“What if we got rid of likes?”

That is the title of this provocative essay by PJ Vogt. Even WordPress, the sponsor of this blog, has a like button (see below). But “likes” are lame, right? So, why don’t we get rid of them? Here’s why, according to Mr Vogt:

There’s a million reasons why no social media platform wants to get rid of whatever version of Like it has. At its most basic, getting a Like gives you a tiny dopamine hit. It makes you want to post again. And as you notice which of your posts get more Likes, you start to write more posts like those. Which means you’re focus-grouping your dog pictures to make them grabbier. So that your friends enjoy it more. So that they stay on the site longer. So they, in turn, create more posts. And on and on.  As a human though, this is kind of crappy. It’s not all that fun to have your most mundane public communications get network notes from your friends. Or rather, it’s fun in the moment, and wearying in the long run. Part of me yearns for a place where I can publicly talk to the people I know without being graded.

prior probability agrees with Mr Vogt on both counts: we love the feeling when someone “likes” what we have to say, but at the same time, it does feel like we are being graded. But what’s wrong with that?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Pascal’s Wager 101

Did you know that Blaise Pascal’s most important contribution to the theory of probability is the notion of expectation value? Briefly, the expected value of any given wager is the value of the prize multiplied by the probability of winning the prize. The earliest, and perhaps the most ingenious, illustration of this idea appears in Pascal’s quixotic philosophical treatise, Pensées (Penguin edition, pp. 123-124). In one of his essays, Pascal offers a rational argument (as opposed to purely religious or faith-based reasons) for believing in God.

In summary, Pascal’s famous wager can be expressed mathematically as follows: consider a strategy set (S) containing two choices: one can either believe in God (S1) or be an Atheist (S2). Now, let p be the probability that God exists, and 1 – p the probability that God does not exist. In essence, belief in God is like a bet or a coin toss, and given the structure of this game, there are four possible scenarios or outcomes:

(1) You choose strategy S1 (i.e., you bet on God’s existence), and God does, in fact, exist. Under this happy scenario, you will be rewarded handsomely with eternal life in Heaven and infinite joy and happiness. We further assume that the value of this heavenly reward approaches infinity (∞).

(2) You choose strategy S1, but it turns out that there is no God. Given this state of affairs, you obtain a negative payoff –c. We assume that c is a negative value, lesser than 0, because of all the lost time one may have wasted during one’s lifetime praying to a non-existent God.

(3) You choose strategy S2 (i.e., you bet against God, so to speak), but it turns out that God does exist, after all. Under these circumstances, you will be punished with eternal damnation and misery for betting against God, with a value of negative infinity (–∞).

(4) You choose strategy S2 and there is no God. Given these conditions, one will obtain a reward b in which b is greater than 0 but less than infinity (0 < b < ∞). We assume that b has a positive value, since instead of wasting your time on prayers, one was able to engage in other, more productive pursuits.

Given these payoffs, we can express the expectation value (EV) of believing in God as follows:

EV(S1) = (p)(∞) + (1 – p)( –c)

And similarly, the expectation value of the Atheist is as follows:

EV(S2) = (p)( –∞) + (1 – p)(b)

If p is zero, then it pays to be an Atheist, since b is greater than –c. The problem, however, is that no one knows with mathematical certainty whether there is a God, and even if the probability that God exists is miniscule, the expected value of believing in God is infinity. Therefore, according to the logic Pascal’s Wager, the safe or rational bet is to believe in God.

Of course, there is just one small problem with Pascal’s brilliant analysis–it assumes there is just one true God. But what if the Christian God is not the same as the Jewish God or Moslem one? What if, in short, there is more than one possible God? Which one should you worship or believe in?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Trust and collaboration

Why do most elite colleges and institutions of higher learning (including law schools) resort to proctors and complex rules to prevent cheating on exams? Why don’t we trust our students to do the right thing, like they do at Caltech? (*) According to this fascinating report, for example, undergraduate exams at Caltech are regularly taken at home and are never supervised or proctored.

Caltech’s “Honor Code” is short and simple — “No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community” — and Caltech students are routinely given 24-hour access to labs, workshops, and other facilities on campus.  Moreover, Caltech tells its undergraduates from day one that “collaboration on homework and other assignments is not just encouraged, it’s practically essential for success.”

The report mentioned above also features some interesting remarks by Markus Meister, a professor of biology at Caltech.  According to Professor Meister, “The expectation is that students will follow the rules without being proctored. Proctoring is not part of the repertoire — many of the finals are take-home.” Professor Meister was himself a Caltech student 30 years ago, and he remembers the huge degree of trust placed in him and his fellow students.  “I took a lot of take-home exams – it is a challenge to complete stuff in three hours and usually you don’t finish, so you draw a line and say ‘this is where I got to in three hours’ and then you continue.  The teaching fellow might only give you credit for what you did in the three hours.”

Are the students at Caltech graded on a curve?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 6 Comments

A quick study in cultural contrasts: Berkeley and Stanford in the 1960s

prior probability recently stumbled upon this perceptive quote by Stewart Brand, editor of the “Whole Earth Catalog”, comparing and contrasting the “power to the people” culture at Berkeley in the late 1960s with the more entrepreneurial, start-up culture at Stanford around the same time:

Around Berkeley, it was the Free Speech Movement, “power to the people.” Around Stanford, it was the “Whole Earth Catalog,” Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, people like that, and they were just power to people.  They just wanted to power anybody who was interested, not “the people.”  Well, it turns out there is no, probably, “the people.”  So the political blind alley that Berkeley went down was interesting.  We were all taking the same drugs, the same length of hair, but the stuff came out of the Stanford area, I think because it took a Buckminster Fuller access-to-tools angle on things.

This quote appears in an essay by Evgeny Morozov in the January 13th, 2014 issue of The New Yorker (page 70, to be more precise).  Considering their geographical and demographic proximity, what explains this difference in cultures at Stanford and Berkeley in the 1960s?

From: Berkeley, CA To: Palo Alto, CA
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

What is the optimal population frequency?

According to this reputable source, every day on Earth an estimated 371,124 people are born and 154,995 people die. The amazing mathematics website Wolfram|Alpha converts these raw numbers into a hertz frequency as follows:

The frequency of humanity

As Jason Kottke writes in his excellent blog kottke.org, one of the longest continuously running blogs on the web (having been in operation for 15.9067 years):

Measurement in hertz is an unusual way to think about living and dying; hertz are typically reserved for things like human-audible sound frequencies (20 to 16,000 Hz), how fast your laptop’s CPU runs (1 to 4 Ghz), or the frequency of the power running into your house (50 to 60 Hz). But if you subtract the death rate from the birth rate, you get a net rate of 216,129 new people a day, or about 2.5 Hz. That’s the frequency of humanity. While that’s a lot slower than your computer, it’s in the same frequency ballpark as a human’s resting heart rate (1.3 Hz), steps taken while walking briskly (1.8 Hz), or moderately energetic dance music (2.25 Hz).

Pretty cool, right?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The physics of billiards

Jim Belk, a mathematician at Bard College, has figured out what a perfectly centered billiards break looks like. It looks like this:

enter image description here

Does this beautiful model of billiards breaks have any wider applications outside of pool tables? Tell me in the comments section below. In the meantime, you can study Professor Belk’s mathematical model for yourself in MathOverflow.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What is your favorite coffee shop in Manhattan?

Nirmal Banerjee, who recently posted this colorful map at Butterfruit Labs Development (look it up!), identifies the best local coffee shops and cafes in Manhattan organized by subway stop. Click on the map for a larger version. Hat tip: Max Ehrenfreund.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Do people apologize too much?

The New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in yesterday’s Dealbook column:

The art of the apology has become a carefully choreographed dance: Say you are sorry, show vulnerability, tell everyone you are “taking responsibility” and then end with, “I hope to put this behind me.”  If you’re questioning the sincerity of this apology movement, there’s good reason. Dov Seidman, a careful observer of societal trends … has been tracking the apology trend for many years. He has become so troubled — and offended — by the ease with which apologies seem to roll off the tongues of our leaders that he called for an “apology cease-fire” in front of several dozen chief executives and politicians at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

In other words, are most apologies fake or insincere cheap talk, i.e. all noise and no signal? Also, how do you distinguish a fake apology from a sincere one? (Hint: a sincere apology is followed by some kind of costly remedial action.)

Official Apology Form (image above) courtesy of Mike Cadogan.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How five students changed the world …

On this day some ten years ago, five undergraduates–Eduardo SaverinAndrew McCollumDustin MoskovitzChris Hughes, and Mark Zuckerberg–launched “thefacebook” from their Harvard College dorm room. Although Facebook is now becoming the AOL of social mediaprior probability salutes the original bold founders of Facebook. They did what no professor or politician dares to do. They changed the world.

File:Thefacebook.png

But did Facebook and social media generally (Twitter, Instagram, WordPress, Google+ (*), etc.) change the world for the worse or for the better? Tell me what you think …

(*) Shouldn’t Google+ be renamed Google?? After all, no one seems to know how to use it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

My favorite 2014 Super Bowl ad

By the way, was it just me, or were the 2014 Super Bowl ads way more lame and unoriginal (on average) this year? Nevertheless, what I liked the most about this particular ad was its simplicity and provocative multilingualism …

Addendum: Apparently, Coca-Cola’s beautiful multilingual commercial really angered more than a few people, like former Congressman Allen West. Seriously? Lighten up, man. You really have to be small-minded and  mean-spirited to not like that ad …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 3 Comments