree with Clif's decision because, though I have no empirical data to support it, I do believe that financial sponsorships can significantly affect risk preferences and encourage additional risk-taking because it's no longer about the thrill or the adventure, there is now a large monetary reward for pushing the limits as well. And for a population whose risk perceptions are already skewed by illusions of control and selective processing, maybe these limits need to be enforced by someone else.

Image source: Marc Johns (he has some great stuff!)

Just in time for the weekend, an article on Vox explains why we are all so tired on Mondays: social jetlag. Basically, anyone who goes to bed later (and wakes up later) on the weekends than they do on the weekend is creating a physical response similar to jetlag come Monday morning. Researchers call it social jetlag because presumably people change their sleep patterns on the weekends to appease social obligations (rather than because they feel that childlike thrill of being able to stay up as late as they want). And this phenomenon points to the rather recent finding that when you sleep is just as important as the quantity of sleep you get. In other words, not all eight hours are created equal. Thus, going to sleep and waking up at approximately the same times every day, can help you feel better and stay healthier. 

Of course, when a person naturally wants to go to sleep varies. Another recent article, discussed in The Atlantic, talks about a new study that identifies two new sleep pattern types. So, in addition to night owls, who feel most energetic at night, and morning larks, who feel the most energetic in the morning, there are people who feel energetic both in the mid-to-late morning and early evening, and people who feel lethargic all day. These new types don't have cute bird names yet, and the article doesn't point out how difficult coming up with appropriate names for these new sleep patterns may be (what bird sleeps all the time? A quick google search suggests a sick bird is the only bird that sleeps all the time). 

Given the health implications of sleep deprivation and erratic sleep schedules, these two studies combined suggest that people should be determining when is the best time they should go to sleep (cue bird sleep types) and then try to go to sleep at that time every day. Of course, no research has suggested what to do if you get social jetlag because you are a night owl with a normal work schedule, but maybe the future of work scheduling involves around the clock productivity fueled by capitalizing on the different sleep patterns of employees.

Source: Elizabeth C. Webb (my totally original Adirondacks pictures)

I've been a fan of The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows for a few years now, and the creator, John Koenig, recently started a web series that posts a new video every other Sunday. The post for this Sunday was for the word vemödalen. 

 vemödalen n. the frustration of photographing something amazing when thousands of identical photos already exist—the same sunset, the same waterfall, the same curve of a hip, the same closeup of an eye—which can turn a unique subject into something hollow and pulpy and cheap, like a mass-produced piece of furniture you happen to have assembled yourself. 

This seemed especially relevant having just returned from a trip to Adirondacks where I took several photographs that have already been taken before (and as my hiking buddy told me several times when I lamented missing some key picture,"just look it up on the Internet"). Despite the knowledge that several such photos exist, I still steadfastly hold on to the belief that I saw something unique, that my perspective contributes to the vast collection of images in an invaluable way, and that my one photograph is special in a way no photograph before it has been. We all want our experiences to be unique, yet it's the commonality in those experiences that ties us together, so why does the idea of being the same as someone else, as having taken the same photo or the same thought as someone else, often feel so aversive?

The video itself is beautiful, and nearly every frame is a photo taken by a different photographer.

Image source: BSA-30 (here)

An op-ed piece on CityLab (The Atlantic) proclaiming that Bansky (the acclaimed street artist) is probably a female is getting quite a bit of attention. What's interesting about this is that the piece is probably mostly getting attention for the headline alone, which the article doesn't address at all: why is "Why Banksy is (Probably) a Woman" such an attention-grabbing headline? Instead, the article relies on further gender stereotyping and caricature to argue that it's more likely that Banksy is female (or, rather, a group of artists headed by a female). The author sees the assumption that Banksy is male as an affront to women, but then makes the counter-argument by (mostly) denigrating male artwork and approach. It's unfortunate that this article is garnering so much attention by employing the same tactics it eschews.

I wait for the day when a headline or an op-ed piece doesn't make a splash by suggesting a famous artist, creator, entrepreneur, CEO, or other figure is a woman! or a man! The very fact that suggesting Banksy is a female gets so much attention is a tragedy: this means we still have sharply defined gender stereotypes that people operate on when thinking about what defines "art" or "creativity" or "success." Unfortunately, there is no winner in the great gender reveal of Banksy (should it ever happen): if Banksy is male or female, no one will cherish or celebrate the points that distinguish Banksy from all other street artists, regardless of gender.

Image source: Elizabeth C. Webb

Yesterday, NPR published an article by Linda Holmes titled, "The Luxury of Solitude." The article is more personal musings and introspective thoughts, than scientific findings touting the value of being alone, but that's what makes it so beautiful - beautiful in a way that scientific research rarely can be inside its peer-reviewed, careful packaging. Which, isn't to say that scientific publications are not profound or elegant, but there's something in the messy details of personal observation that can never be replicated within the confines of science. 

Holmes states in the article, "We have a certain cultural mistrust of solitude, I think. It is for weirdos and lost souls, spinsters and misfits. But in truth, I can't tell you what a luxury I think it is to be entitled to it." And without pushing anyone to agree with her she makes a very simple point: not everyone can be alone, isolated from the stressors of everyday life, and we don't appreciate this small gift when it is available to us. "What would I do if I could do anything — in this micro-environment, in this moment, at the point of this particular pause, what is my wish?" How often do we think like that? Holmes' idea being that we cannot think like this without being completely alone, isolated and unburdened from our daily grind. And what did Holmes discover during her luxurious solitude: the freedom of self-determination and the whimsy of answering only to her own desires.