Docphish

This is Docphish's re-post blog...

You might think that the things that get people to change their behavior are things that are memorable, that they can use their analytical brain to set down a long-term trace, or even just emotional, but surprisingly what we see is the brain regions that seem to be involved in successful persuasion. We can predict who will use more sunscreen next week based on how their brain responds to an ad today. The brain regions that seem to be critical to that are brain regions involved in social thinking, in thinking about yourself and thinking about other people. So this seems to be more about our identity and the identities that we’re capable of trying on. If I can’t try on the identity that you’re suggesting to me—being a sunscreen-using person, or a nonsmoker, or something like that—the ad is much less likely to stick.

[…]

William James said long ago that we have as many identities as people that we know, and probably more than that. We are different with different people. I’m different with my son than I am with you. We have these different identities that we try on, and they surround us… I’m really interested in looking at that as a mechanism of persuasion when it comes to regular old persuasion, when it comes to education, when it comes to public health, and when it comes to international issues as well. It’s finding that latitude of acceptance and finding out how to use it successfully.

UCLA neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman, author of Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, studies "latitudes of acceptance" to understand what makes us change our minds – something we’re notoriously reluctant to do.

Also see Dan Pink on the psychology of persuasion.

Lieberman’s full Edge conversation is well worth a read.

(via explore-blog)

(via emergentfutures)

[Algorithms and heuristics] are very important in cybernetics, for in dealing with unthinkable systems it is normally impossible to give a full specification of a goal, and therefore impossible to prescribe an algorithm. But it is not usually too difficult to prescribe a class of goals, so that moving in some general description will leave you better off (by some definite criterion) than you were before. To think in terms of heuristics rather than algorithms is at once a way of coping with proliferating variety. Instead of trying to organize it in full detail, you organize it only somewhat; you then ride on the dynamics of the system in the direction you want to go.

These two techniques for organizing control in a system of proliferating variety are really rather dissimilar. The strange thing is that we tend to live our lives by heuristics, and to try and control them by algorithms. Our general endeavor is to survive, yet we specify in detail (‘catch the 8:45 train’, ‘ask for a raise’) how to get to this unspecified and unspecifiable goal. We certainly need these algorithms, in order to live coherently; but we also need heuristics — and we are rarely conscious of them. This is because our education is planned around detailed analysis: we do not (we learn) really understand things unless we can specify their infrastructure. The point came up before in the discussion of transfer functions, and now it comes up again in connection with goals. […] Birds evolved from reptiles, it seems. Did a representative body of lizards pass a resolution to learn to fly? If so, by what means could the lizards have organized their genetic variety to grow wings? One has only to say such things to recognize them as ridiculous — but the birds are flying this evening outside my window. This is because heuristics work while we are still sucking the pencil which would like to prescribe an algorithm.

Stafford Beer, “Brain of the Firm,” 1972. 

1972, folks. “This is because heuristics work while we are still sucking the pencil which would like to prescribe an algorithm.”

(via slavin)

One for would-be CompSci students.

(via mistersaxon)

(via emergentfutures)

futurescope:

Conscious Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans Using Non-Invasive Technologies

In short, understandable words: Scientists have successfully transported words from one brain to another over the internet.

Abstract:

Human sensory and motor systems provide the natural means for the exchange of information between individuals, and, hence, the basis for human civilization. The recent development of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) has provided an important element for the creation of brain-to-brain communication systems, and precise brain stimulation techniques are now available for the realization of non-invasive computer-brain interfaces (CBI). These technologies, BCI and CBI, can be combined to realize the vision of non-invasive, computer-mediated brain-to-brain (B2B) communication between subjects (hyperinteraction). Here we demonstrate the conscious transmission of information between human brains through the intact scalp and without intervention of motor or peripheral sensory systems. Pseudo-random binary streams encoding words were transmitted between the minds of emitter and receiver subjects separated by great distances, representing the realization of the first human brain-to-brain interface. In a series of experiments, we established internet-mediated B2B communication by combining a BCI based on voluntary motor imagery-controlled electroencephalographic (EEG) changes with a CBI inducing the conscious perception of phosphenes (light flashes) through neuronavigated, robotized transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), with special care taken to block sensory (tactile, visual or auditory) cues. Our results provide a critical proof-of-principle demonstration for the development of conscious B2B communication technologies. More fully developed, related implementations will open new research venues in cognitive, social and clinical neuroscience and the scientific study of consciousness. We envision that hyperinteraction technologies will eventually have a profound impact on the social structure of our civilization and raise important ethical issues.

[paper] [via @GF2045]

(via emergentfutures)

futurescope:

Generation IP: 2025

I’m not sure if I already had this corporate design fiction video / flat-pack future here. Therefore:

Welcome to Generation IP:2025 by Virgin Media Business — an in-depth study carried out in conjunction with The Future Laboratory - which provides an exciting glimpse into a hyper-connected Britain in just thirteen years’ time.

[Virgin 2025]

(via emergentfutures)

emergentfutures:

Paul Higgins - very happy to be rated as part of this incredible group of people

brucesterling:

*There’s something to this, but if you take the trouble to hang out with actual futurists you’ll see that they don’t really do much of this…  On the contrary, they’d glance at that image on the bottom and go “Oh yeah, that’s the classic Detroit Rust Belt model.  That scenario was big during the 1970s Energy Crisis.”
The 40 highest authority Twitter profiles in the network are:
@iftf – Institute for the Future@WorldFutureSoc – World Future Society@rossdawson – Ross Dawson@gleonhard – Gerd Leonhard@DefTechPat – Patrick Tucker@Urbanverse – Cindy Frewen@VenessaMiemis – Venessa Miemis@cshirky – Clay Shirky@cascio – Jamais Cascio@bruces – Bruce Sterling@mitchbetts – Mitch Betts@frankspencer – Frank Spencer@futuryst – Stuart Candy@johnmsmart – John Smart@Geofutures – Josh Calder@ThomasFrey – Thomas Frey@doctorow – Cory Doctorow@heathervescent – Heather Schlegel@psaffo – Paul Saffo@MareeConway – Maree Conway@dunagan23 – Jake Dunagan@jenjarratt – Jennifer Jarratt@kevin2kelly – Kevin Kelly@wendyinfutures – Wendy L Schultz@patrickdixon – Patrick Dixon@Joi – Joi Ito@GreatDismal – William Gibson@futuristpaul – Paul Higgins@futuramb – P A Martin Börjesson@kristinalford – Kristin Alford@nraford – Noah Raford@avantgame – Jane McGonigal@DavidBrin – David Brin@jhagel – John Hagel@fastfuture – Rohit Talwar@singularityhub – Singularity Hub@singularityu – SingularityU@futureguru – Dr. James Canton@timeguide – Ian Pearson@FutureCon – Future Conscience
Read more: http://rossdawson.com/articles/futurists-twitter-analysis-network-centrality/#ixzz3BrJtP4IX

emergentfutures:

Paul Higgins - very happy to be rated as part of this incredible group of people

brucesterling:

*There’s something to this, but if you take the trouble to hang out with actual futurists you’ll see that they don’t really do much of this…  On the contrary, they’d glance at that image on the bottom and go “Oh yeah, that’s the classic Detroit Rust Belt model.  That scenario was big during the 1970s Energy Crisis.”

The 40 highest authority Twitter profiles in the network are:

@iftf – Institute for the Future
@WorldFutureSoc – World Future Society
@rossdawson – Ross Dawson
@gleonhard – Gerd Leonhard
@DefTechPat – Patrick Tucker
@Urbanverse – Cindy Frewen
@VenessaMiemis – Venessa Miemis
@cshirky – Clay Shirky
@cascio – Jamais Cascio
@bruces – Bruce Sterling
@mitchbetts – Mitch Betts
@frankspencer – Frank Spencer
@futuryst – Stuart Candy
@johnmsmart – John Smart
@Geofutures – Josh Calder
@ThomasFrey – Thomas Frey
@doctorow – Cory Doctorow
@heathervescent – Heather Schlegel
@psaffo – Paul Saffo
@MareeConway – Maree Conway
@dunagan23 – Jake Dunagan
@jenjarratt – Jennifer Jarratt
@kevin2kelly – Kevin Kelly
@wendyinfutures – Wendy L Schultz
@patrickdixon – Patrick Dixon
@Joi – Joi Ito
@GreatDismal – William Gibson
@futuristpaul – Paul Higgins
@futuramb – P A Martin Börjesson
@kristinalford – Kristin Alford
@nraford – Noah Raford
@avantgame – Jane McGonigal
@DavidBrin – David Brin
@jhagel – John Hagel
@fastfuture – Rohit Talwar
@singularityhub – Singularity Hub
@singularityu – SingularityU
@futureguru – Dr. James Canton
@timeguide – Ian Pearson
@FutureCon – Future Conscience



Read more: http://rossdawson.com/articles/futurists-twitter-analysis-network-centrality/#ixzz3BrJtP4IX

fastcompany:

The electronic musician and DJ used more than 1,000 sound samples to create “Drop Science.”
Read More>

fastcompany:

The electronic musician and DJ used more than 1,000 sound samples to create “Drop Science.”

Read More>