Don't like my wisecracks? Excuuuuuse me

Sarcasm is a language just about anyone living in the 21st might understand. Why? In an age suffused with enough irony to support The Colbert Report, The Daily Show and a host lesser comedic takes on current events, an age where The Onion can legitimately claim to be America's Finest News Source, the primary cultural divide today is not between liberal and conservative, but between sarcasm and a kind of oh-so earnest oblivion. Think the smart-alecky have just a little too much time on their hands? Don't be wise.

Sarcasm seems to exercise the brain more than sincere statements do. Scientists who have monitored the electrical activity of the brains of test subjects exposed to sarcastic statements have found that brains have to work harder to understand sarcasm.

That extra work may make our brains sharper, according to another study. College students in Israel listened to complaints to a cellphone company’s customer service line. The students were better able to solve problems creatively when the complaints were sarcastic as opposed to just plain angry. Sarcasm 'appears to stimulate complex thinking and to attenuate the otherwise negative effects of anger,' according to the study authors.

So if you want to be taken seriously, try a little humor. Hat tip: 3 Quarks Daily

Wayne

Does thinking deeply matter?

Does thinking deeply matter? That was my thought while watching a video of the philosopher Frederick Neuhouser at The Stone, a video series with contemporary thinkers "on subjects that matter." Thinking about thinking is favorite subject of mine. I'm sorry about that.

The philosopher David Chalmers' formulation on what it means to be conscious and the gob-smacking fact that we're free to consider alternatives, to hold out possible futures for examination and to act on those choices, thrills me. It thrills me in part because, like great art, it is both meaningful and deeply considered. There is something that it is like to be you and something that it is like to be me. Our first person experiences of the world are utterly and hopelessly unique to us as individuals. Chalmers' so-far insoluble "hard problem of consciousness" is widely referenced now in forums ranging from academic gatherings - of course - to The Big Think to Andrew Sullivan's popular blog.

Neuhouser reflects in the linked video on just how hopeless and unique we are as he grapples with the age-old question of theodicy. Despite every bit of suffering and loss, and referencing Rouseau for the philo nerds out there, Neuhouser finds life and living worth affirming. "There is nothing in the nature of things that says you will not succeed." Stirring, right?

In a curious way, though, I find it satisfying. If you asked about what I've learned most from the years that I've been writing for the IdeaFestival, it would be that life is about this too - all of it, from the deepest horrors to the most generous lives. So "thinking deeply" for me does not result in the affirmation of a series of propositional statements, particularly when those statements have the effect of denying another's humanity or are used to cut off further debate, but in living with the creative tension of a world that can be cruel, yes, and sublime as well. No, I don't know how to reconcile the senseless butchery of a Pol Pot with soaring humanity of Zbigniew Preisner's interpretation of Mozart's Lacrimosa. I never will. But thinking deeply for me means being open to the honest questions and resolving to try again tomorrow.

Wayne

Hacking space: Materializing the immaterial "is what we do"

{youtube}dk8JnqWf1kI|368|187{/youtube}

Over the weekend, I sat in today on a "hackerspace," a physical place reserved for experimenters to create new objects, to re-purpose old objects and to explore in code and circuits. As mentioned recently, "making" is resurgent today, and the event hosted by Kentucky Space encouraged these natural roboticists to think outside the atmosphere.

The IdeaFestival was a sponsor of the first annual hackerSPACE. Surprised?

Since the internationally popular spacecraft called the CubeSat - whose creator, incidentally, now teaches at Morehead State University in Kentucky - opened the door ten years ago to smaller organizations to do relatively inexpensive spaceflight, new ideas have flooded a practice traditionally dominated by national governments. And having started as a technology demonstration often derided as an inconsequential toy, the CubeSat, all of four inches on a side, has matured. NASA has launched its own biological experiments using the craft. Sophisticated science instruments about the size of a loaf of bread have been created for use aboard stacked CubeSats. Given the means and opportunity, makers do what they always do - surprise others with their inventiveness and vision.

Featured in this video, Marko Peljhan of the University of California, Santa Barbara works at the intersection of art and science as part of the Media Arts and Technology Program at that university, and is also very involved with the sensational and cross-disciplinary Allosphere, which I've mentioned in these pages from time to time. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy he decided to come, not simply because the graduate program at which he teaches has a small spaceflight component that made it a fit for a workshop devoted to new possibilities in spaceflight, but because, like hackers and makers everywhere, he works to materialize the immaterial.

Wayne

Truth? It depends on the next step

We're all familiar with the idea that we harbor sub rosa desires that inform our decision making, but more recently researchers have upped the experiential ante, pointing out that our senses routinely betray us as well. Experimental psychologist Daniel Simons, for example, amply demonstrated this inability to see what is right in front our noses in September at the IdeaFestival. Even when the relevant facts are in theory available to make an informed decision, we act against our own best interests all the time, thwarted by a buggy biology that is maddeningly inconsistent and all-too suggestible.

That's good news.

In a Jonah Lehrer review of Daniel Kahneman's just-published book on human irrationality, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Lehrer points out that the author himself understands the deep gap between act and - when we're aware of it - intention.

Kahneman, of course, knows all this. One of the most refreshing things about 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' is his deep sense of modesty: he is that rare guru who doesn’t promise to change your life. In fact, Kahneman admits that his decades of groundbreaking research have failed to significantly improve his own mental performance. 'My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy'—a tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a task—'as it was before I made a study of these issues,' he writes. As a result, his goals for his work are charmingly narrow: he merely hopes to 'enrich the vocabulary that people use' when they talk about the mind.

Kahneman has won the Nobel Prize. But what's so interesting is that the prize was for economics, and his insights have informed the developed an entirely new field called behavioral economics. Struck by how until very recently economists viewed humans as rational, self interested beings with perfectly transparent motives, he says, quoted in another review of Thinking, Fast and Slow, "I had not appreciated the profound difference between our intellectual worlds. To a psychologist, it is self-evident that people are neither fully rational nor completely selfish, and that their tastes are anything but stable."

Elsewhere, in this TED video, Kahneman describes other traps we fall into when thinking about the future, which we invariably forecast using past experiences. The end result is that "it's two very different things" to be happy about your life and happy in your life, he says. And going all Sybil on us, he describes how our remembering and decision-making self can, sadly, drag our experiencing-self through new experiences that it would never choose were it not leaning so heavily on the past. Watch the video.

Progress and personal happiness have never been tied to certainty and the presumption that we get it right. Getting it wrong is the basic human condition. And it's always been through trial and error and the belief that the next step won't be the last that we make discoveries. That's characteristic of science, of course, but in our personal lives as well. The good news, as Kahneman says, is that we're "neither fully rational nor completely selfish." As long as we're moving forward, the truth will always be incomplete.

Wayne

Take time to be bored

Experts say our brains need boredom so we can process thoughts and be creative. I think they're right. I've noticed that my best ideas always bubble up when the outside world fails in its primary job of frightening, wounding or entertaining me - "Dilbert's" Scott Adams

The quote above is from the free preview of David Barne's IdeaFestival 2011 presentation on innovation. I've just been thinking a lot lately about it.

Wayne