title
stringlengths 6
88
| about_speakers
stringlengths 34
1.43k
⌀ | event
stringclasses 459
values | transcript
stringlengths 18
60.6k
|
|---|---|---|---|
The secrets of learning a new language | {0: 'Lýdia Machová teaches people how they can learn any language by themselves.'} | TED Salon Brightline Initiative | I love learning foreign languages. In fact, I love it so much that I like to learn a new language every two years, currently working on my eighth one. When people find that out about me, they always ask me, "How do you do that? What's your secret?" And to be honest, for many years, my answer would be, "I don't know. I simply love learning languages." But people were never happy with that answer. They wanted to know why they are spending years trying to learn even one language, never achieving fluency, and here I come, learning one language after another. They wanted to know the secret of polyglots, people who speak a lot of languages. And that made me wonder, too, how do actually other polyglots do it? What do we have in common? And what is it that enables us to learn languages so much faster than other people? I decided to meet other people like me and find that out. The best place to meet a lot of polyglots is an event where hundreds of language lovers meet in one place to practice their languages. There are several such polyglot events organized all around the world, and so I decided to go there and ask polyglots about the methods that they use. And so I met Benny from Ireland, who told me that his method is to start speaking from day one. He learns a few phrases from a travel phrasebook and goes to meet native speakers and starts having conversations with them right away. He doesn't mind making even 200 mistakes a day, because that's how he learns, based on the feedback. And the best thing is, he doesn't even need to travel a lot today, because you can easily have conversations with native speakers from the comfort of your living room, using websites. I also met Lucas from Brazil who had a really interesting method to learn Russian. He simply added a hundred random Russian speakers on Skype as friends, and then he opened a chat window with one of them and wrote "Hi" in Russian. And the person replied, "Hi, how are you?" Lucas copied this and put it into a text window with another person, and the person replied, "I'm fine, thank you, and how are you?" Lucas copied this back to the first person, and in this way, he had two strangers have a conversation with each other without knowing about it. (Laughter) And soon he would start typing himself, because he had so many of these conversations that he figured out how the Russian conversation usually starts. What an ingenious method, right? And then I met polyglots who always start by imitating sounds of the language, and others who always learn the 500 most frequent words of the language, and yet others who always start by reading about the grammar. If I asked a hundred different polyglots, I heard a hundred different approaches to learning languages. Everybody seems to have a unique way they learn a language, and yet we all come to the same result of speaking several languages fluently. And as I was listening to these polyglots telling me about their methods, it suddenly dawned on me: the one thing we all have in common is that we simply found ways to enjoy the language-learning process. All of these polyglots were talking about language learning as if it was great fun. You should have seen their faces when they were showing me their colorful grammar charts and their carefully handmade flash cards, and their statistics about learning vocabulary using apps, or even how they love to cook based on recipes in a foreign language. All of them use different methods, but they always make sure it's something that they personally enjoy. I realized that this is actually how I learn languages myself. When I was learning Spanish, I was bored with the text in the textbook. I mean, who wants to read about Jose asking about the directions to the train station. Right? I wanted to read "Harry Potter" instead, because that was my favorite book as a child, and I have read it many times. So I got the Spanish translation of "Harry Potter" and started reading, and sure enough, I didn't understand almost anything at the beginning, but I kept on reading because I loved the book, and by the end of the book, I was able to follow it almost without any problems. And the same thing happened when I was learning German. I decided to watch "Friends," my favorite sitcom, in German, and again, at the beginning it was all just gibberish. I didn't know where one word finished and another one started, but I kept on watching every day because it's "Friends." I can watch it in any language. I love it so much. And after the second or third season, seriously, the dialogue started to make sense. I only realized this after meeting other polyglots. We are no geniuses and we have no shortcut to learning languages. We simply found ways how to enjoy the process, how to turn language learning from a boring school subject into a pleasant activity which you don't mind doing every day. If you don't like writing words down on paper, you can always type them in an app. If you don't like listening to boring textbook material, find interesting content on YouTube or in podcasts for any language. If you're a more introverted person and you can't imagine speaking to native speakers right away, you can apply the method of self-talk. You can talk to yourself in the comfort of your room, describing your plans for the weekend, how your day has been, or even take a random picture from your phone and describe the picture to your imaginary friend. This is how polyglots learn languages, and the best news is, it's available to anyone who is willing to take the learning into their own hands. So meeting other polyglots helped me realize that it is really crucial to find enjoyment in the process of learning languages, but also that joy in itself is not enough. If you want to achieve fluency in a foreign language, you'll also need to apply three more principles. First of all, you'll need effective methods. If you try to memorize a list of words for a test tomorrow, the words will be stored in your short-term memory and you'll forget them after a few days. If you, however, want to keep words long term, you need to revise them in the course of a few days repeatedly using the so-called space repetition. You can use apps which are based on this system such as Anki or Memrise, or you can write lists of word in a notebook using the Goldlist method, which is also very popular with many polyglots. If you're not sure which methods are effective and what is available out there, just check out polyglots' YouTube channels and websites and get inspiration from them. If it works for them, it will most probably work for you too. The third principle to follow is to create a system in your learning. We're all very busy and no one really has time to learn a language today. But we can create that time if we just plan a bit ahead. Can you wake up 15 minutes earlier than you normally do? That would be the perfect time to revise some vocabulary. Can you listen to a podcast on your way to work while driving? Well, that would be great to get some listening experience. There are so many things we can do without even planning that extra time, such as listening to podcasts on our way to work or doing our household chores. The important thing is to create a plan in the learning. "I will practice speaking every Tuesday and Thursday with a friend for 20 minutes. I will listen to a YouTube video while having breakfast." If you create a system in your learning, you don't need to find that extra time, because it will become a part of your everyday life. And finally, if you want to learn a language fluently, you need also a bit of patience. It's not possible to learn a language within two months, but it's definitely possible to make a visible improvement in two months, if you learn in small chunks every day in a way that you enjoy. And there is nothing that motivates us more than our own success. I vividly remember the moment when I understood the first joke in German when watching "Friends." I was so happy and motivated that I just kept on watching that day two more episodes, and as I kept watching, I had more and more of those moments of understanding, these little victories, and step by step, I got to a level where I could use the language freely and fluently to express anything. This is a wonderful feeling. I can't get enough of that feeling, and that's why I learn a language every two years. So this is the whole polyglot secret. Find effective methods which you can use systematically over the period of some time in a way which you enjoy, and this is how polyglots learn languages within months, not years. Now, some of you may be thinking, "That's all very nice to enjoy language learning, but isn't the real secret that you polyglots are just super talented and most of us aren't?" Well, there's one thing I haven't told you about Benny and Lucas. Benny had 11 years of Irish Gaelic and five years of German at school. He couldn't speak them at all when graduating. Up to the age of 21, he thought he didn't have the language gene and he could not speak another language. Then he started to look for his way of learning languages, which was speaking to native speakers and getting feedback from them, and today Benny can easily have a conversation in 10 languages. Lucas tried to learn English at school for 10 years. He was one of the worst students in class. His friends even made fun of him and gave him a Russian textbook as a joke because they thought he would never learn that language, or any language. And then Lucas started to experiment with methods, looking for his own way to learn, for example, by having Skype chat conversations with strangers. And after just 10 years, Lucas is able to speak 11 languages fluently. Does that sound like a miracle? Well, I see such miracles every single day. As a language mentor, I help people learn languages by themselves, and I see this every day. People struggle with language learning for five, 10, even 20 years, and then they suddenly take their learning into their own hands, start using materials which they enjoy, more effective methods, or they start tracking their learning so that they can appreciate their own progress, and that's when suddenly they magically find the language talent that they were missing all their lives. So if you've also tried to learn a language and you gave up, thinking it's too difficult or you don't have the language talent, give it another try. Maybe you're also just one enjoyable method away from learning that language fluently. Maybe you're just one method away from becoming a polyglot. Thank you. (Applause) |
How Thor got his hammer | null | TED-Ed | Loki the mischief-maker, was writhing uncomfortably in Thor’s iron grip. The previous night, while the rest of the gods slept, he’d snuck up on Thor’s wife Sif and shorn off her beautiful hair. It’d seemed like a funny prank at the time, but now Thor was about to break every bone in his body. Loki had to think of some way to fix what he’d done. Yet who could replace Sif’s matchless hair, golden like a field of summer wheat? The dwarves! – their legendary smiths could make anything. So Loki rushed to their realm, deep within the mountains of the earth. Even before he arrived, the wily Loki was already scheming how he would get the dwarves to do his bidding. He decided that his best bet was to pit two families against each other. He first visited the masterful sons of Ivaldi. He told them that their rivals, a pair of brothers named Brokk and Eitri, had claimed that they were the best craftsmen in the world and were determined to prove it in a competition. The rules were that each family had to create three gifts for the gods, including, for the Ivaldis, golden hair. Then Loki visited Brokk and Eitri, and told them the same thing, only now claiming that the sons of Ivaldi had issued the challenge. But Brokk and Eitri couldn’t be fooled so easily, and only agreed to participate if Loki put his own head on the line. Literally—if Brokk and Eitri won, Loki would forfeit his head to them. Loki had no choice but to agree, and to save himself had to find a way to make sure the sons of Ivaldi emerged victorious. Both sets of dwarves got to work. Eitri set Brokk to man the bellows and told him not to stop for any reason, or the treasures would be ruined. Soon a strange black fly flew into the room. As a piece of pigskin was placed in the forge, the fly stung Brokk’s hand, but he didn’t flinch. Next, while Eitri worked a block of gold, the fly bit Brokk on the neck. The dwarf carried on. Finally, Eitri placed a piece of iron in the furnace. This time the fly landed right on Brokk’s eyelid and bit as hard as it could. And for just a split second, Brokk’s hand left the bellows. That’s all it took; their final treasure hadn’t stayed in the fire long enough. Loki now reappeared in his normal form, overjoyed by their failure, and accompanied the dwarves to present their treasures to the gods. First, Loki presented the treasures from the sons of Ivaldi. Their golden hair bound to Sif’s head and continued to grow, leaving her even more radiant than before. Next, for Odin the all-father, a magnificent spear that could pierce through anything. And finally a small cloth that unfolded into a mighty ship built for Freyr, god of the harvest. Then Brokk presented the treasures made by him and his brother. For Freyr they’d forged a golden-bristled boar who’d pull Freyr’s chariot across the sky faster than any mount. For Odin, a golden arm ring which would make eight more identical rings on every ninth night. And for Thor, a hammer called Mjolnir. Its handle was too short, and Loki smirked at the obvious defect. But then Brokk revealed its abilities. Mjolnir would never shatter, never miss its mark and always return to Thor’s hand when thrown. Despite the short handle, the gods all agreed this was the finest gift of all. Remembering what was at stake, Loki tried to flee, but Thor reached him first. But before the dwarves could have their due, clever Loki pointed out that they had won the rights to his head, but not his neck, and thus had no right to cut it. All begrudgingly admitted the truth in that, but Brokk would have the last laugh. Taking his brother’s awl, he pierced it through Loki’s lips and sewed his mouth shut, so the trickster god could no longer spread his malicious deceit. Yet the irony was not lost on the gods. For it was Loki’s deceit that had brought them these fine treasures and given Thor the hammer for which he’s still known today. |
The story of a parent's transition and a son's redemption | {0: 'Paula Stone Williams is a pastor, counselor, speaker, LGBTQ ambassador and gender equity advocate.', 1: 'Jonathan Williams likes to tell stories and throw parties, so he started a church that allowed him to do both.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | Paula Stone Williams: So, I was the CEO of a large, religious nonprofit, spoke at some of the largest churches in America, was on television in 70 different markets, but more than anything else, I just wanted to be a good parent. I told all three of my children, "When the going gets tough, you have to choose the road less traveled, the narrow path." I had no idea how difficult that was going to become. I knew from the time I was three or four years of age that I was transgender. I knew if I came out, I would lose everything. But the call toward authenticity is sacred and for the greater good, and it asks you to trust that the truth not only sets you free, it will set everyone free. I decided to stake my life on it. So I came out. Turns out, if you spend most of your life working in the conservative religious world, coming out as transgender is not all that great for your career. (Laughter) Who knew? (Laughter) Within seven days, I lost every single one of my jobs. My family was supportive but struggling. Most of my friends and coworkers had rejected me; the rest were confused. One friend said, "You really messed with me." I said, "Yeah, well, get in line." They said, "You were my only example of an alpha male who was gentle." And I thought, "Oh. You're right." I was an alpha male. And I was gentle. And if it was hard for him, how much more difficult was it for my own son? Jonathan Williams: Estrangement was not an option. It was Father's Day and my girls brought me craft beer and a homemade jar of pickles, which, in my estimation, is the perfect Father's Day gift. (Laughter) But the question remained: Do I call my own father? To call him, and I continue down this spiral of denial, pretending that my dad was still — well, my dad. To not call was to acknowledge that everything had changed. It meant that I was in for years of pain and mourning and sadness, but ultimately, hope for reconciliation. There's no playbook for when one's father of 30 plus years decides to transition to the female gender. But my dad did teach me one thing. He said the road to redemption always comes from choosing the narrow path. And so I decided not to call that day, and a few months later, Paula flew out and met me at a hotel in New York, my wife and I. I knocked on the door, and this woman answered. It definitely wasn't my dad. "It's good to see you," she said. It didn't sound like my dad, either. We went to lunch, and the waiter came to take our order. He said, "Let's start with the ladies," but there was only one lady at the table and it was my wife, and — oh my God, there are two women at the table. And my dad ordered something like lettuce, and I was like, I have fries on my plate. Did my dad like fries? I don't remember. I think he liked them. But she wasn't eating them. Here's this woman who knew everything about me, and I knew nothing about her. I don't even remember saying goodbye. PSW: All I could think about that day was that it was late September in New York, and I was wearing white jeans. (Laughter) You don't wear white after Labor Day in New York. There was a knock at the door, and all I could think about was, here I stand in my wrong jeans. And then I saw these big, blue eyes I love so much, and they were staring back at me in disbelief. And I thought, "Oh, this is not going to be easy." When one person in a family transitions, the entire family transitions whether they want to or not. Now, for those on the fringes it was easy. The liberals said, "Oh, wonderful! She's found her truth, how delightful." And the conservatives said, "That's messed up, I'm out of here." (Laughter) But for my family, neither extreme was going to work. Their anger, their hurt, their love and loyalty — all of it had to be brought on to the road of trials. JW: Was it all a lie? Every game of catch in the front yard, the Mets season tickets — was that with my dad or was that with her? I remember this one time, my dad took me on a bike ride through Heckscher Park to teach me about sex. He explained the parts of the body that I now know he wished weren't hers. Had my father ever even existed? Now, grief — grief is without rules. Grief borrows your car without asking, wrecks it and then doesn't apologize. And I was a wreck. This was heavy. I retreated into myself. I was angry. I felt betrayed. And I guess I should have known by the fact that you encouraged me to be a Mets fan that you were preparing me for life's really big disappointments. (Laughter) That's true. And yet, there were the games of catch, and there were the season tickets and bacon, egg and cheese sandwiches every Saturday from the best bagel place on Long Island. My father lived this life he didn't want to live, but he lived it so that I could have a dad. I stopped wondering if my dad had ever existed. He had existed — willfully, consciously, intentionally — each and every day of my growing up. For that, I was thankful. Paula's body was hers now and her transformation was complete, but my transformation was just beginning. I had another trial, another journey, another choice to heed my father's advice and continue down that narrow path. PSW: So most days I believe there is a God. Tuesdays and Thursdays can be tough, and any day that you're on the New Jersey Turnpike. I mean, really, you know? (Laughter) It's hard to believe in God when your soul is in the wrong body. Still, somehow I ended up in ministry. When I lost all my jobs, it was nothing personal. It's what religious tribes do. They believe an enemy is necessary for the tribe to survive, so where no enemy exists, they create one. Right now, sexual minorities are the enemy; my departure was swift and sure. I was surprised when my son left his job teaching in West Philadelphia to go into the ministry. I did not see that one coming. And now I wondered: What would he do? I didn't have to wait that long to find an answer. Six months after that first visit, he invited me back to New York. JW: The designers of the Brooklyn Bridge, they had their share of bad luck. John Roebling, he died shortly after the bridge's construction began. His son Washington took over, but he suffered from decompression sickness. His wife Emily became the surrogate executive engineer who oversaw the bridge's completion. Father and son, John and Washington, done in by their work. It was this sunny day in May and my father and I sat in the shadow of that Brooklyn Bridge. Would our lives follow the Roeblings' — father and son, done in by our work? My father thought that her friends in church would carry her through her transition, and they did not. They ditched her and they clung to me. I was the pastor of a new church in Brooklyn. This wonderful group of forward-thinking people, and yet, we were financially tied to really conservative churches. To hold space for Paula meant jeopardizing our own church's livelihood. I sort of straddled the line between these warring worlds. So I said to my dad, "Dad, I still live and work in your old world. Is it possible that you might extend an olive branch for my sake?" And her response was impassioned. You said to me, "Do you have any idea what it feels like to finally show yourself to your true friends and have them completely reject you? To ask you to live a lie? Do you know what that feels like?" And I didn't know what that felt like. But I knew I had a decision to make. It was the decision to continue down that narrow path through nights, but for the first time, I caught a glimpse of light. I cannot ask my father to be anything other than her true self. (Applause) PSW: So as we sat by the river that day, Jonathan talked about his pain, his suffering, his grief, his confusion. He brought all of himself to that conversation, and it tore at me to be the cause of such pain. But as he talked, there was something redemptive going on, full of tension but possibility, grounded in that narrow path. He said, "This is always going to be hard. It always will be. But Dad, I love you." My son is the best of me and more. He's bold and strong, sensitive and thoughtful. I guess you could say, he's an alpha male who's gentle. JW: It was time for my daughters to meet their — Paula. We went back to my apartment, and my daughters were coloring at the dining room table, and there was this awkward silence. And finally, my youngest asked a single, confident question. "So, Grandpa, do you have a penis?" (Laughter) And after the tension abated and the laughter subsided, my girls took their grandpa back into their room and showed her their new toys, and they christened her with a new name. They called her "GrandPaula." (Laughter) PSW: So this past summer, I had all five of my granddaughters at my home, there in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. We went swimming in the cool waters of the river that flows through our little town. And one day, one of Jonathan's girls said to me, "GrandPaula, can we go tubing on the river?" And I said, "Well, you know, I'd really wait until your daddy gets here for that. That feels to me like that ought to be his call." And she said, "Oh, but GrandPaula, he'll exactly make the same decision you would. He's a lot like you, you know." (Laughter) And I thought, yeah, he is a lot like me, both of us determined to find the narrow path and follow it through the long, dark night, all the way to the light of dawn. JW: Have you ever noticed that a child who is secure, a child who knows love, that child will dance? They wave their arms, they kick their legs to music that only they can hear. It's the music of a child who is safe and unharmed and wholly loved. The day after my children met their GrandPaula, she took them to go get doughnuts, and I watched as they walked down the street, and my girls took my father's arms, and they danced. My father's arms swung wildly. You bought them one too many doughnuts, because you always do — (Laughter) I watched my older daughter take a bite of her doughnut, and she unleashed two jumps and a twirl. It was perfect. That narrow path, it always has its share of burdens and challenges. But I was certain that we were going to see this through to redemption. I looked at my dad and I looked at my girls who were dancing and eating their doughnuts, and I said aloud to no one in particular, I said, "This ... this is how God sees my dad." My father was literally born again. And by choosing the narrow path of redemption, I was born again with her. Thank you. (Applause and cheers) |
What are you willing to give up to change the way we work? | {0: 'BCG’s Martin Danoesastro supports organizations to change their ways of working at scale, enabling them to succeed in an increasingly digital world.'} | TED@BCG Toronto | Have you ever watched a flock of birds work together? Thousands of animals, flying in perfect synchrony: Isn't it fascinating? What I find remarkable is that these birds would not be able to do that if they all would have to follow one leader. Their reaction speed would simply be too low. Instead, scientists believe that these birds are aligned on a few simple rules, allowing every single bird to make autonomous decisions while still flying in perfect synchrony. Their alignment enables their autonomy, and their autonomy makes them fast and flexible. Now, what does this have to do with any one of us? Well, it's one way of illustrating what I believe to be the most important change that is needed in ways of working today. The world is getting faster and more complex, so we need a new way of working, a way that creates alignment around purpose, that takes out bureaucracy and that truly empowers people to make decisions faster. But the question is: In order to get there, what are we willing to give up? A few years ago, I was working with a bank that wanted to embark on a digital transformation. They wanted their offering to be simpler, more intuitive, more relevant. Now, I'm not sure how many of you have seen a bank from the inside, so let me try to illustrate what many traditional banks look like. You see lots of people in suits taking elevators to go to their department, marketers sitting with marketers, engineers with engineers, etc. You see meetings with 20 people where nothing gets decided. Great ideas? They end up in PowerPoint parking lots. And there are endless handovers between departments. Getting anything done can take forever. So this bank knew that in order to transform, they would have to improve their time to market by drastically changing their ways of working as well. But how? To get some inspiration, we decided to go and have a look at companies that seem to be more innovative, like Google, Netflix, Spotify, Zappos. And I remember how we were walking the halls at one of these companies in December 2014, a management consultant and a team of bankers. We felt like strangers in a strange land, surrounded by beanbags and hoodies and lots of smart, creative employees. So then we asked, "How is your company organized?" And we expected to get an org chart. But instead, they used strange drawings with funny names like "squads" and "chapters" and "tribes" to explain how they were organized. So then we tried to translate that to our own world. We asked, "How many people are working for you?" "It depends." "Who do you report to?" "It depends." "Who decides on your priorities?" "It depends." You can imagine our surprise. We were asking for what we thought were some of the basic principles of organizations, and their answer was, "It depends." Now, over the course of that day, we gained a better understanding of their model. They believed in the power of small, autonomous teams. Their teams were like mini-start-ups. They had product people and IT engineers in the same team so they could design, build and test ideas with customers independently of others in the company. They did not need handovers between departments. They had all the skills needed right there in the team. Now, at the end of that day, we had a session to reflect on what we had learned. And we had started to like their model, so we were already thinking of how to apply some of these ideas to a bank. But then, one of the hosts, a guy who had not said a word all day, he suddenly said, "So I see you like our model. But I have one question for you: What are you willing to give up?" What were we willing to give up? We did not have an answer immediately, but we knew he was right. Change is not only about embracing the new; it's about giving up on some of the old as well. Now, over the past five years, I have worked with companies all over the world to change their ways of working. And clearly, every company has their own skeptics about why this is not going to work for them. "Our product is more complex," or "They don't have the legacy IT like we do," or "Regulators just won't allow this in our industry." But for this bank and also for the other companies that I have worked with afterwards, change was possible. Within a year, we completely blew up the old silos between marketing, product, channels and IT. Three thousand employees were reorganized into 350 multidisciplinary teams. So instead of product people sitting just with product people and engineers with engineers, a product person and an engineer were now members of the same team. You could be a member of a team responsible for account opening or for the mobile banking app, etc. At the go-live date of that new organization, some people were shaking hands for the very first time, only to find out that they had been sitting two minutes away from each other but they were sending each other emails and status reports for the last 10 years. You would hear someone saying, "Ah, so you're the guy that I was always chasing for answers." (Laughter) But now, they're having coffee together every day. If the product guy has an idea, he can just raise it to get input from the engineer who is sitting right next to him. They can decide to test with customers immediately — no handovers, no PowerPoints, no red tape, just getting stuff done. Now, getting there is not easy. And as it turns out, "What are you willing to give up?" is exactly the right question to ask. Autonomous decision-making requires multidisciplinary teams. Instead of decisions going up and down the organization, we want the team to decide. But to do so, we need all the skills and expertise for that decision in the team. And this brings difficult trade-offs. Can we physically co-locate our people who are working in different buildings, different cities or even different countries today? Or should we invest in better videoconferencing? And how do we ensure consistency in the way we do things across these teams? We still need some kind of management matrix. Now, all these changes to structure and process and procedure — they are not easy. But in the end, I found that the most difficult thing to change is our own behavior. Let me try to illustrate. If we want these teams to be fast, flexible, creative, like a mini-start-up, they have to be empowered and autonomous. But this means we cannot have leaders commanding their people what to do, when to do, how to do. No micromanagers. But it also means that each employee needs to become a leader, regardless of their formal title. It's about all of us stepping up to take initiative. Now obviously, we also cannot afford to have all these teams running in different directions, because that would certainly lead to chaos. So we need alignment and autonomy at the same time, just like a flock of birds. In an organizational setting, this requires new behaviors, and with each new behavior, there is giving up on something old as well. Leaders have to make sure that everyone in the organization is aligned around the overall purpose — the why — and the overall priorities — the what. But then they have to let go and trust their teams to make the right decisions on how to get there. Now, creating alignment requires open and transparent communication. But you know how they say that information is a source of power? Well, for some managers, sharing information may feel as if they're giving up that source of power. And it's not just managers. The teams need to communicate openly and transparently as well. In these companies, the teams typically work in short sprints, and at the end of every sprint, they organize a demo session to share the output of what they've done, transparently. And every day, each member of the team gives an update of what they are working on individually. Now, all this transparency can be uncomfortable for people, because suddenly, there is no place to hide anymore. Everything we do is transparent for everyone. So, alignment is not easy, and providing autonomy is not so obvious, either. One executive at another company likes to explain how he used to be a master of milestone-tracking. Now, today, to know how things are going, instead of looking at status reports, he needs to walk down to the team floors to attend one of their sessions. And instead of telling people what to do, he looks for ways to help them. That is radical change for someone who used to be a master of milestone-tracking. But in the old world, this executive said, "I only had the illusion of control. In reality, many projects would run over time and over budget, anyway. Now I have much more transparency, and I can course-correct much earlier if needed." And middle managers need to change as well. First of all, without the handovers and the PowerPoint, there's less of a need for middle managers. And in the old world, there was this idea of thinkers and doers. Employees would just follow orders. But now, instead of only managing other people, middle managers were expected to become player-coaches. So imagine, for the last 10 years, you have just been telling other people what to do, but now you're expected to do things yourself again. Clearly, this model is not for everyone, and some great people leave the company. But the result is a new culture with less hierarchy. And all of this is hard work. But it's worth it. The companies that I worked with, they were used to deploying new product features a few times per year. Now they have releases every few weeks, and without the handovers and the red tape, the whole organization becomes more efficient. And finally, if you walk the halls of these companies today, you just feel a new energy. It feels as if you're walking the halls of a very large start-up. Now, to be fair, these companies, they cannot claim victory yet. But at least with this new model, they are much better prepared to respond to change. The world is getting faster and more complex, so we need to reboot our way of working. And the hardest part of that change is not in structure or process or procedure, and it's also not just senior executives taking charge. Leaders will be all of those in the organization who embrace the change. We all have to lead the change. So the question is: What are you willing to give up? Thank you. (Applause) |
Can you survive nuclear fallout? | null | TED-Ed | The full scope of a nuclear detonation is almost unimaginable. Hopefully, no one will ever experience another of these catastrophic incidents. But there is a scientifically supported plan of action that could save hundreds of thousands of lives in the area surrounding a nuclear explosion. So what is this plan, and what exactly would it protect us from? To create their destructive blast, these weapons harness the power of nuclear fission– in which an atom’s nucleus is split in two. This process produces an incredible amount of energy, and in some materials the neutrons produced by one fission are absorbed by nearby atoms, splitting additional nuclei. These chain reactions can produce a range of explosive yields, but let’s consider an explosion equivalent to 10,000 tons of TNT. An explosion like this would create a fireball capable of decimating a few city blocks and a shockwave damaging buildings several kilometers away. There is tragically nothing that can be done to save those in the fireball’s radius. However, for those in the shockwave and beyond, our scientifically supported protocol could be life saving. And though it may sound surprising, the best way to stay protected before, during, and after a nuclear detonation, is getting inside. Similar to protecting yourself from tornadoes or hurricanes, getting and staying inside a sturdy building would offer protection from the explosion’s shockwave, heat, and radiation. The shockwave of energy would travel several kilometers beyond the fireball’s radius in the first few seconds. Sturdy buildings within that range should be able to withstand the shockwave, and staying in the centers and basements of these buildings also helps provide protection from heat and flying objects. Finding shelter is especially important if the fireball occurs close to the earth, as it will pull thousands of tons of dirt and debris several kilometers into the atmosphere. As the fireball cools, unstable atoms created by the nuclear fission mix with the debris to produce the most dangerous long-term effect of a nuclear detonation: radioactive particles called fallout. These sand-sized particles emit ionizing radiation, capable of separating electrons from molecules and atoms. Exposure to massive amounts of this radiation can result in cell damage, radiation burns, radiation sickness, cancer, and even death. Created several kilometers up, dangerous concentrations of this material would be driven by upper atmospheric winds, potentially leading to hazardous levels of fallout in areas up to tens of kilometers downwind. Thankfully, the same buildings that offer protection from the blast are even better at guarding against fallout. Radiation is reduced as it travels through space and mass. So while a broken window and sealed window both have the same minimal effect on radiation, thick layers of steel, concrete, and packed earth can offer serious protection. And since fallout gives off half of its energy in the first hour and 80% in the first day, staying inside for 24 hours could dramatically improve the odds of avoiding the most serious effects of radiation. Following the blast there would be at least 15 minutes to find shelter before the fallout begins. Since the most hazardous fallout particles are the heaviest, they sink through the air and collect on streets and rooftops, making ideal shelters underground or in the middle of high-rise buildings. But if someone were to get caught in the fallout, there are still measures they could take. After finding a safe space, they should remove their shoes and outer layers, wash any exposed skin, and store the contaminated clothing far away. Once inside, plan on staying there for at least 24 hours. If the shelter is poor, or someone inside needs urgent medical attention, try seeking outside help after an hour. But ideally, stay inside and stay tuned for more information from first responders. While electric power, cell service, and Internet would be down, most radios would likely survive. So listen in for emergency responders to determine the safest course forward. Nuclear weapons are some of the most powerful tools of destruction on Earth, and it may seem naive to put faith in these straightforward protective measures. But studies and simulations have repeatedly shown the benefits of getting inside. So while we’ll hopefully never need to, remember to Get Inside, Stay Inside, and Stay Tuned. |
How India's smartphone revolution is creating a new generation of readers and writers | {0: 'Chiki Sarkar is the founder of Juggernaut, a platform to find and read high quality, affordable books and to submit your writing.'} | TED Salon Brightline Initiative | Look all around you. Whether you're in a subway, a park, an airport, a restaurant, even at this conference, all of you have a phone in your hands or maybe in your pockets. How many of you have a book? Very few, right? This is the sight that used to greet me every time I walked out of my office block. I was surrounded by a sea of 20-something professionals glued to their phones. And not a single one had a book in their hands. And this used to make me very, very frustrated. I was a bookworm all my life. Books formed the milestones of my life. The first man I fell in love with was Mr. Darcy. I first read "Harry Potter" when I was 21, on a summer break from college. And I remember the first night I spent in a little flat I bought in my mid-20s, very proudly, and I spent the whole night reading "The Da Vinci Code." And then I'm going to make a terrible confession: even today, when I'm low, I get into bed with "War and Peace." Don't laugh. (Laughter) But I was also like all those people I saw around me: I, too, lived on my phone. I ordered my groceries online, and soon my app knew that I needed a monthly dose of diapers. I booked my cinemas on my phone. I booked planes on my phone. And when I did the long commute back home like most urban Indians, and was stuck in traffic, I passed the time on WhatsApp, video-chatting my twin. I was part of an extraordinary revolution that was happening in India. Indians are the second-largest users of smartphones in the world. And data prices have been slashed so radically that half of urban India and even a part of rural India now have a smartphone with a data connection in their hands. And if you know anything about India, you'll know that "half" means, like, all of America or something. You know, it's large numbers. (Laughter) And these numbers are just growing and growing and growing. They're exploding. And what they're doing is empowering Indians in all kinds of extraordinary ways. And yet, none of these changes that I was seeing around me were reflected in my world, my world of books. I live in a country the size of Europe, and it only has 50 decent bookshops. And Indians just didn't seem to want to read for fun. So if you look at all the best-seller lists in India, what you'll always find in the best-seller list is exam and professional guides. Imagine if you found the SAT guides as the "New York Times" number one seller, month after month. And yet, the smartphone revolution was creating readers and writers of a different kind. Whether it was on Facebook or WhatsApp, Indians were writing and sharing and reading all kinds of things: terrible jokes, spurious pop history, long, emotional confessions, diatribes against the government. And as I read and shared these things, I wondered to myself, "Could I get these writers and these readers, could I turn them into my readers?" And so I left my plush corner office and my job as the publisher of India's top publishing company, and I set up on my own. I moved into a single large room in a cheap bohemian district of Delhi, with a small team. And there, I set up a new kind of publishing house. A new kind of publishing house needs a new kind of reader and a new kind of book. And so I asked myself, "What would this new reader want? Would they prize urgency, relevance, timeliness, directness — the very qualities they seem to want from their online services, indeed, the qualities they seem to want from life today?" I knew that my readers were always on the go. I'd have to fit into their lifestyle and schedules. Would they actually want to read a 200-page book? Or would they want something a little bit more digestible? Indians are incredibly value-conscious, especially when it comes to their online reading. I knew I had to give them books under a dollar. And so my company was formed, and it was born. It was a platform where we created a list of stories designed for the smartphone, but it also allowed amateur writers to upload their own stories, so they could be showcased along with the very writers they read and admired. And we could also enter into other people's digital platforms. So, imagine this: imagine you're a receptionist, you've had a long day at work, you book your cab in your ride-hailing app, it shows up, and you get into your car, and you lie back on your seat, and you put on your app. And you find a set of stories waiting for you, timed to your journey. Imagine you're a gay young woman, in a relatively conservative city like Lucknow, which lies near Delhi. There's no way your parents know about your sexuality. They'd completely freak out. Would you like lesbian love stories written in Hindi, priced under a dollar, to be read in the privacy of your phone? And could I match readers to the events that were taking place around them in real time? So we published biographies of very famous politicians after they won big elections. When the supreme court decriminalized homosexuality, an LGBTQ collection was waiting on our home page. And when India's Toni Morrison, the great writer Mahasweta Devi died, our readers found a short story by her as soon as news hit. The idea was to be relevant to every moment of a reader's life. Who are our readers? They're mostly young men under the age of 30. There's someone like Salil, who lives in a city where there isn't a modern bookshop. And he comes to our app almost every day. There's someone like Manoj, who mostly reads us during the long commute back home. And there's someone like Ahmed, who loves our nonfiction that he can read in a single sitting, and that's priced very low. Imagine if you're like a young, techie boy in India's Silicon Valley city of Bangalore. And one day, you get an in-app notification and it says that your favorite actress has written a sexy short story and it's waiting for you. That's how we launched Juggernaut. We got a very famous ex-adult star, called Sunny Leone. She's India's most Googled person, as it happens. And we got her to write us a collection of sexy short stories that we published every night for a week. And it was a sensation. I mean, no one could believe that we'd asked Sunny Leone to write. But she did, and she proved everyone wrong, and she found this immense readership. And just as we've redefined what a book is and how a reader behaves, we're rethinking who an author is. In our amateur writing platform, we have writers that range from teenagers to housewives. And they're writing all kinds of things. It starts as small as a poem, an essay, a single short story ... Fifty percent of them are returning to the app to write again. Take someone like Neeraj. He's a middle-aged executive, wife, two kids, a good job. And Neeraj loves to read. But every time Neeraj read a book that he loved, he was also filled with regret. He wondered to himself if he could write, too. He was convinced he had stories in his mind. But time and real life had happened, and he couldn't really manage it. And then he heard about the Juggernaut writer's platform. And what he loved about it was that he felt this was a place where he could stand head and shoulders, equally, with the very writers that he most admired. And so he began to write. And he snatched a minute here, an hour there, in between flights in airports, late at night, when he had a little bit of time on his hands. And he wrote this extraordinary story for us. He wrote a story about a family of assassins who lived in the winding lanes of Old Delhi. We loved it, it was so fresh and original. And before Neeraj knew it, he'd not only scored a film deal but also a second contract to write another story. Neeraj's story is one of the most read stories on our app. My journey is very, very young. We're a two-year-old company, and we have a long way to go. But we already, and we will by the end of this year, have about half a million stories, many priced at under a dollar. Most of our readers love reading and trying out authors they've never, ever heard of before. Thirty percent of our home page reads comes out of the writing that comes from our writer's platform. By being everywhere, by being accessible and relevant, I hope to make reading a daily habit, as easy and effortless as checking your email, as booking a ticket online or ordering your groceries. And as for me, I've discovered that as I entered the six-inch world of the smartphone, my own world just got very, very big. Thank you. (Applause) |
You are your microbes | {0: 'Jessica Green wants people to understand the important role microbes play in every facet of our lives: climate change, building ecosystems, human health, even roller derby -- using nontraditional tools like art, animation and film to help people visualize the invisible world.'} | TED-Ed | Being human, we each view ourselves as a unique and independent individual, but we're never alone! Millions of microscopic beings inhabit our bodies, and no two bodies are the same. Each is a different habitat for microbial communities: from the arid deserts of our skin, to the villages on our lips, and the cities in our mouths. Even every tooth is its own distinctive neighborhood, and our guts are teaming metropolises of interacting microbes. And in these bustling streets of our guts, we see a constant influx of food, and every microbe has a job to do. Here's a cellulolytic bacteria, for example. Their one job is to break down cellulose, a common compound in vegetables, into sugars. Those simple sugars then move along to the respirators, another set of microbes that snatch up these simple sugars and burn them as fuel. As food travels through our digestive tract, it reaches the fermentors who extract energy from these sugars by converting them into chemicals, like alcohol and hydrogen gas, which they spew out as waste products. Deeper in the depths of our gut city, the syntrophs eke out a living off the fermenters' trash. At each step of this process, energy is released, and that energy is absorbed by the cells of the digestive tract. This city we just saw is different in everyone. Every person has a unique and diverse community of gut microbes that can process food in different ways. One person's gut microbes may be capable of releasing only a fraction of the calories that another person's gut microbes can extract. So, what determines the membership of our gut microbial community? Well, things like our genetic makeup and the microbes we encounter throughout our lives can contribute to our microbial ecosystems. The food we eat also influences which microbes live in our gut. For example, food made of complex molecules, like an apple, requires a lot of different microbial workers to break it down. But, if a food is made of simple molecules, like a lollipop, some of these workers are put out of a job. Those workers leave the city, never to return. What doesn't function well are gut microbial communities with only a few different types of workers. For example, humans who suffer from diseases like diabetes or chronic gut inflamation typically have less microbial variety in their guts. We don't fully understand the best way to manage our individual microbial societies, but it is likely that lifestyle changes, such as eating a varied diet of complex, plant-based foods, can help revitalize our microbial ecosystems in our gut and across the entire landscape of our body. So, we are really not alone in our body. Our bodies are homes to millions of different microbes, and we need them just as much as they need us. As we learn more about how our microbes interact with each other and with our bodies, we will reveal how we can nurture this complex, invisible world that shapes our personal identity, our health, and our well-being. |
What should electric cars sound like? | {0: 'Renzo Vitale explores the narrative between music, science and human perception -- envisioning sonic spaces for music to evolve, for cities to sing, for people to transcend.'} | TED@Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany | Let's start with silence. Silence is one of the most precious conditions for humans, because it allows us to feel the depth of our presence. This is one of the reasons why the advent of electric cars has generated lots of enthusiasm among people. For the first time, we could associate the concept of cars with the experience of silence. Cars can finally be quiet: peace in the streets, a silent revolution in the cities. (Hum) But silence can also be a problem. The absence of sound, in fact, when it comes to cars, it can be quite dangerous. Think of blind people, who can't see a car which is approaching. And now, if it's electric, they can't even hear it. Or think of every one of us as we are walking around the city, we are absorbed in our thoughts, and we detach from the surroundings. In these situations, sound can become our precious companion. Sound is one of the most wonderful gifts of our universe. Sound is emotion and sound is sublime, and when it comes to cars, sound is also information. In order to protect pedestrians and to give acoustic feedback to the drivers, governments around the world have introduced several regulations which prescribe the presence of a sound for electric vehicles. In particular, they require minimum sound levels at specific frequency bands up to the speed of 30 kilometers per hour. Besides this speed, the natural noise of the car is considered as sufficient. These regulations have generated different reactions among those who favor sounds and those who fear the presence of too much noise in the city. However, I don't see it as the noise of the car. I rather see it as the voice of the car. And this is one of my biggest challenges, and privileges, at the same time. I design the voice of electric cars. We all know how a combustion engine sounds like, and we do actually also know how an electric engine sounds like. Think of the electric tramway. As soon as it moves, it creates this ascending high-frequency pitch sound, which we called "whistling" sound. However, if we would just amplify this sound, we would still not be able to fulfill the legal requirements. That's also why we need to compose new sound. So how do we go after it? In many cities, the traffic is already very chaotic, and we don't need more chaos. But the streets of the 21st century are a great case study teeming with transience, cross purposes and disarray. And this landscape offers a great opportunity for developing new solutions on how to reduce this chaos. I have conceived a new approach that tries to reduce the chaos by introducing harmony. Since many people don't know how an electric car could sound like, I have to define, first of all, a new sound world, something that doesn't belong to our previous experience but creates a reference for the future. Together with a small team, we create lots of sonic textures that are able to transmit emotion. Just like a painter with colors, we are able to connect feelings and frequencies so that whenever one is approaching a car, we can feel an emotion which, besides fulfilling the legal requirements, speaks also about the character and the identity of the car. I call this paradigm "sound genetics." With sound genetics, I define, first of all, an aesthetic space of sound, and at the same time, I search for new, innovative methods for generating soundscapes that we don't know, soundscapes that allow us to envision abstract worlds, to make them tangible and audible. Sound genetics is based on three steps. The first one is the definition of a sonic organism, the second one is a description of sonic variations, and the third one is the composition of sound genes. The description of a sonic organism is based on a cluster of properties that every sound that I compose should have. [Sound is moving.] I transfer to a small sound entity, such as the sound of a car, the power of the motion of music, so that sound can move so. [Sound is acting.] And just like a dancer on a stage, sound will project trajectories of sound in the air. [Sound is memory.] And it's not just about the sound of a car. It's the memory of my father coming back home. [Sound is hypnotizing.] And sound has the power to create an unexpected sense of wonder, which hypnotizes. And ultimately, [Sound is superhuman.] sound goes beyond the human condition, because it allows us to transcend. As a second step, we define the sonic variations. [Identity prism] Just like humans, where different bodies generate different voices, also different car shapes have a different acoustic behavior which depends on the geometry and the materials. So we have to know, first of all, how this car propagates the sound outside by means of acoustic measurements. And just like a single voice is able to produce different tones and timbres, at the same time, we produce different sonic variations within a space of eight words that I defined. And some of them are, to me, really important, such as the concept of "visionary," of "elegance," of "dynamic," of "embracing." And once we have defined these two aspects, we have what I call the identity prism, which is something like the sonic identity card of a car. And as a third step, we enter the world of the sound design, where the sound genes are composed and a new archetype is conceived. Now let me show you another example of how I transform a sound field into a melody. Think that I am a violin player on stage. If I would start to play the violin, I would generate a sound field which would propagate in this hall, and at some point, the sound field would hit the side walls and would be scattered all over the place. And this is how it looked like. Some time ago, I captured several ways of sound to hit side walls. And last year, I was asked by the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra to compose ringtones that they were going to play. So one of them, I had the idea to start from this sound field. I took a section, I superimposed the section over the distribution of the musicians onstage, and then I followed the blooming of the sound field by means of three parameters: time, intensity and frequency. Then I wrote down all the gradients for each instrument, and as you can see, for instance, the piece will start with the string section playing very softly, and then it's going to have a crescendo as the brasses, the woods will jump in, and the melody will end with a harp and a piano playing on the highest range. Let's listen how it sounded like. (Ethereal music) (Music ends) So this is the sound of my alarm clock, actually, in the morning. (Laughter) And now let's go back to electric cars. And let's listen to the first example that I showed you. (Hum) And now I would like to show you how a potential sound, based on the sound genetics for electric cars, could sound like. (Ethereal music) (Pitch rises with acceleration) Cars are a metaphor of time, distance and journey, of setting out and returning, of anticipation and adventure, but, at the same time, of intelligence and complexity, of human intuition and accomplishment. And the sound has to glorify all that. I see cars both as living creatures and as highly complex performative art installations. The sounds that we envision through sound genetics allow us not only to celebrate this complexity but also to make the world a more elegant and safe space. Thank you. (Applause) |
Can you solve the multiplying rabbits riddle? | null | TED-Ed | After years of experiments, you’ve finally created the pets of the future– nano-rabbits! They’re tiny, they’re fuzzy… and they multiply faster than the eye can see. In your lab there are 36 habitat cells, arranged in an inverted pyramid, with 8 cells in the top row. The first has one rabbit, the second has two, and so on, with eight rabbits in the last one. The other rows of cells are empty… for now. The rabbits are hermaphroditic, and each rabbit in a given cell will breed once with every rabbit in the horizontally adjacent cells, producing exactly one offspring each time. The newborn rabbits will drop into the cell directly below the two cells of its parents, and within minutes will mature and reproduce in turn. Each cell can hold 10^80 nano-rabbits – that’s a 1 followed by 80 zeros – before they break free and overrun the world. Your calculations have given you a 46-digit number for the count of rabbits in the bottom cell– plenty of room to spare. But just as you pull the lever to start the experiment, your assistant runs in with terrible news. A rival lab has sabotaged your code so that all the zeros at the end of your results got cut off. That means you don’t actually know if the bottom cell will be able to hold all the rabbits – and the reproduction is already underway! To make matters worse, your devices and calculators are all malfunctioning, so you only have a few minutes to work it out by hand. How many trailing zeros should there be at the end of the count of rabbits in the bottom habitat? And do you need to pull the emergency shut-down lever? Pause the video now if you want to figure it out for yourself. Answer in 3 Answer in 2 Answer in 1 There isn’t enough time to calculate the exact number of rabbits in the final cell. The good news is we don’t need to. All we need to figure out is how many trailing zeros it has. But how can we know how many trailing zeros a number has without calculating the number itself? What we do know is that we arrive at the number of rabbits in the bottom cell through a process of multiplication – literally. The number of rabbits in each cell is the product of the number of rabbits in each of the two cells above it. And there are only two ways to get numbers with trailing zeros through multiplication: either multiplying a number ending in 5 by any even number, or by multiplying numbers that have trailing zeroes themselves. Let’s calculate the number of rabbits in the second row and see what patterns emerge. Two of the numbers have trailing zeros – 20 rabbits in the fourth cell and 30 in the fifth cell. But there are no numbers ending in 5. And since the only way to get a number ending in 5 through multiplication is by starting with a number ending in 5, there won’t be any more down the line either. That means we only need to worry about the numbers that have trailing zeros themselves. And a neat trick to figure out the amount of trailing zeros in a product is to count and add the trailing zeros in each of the factors – for example, 10 x 100 = 1,000. So let’s take the numbers in the fourth and fifth cells and multiply down from there. 20 and 30 each have one zero, so the product of both cells will have two trailing zeros, while the product of either cell and an adjacent non-zero-ending cell will have only one. When we continue all the way down, we end up with 35 zeros in the bottom cell. And if you’re not too stressed about the potential nano-rabbit apocalypse, you might notice that counting the zeros this way forms part of Pascal’s triangle. Adding those 35 zeros to the 46 digit number we had before yields an 81 digit number – too big for the habitat to contain! You rush over and pull the emergency switch just as the seventh generation of rabbits was about to mature – hare-raisingly close to disaster. |
The biology of gender, from DNA to the brain | {0: 'Karissa Sanbonmatsu investigates how DNA allows cells in our body to remember events that take place.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | So what does it mean to be a woman? We all have XX chromosomes, right? Actually, that's not true. Some women are mosaics. They have a mix of chromosome types with X, with XY or with XXX. If it's not just about our chromosomes, then what is being a woman about? Being feminine? Getting married? Having kids? You don't have to look far to find fantastic exceptions to these rules, but we all share something that makes us women. Maybe that something is in our brains. You might have heard theories from last century about how men are better at math than women because they have bigger brains. These theories have been debunked. The average man has a brain about three times smaller than the average elephant, but that doesn't mean the average man is three times dumber than an elephant ... or does it? (Laughter) There's a new wave of female neuroscientists that are finding important differences between female and male brains in neuron connectivity, in brain structure, in brain activity. They're finding that the brain is like a patchwork mosaic — a mixture. Women have mostly female patches and a few male patches. With all this new data, what does it mean to be a woman? This is something that I've been thinking about almost my entire life. When people learn that I'm a woman who happens to be transgender, they always ask, "How do you know you're a woman?" As a scientist, I'm searching for a biological basis of gender. I want to understand what makes me me. New discoveries at the front edge of science are shedding light on the biomarkers that define gender. My colleagues and I in genetics, neuroscience, physiology and psychology, we're trying to figure out exactly how gender works. These vastly different fields share a common connection — epigenetics. In epigenetics, we're studying how DNA activity can actually radically and permanently change, even though the sequence stays the same. DNA is the long, string-like molecule that winds up inside our cells. There's so much DNA that it actually gets tangled into these knot-like things — we'll just call them knots. So external factors change how those DNA knots are formed. You can think of it like this: inside our cells, there's different contraptions building things, connecting circuits, doing all the things they need to make life happen. Here's one that's sort of reading the DNA and making RNA. And then this one is carrying a huge sac of neurotransmitters from one end of the brain cell to the other. Don't they get hazard pay for this kind of work? (Laughter) This one is an entire molecular factory — some say it's the secret to life. It's call the ribosome. I've been studying this since 2001. One of the stunning things about our cells is that the components inside them are actually biodegradable. They dissolve, and then they're rebuilt each day, kind of like a traveling carnival where the rides are taken down and then rebuilt every single day. A big difference between our cells and the traveling carnival is that in the carnival, there are skilled craftsmen that rebuild the rides each day. In our cells, there are no such skilled craftsmen, only dumb builder machines that build whatever's written in the plans, no matter what those plans say. Those plans are the DNA. The instructions for every nook and cranny inside our cells. If everything in, say, our brain cells dissolves almost every day, then how can the brain remember anything past one day? That's where DNA comes in. DNA is one of the those things that does not dissolve. But for DNA to remember that something happened, it has to change somehow. We know the change can't be in the sequence; if it changed sequence all the time, then we might be growing like, a new ear or a new eyeball every single day. (Laughter) So, instead it changes shape, and that's where those DNA knots come in. You can think of them like DNA memory. When something big in our life happens, like a traumatic childhood event, stress hormones flood our brain. The stress hormones don't affect the sequence of DNA, but they do change the shape. They affect that part of DNA with the instructions for molecular machines that reduce stress. That piece of DNA gets wound up into a knot, and now the dumb builder machines can't read the plans they need to build the machines that reduce stress. That's a mouthful, but it's what's happening on the microscale. On the macroscale, you practically lose the ability to deal with stress, and that's bad. And that's how DNA can remember what happens in the past. This is what I think was happening to me when I first started my gender transition. I knew I was a woman on the inside, and I wore women's clothes on the outside, but everyone saw me as a man in a dress. I felt like no matter how many things I try, no one would ever really see me as a woman. In science, your credibility is everything, and people were snickering in the hallways, giving me stares, looks of disgust — afraid to be near me. I remember my first big talk after transition. It was in Italy. I'd given prestigious talks before, but this one, I was terrified. I looked out into the audience, and the whispers started — the stares, the smirks, the chuckles. To this day, I still have social anxiety around my experience eight years ago. I lost hope. Don't worry, I've had therapy so I'm OK — I'm OK now. (Laughter) (Cheers) (Applause) But I felt enough is enough: I'm a scientist, I have a doctorate in astrophysics, I've published in the top journals, in wave-particle interactions, space physics, nucleic acid biochemistry. I've actually been trained to get to the bottom of things, so — (Laughter) I went online — (Applause) So I went online, and I found fascinating research papers. I learned that these DNA knot things are not always bad. Actually, the knotting and unknotting — it's like a complicated computer language. It programs our bodies with exquisite precision. So when we get pregnant, our fertilized eggs grow into newborn babies. This process requires thousands of DNA decisions to happen. Should an embryo cell become a blood cell? A heart cell? A brain cell? And the decisions happen at different times during pregnancy. Some in the first trimester, some in the second trimester and some in the third trimester. To truly understand DNA decision-making, we need to see the process of knot formation in atomic detail. Even the most powerful microscopes can't see this. What if we tried to simulate these on a computer? For that we'd need a million computers to do that. That's exactly what we have at Los Alamos Labs — a million computers connected in a giant warehouse. So here we're showing the DNA making up an entire gene folded into very specific shapes of knots. For the first time, my team has simulated an entire gene of DNA — the largest biomolecular simulation performed to date. For the first time, we're beginning to understand the unsolved problem of how hormones trigger the formation of these knots. DNA knot formation can be seen beautifully in calico cats. The decision between orange and black happens early on in the womb, so that orange-and-black patchy pattern, it's an exact readout of what happened when that cat was just a tiny little kitten embryo inside her mom's womb. And the patchy pattern actually happens in our brains and in cancer. It's directly related to intellectual disability and breast cancer. These DNA decisions also happen in other parts of the body. It turns out that the precursor genitals transform into either female or male during the first trimester of pregnancy. The precursor brains, on the other hand, transform into female or male during the second trimester of pregnancy. So the current working model is that a unique mix in my mom's womb caused the precursor genitals to transform one way, but the precursor brain to transform the other way. Most of epigenetic research has really focused on stress, anxiety, depression — kind of a downer, kind of bad things. (Laughter) But nowadays — the latest stuff — people are looking at relaxation. Can that have a positive effect on your DNA? Right now we're missing key data from mice models. We know that mice relax, but could they meditate like the Dalai Lama? Achieve enlightenment? Could they move stones with their mind like Jedi Master Yoda? (Yoda voice): Hm, a Jedi mouse must feel the force flow, hm. (Laughter) (Applause) I wonder if the support I've had since that talk back in Italy has tried to unwind my DNA. Having a great circle of friends, supportive parents and being in a loving relationship has actually given me strength and hope to help others. At work I wear a rainbow bracelet. Sometimes it raises eyebrows, but it also raises awareness. There's so many transgender people — especially women of color — that are just one demeaning comment away from taking their own lives. Forty percent of us attempt suicide. If you're listening and you feel like you have no other option, try to call a friend, go online or try to get in a support group. If you're a woman who's not transgender but you know pain of isolation, of sexual assault — reach out. So what does it mean to be a woman? The latest research is showing that female and male brains do develop differently in the womb, possibly giving us females this innate sense of being a woman. On the other hand, maybe it's our shared sense of commonality that makes us women. We come in so many different shapes and sizes that asking what it means to be a woman may not be the right question. It's like asking a calico cat what it means to be a calico cat. Maybe becoming a woman means accepting ourselves for who we really are and acknowledging the same in each other. I see you. And you've just seen me. (Applause and cheers) |
A beginner's guide to quantum computing | {0: 'Shohini Ghose explores the strange quantum world of atoms and photons to understand the fundamental laws of the universe and harness them for quantum computing and communication -- and works to make science accessible and inclusive for people of all genders and backgrounds.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | Let's play a game. Imagine that you are in Las Vegas, in a casino, and you decide to play a game on one of the casino's computers, just like you might play solitaire or chess. The computer can make moves in the game, just like a human player. This is a coin game. It starts with a coin showing heads, and the computer will play first. It can choose to flip the coin or not, but you don't get to see the outcome. Next, it's your turn. You can also choose to flip the coin or not, and your move will not be revealed to your opponent, the computer. Finally, the computer plays again, and can flip the coin or not, and after these three rounds, the coin is revealed, and if it is heads, the computer wins, if it's tails, you win. So it's a pretty simple game, and if everybody plays honestly, and the coin is fair, then you have a 50 percent chance of winning this game. And to confirm that, I asked my students to play this game on our computers, and after many, many tries, their winning rate ended up being 50 percent, or close to 50 percent, as expected. Sounds like a boring game, right? But what if you could play this game on a quantum computer? Now, Las Vegas casinos do not have quantum computers, as far as I know, but IBM has built a working quantum computer. Here it is. But what is a quantum computer? Well, quantum physics describes the behavior of atoms and fundamental particles, like electrons and photons. So a quantum computer operates by controlling the behavior of these particles, but in a way that is completely different from our regular computers. So a quantum computer is not just a more powerful version of our current computers, just like a light bulb is not a more powerful candle. You cannot build a light bulb by building better and better candles. A light bulb is a different technology, based on deeper scientific understanding. Similarly, a quantum computer is a new kind of device, based on the science of quantum physics, and just like a light bulb transformed society, quantum computers have the potential to impact so many aspects of our lives, including our security needs, our health care and even the internet. So companies all around the world are working to build these devices, and to see what the excitement is all about, let's play our game on a quantum computer. So I can log into IBM's quantum computer from right here, which means I can play the game remotely, and so can you. To make this happen, you may remember getting an email ahead of time, from TED, asking you whether you would choose to flip the coin or not, if you played the game. Well, actually, we asked you to choose between a circle or a square. You didn't know it, but your choice of circle meant "flip the coin," and your choice of square was "don't flip." We received 372 responses. Thank you. That means we can play 372 games against the quantum computer using your choices. And it's a pretty fast game to play, so I can show you the results right here. Unfortunately, you didn't do very well. (Laughter) The quantum computer won almost every game. It lost a few only because of operational errors in the computer. (Laughter) So how did it achieve this amazing winning streak? It seems like magic or cheating, but actually, it's just quantum physics in action. Here's how it works. A regular computer simulates heads or tails of a coin as a bit, a zero or a one, or a current flipping on and off inside your computer chip. A quantum computer is completely different. A quantum bit has a more fluid, nonbinary identity. It can exist in a superposition, or a combination of zero and one, with some probability of being zero and some probability of being one. In other words, its identity is on a spectrum. For example, it could have a 70 percent chance of being zero and a 30 percent chance of being one or 80-20 or 60-40. The possibilities are endless. The key idea here is that we have to give up on precise values of zero and one and allow for some uncertainty. So during the game, the quantum computer creates this fluid combination of heads and tails, zero and one, so that no matter what the player does, flip or no flip, the superposition remains intact. It's kind of like stirring a mixture of two fluids. Whether or not you stir, the fluids remain in a mixture, but in its final move, the quantum computer can unmix the zero and one, perfectly recovering heads so that you lose every time. (Laughter) If you think this is all a bit weird, you are absolutely right. Regular coins do not exist in combinations of heads and tails. We do not experience this fluid quantum reality in our everyday lives. So if you are confused by quantum, don't worry, you're getting it. (Laughter) But even though we don't experience quantum strangeness, we can see its very real effects in action. You've seen the data for yourself. The quantum computer won because it harnessed superposition and uncertainty, and these quantum properties are powerful, not just to win coin games, but also to build future quantum technologies. So let me give you three examples of potential applications that could change our lives. First of all, quantum uncertainty could be used to create private keys for encrypting messages sent from one location to another so that hackers could not secretly copy the key perfectly, because of quantum uncertainty. They would have to break the laws of quantum physics to hack the key. So this kind of unbreakable encryption is already being tested by banks and other institutions worldwide. Today, we use more than 17 billion connected devices globally. Just imagine the impact quantum encryption could have in the future. Secondly, quantum technologies could also transform health care and medicine. For example, the design and analysis of molecules for drug development is a challenging problem today, and that's because exactly describing and calculating all of the quantum properties of all the atoms in the molecule is a computationally difficult task, even for our supercomputers. But a quantum computer could do better, because it operates using the same quantum properties as the molecule it's trying to simulate. So future large-scale quantum simulations for drug development could perhaps lead to treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's, which affects thousands of lives. And thirdly, my favorite quantum application is teleportation of information from one location to another without physically transmitting the information. Sounds like sci-fi, but it is possible, because these fluid identities of the quantum particles can get entangled across space and time in such a way that when you change something about one particle, it can impact the other, and that creates a channel for teleportation. It's already been demonstrated in research labs and could be part of a future quantum internet. We don't have such a network as yet, but my team is working on these possibilities, by simulating a quantum network on a quantum computer. So we have designed and implemented some interesting new protocols such as teleportation among different users in the network and efficient data transmission and even secure voting. So it's a lot of fun for me, being a quantum physicist. I highly recommend it. (Laughter) We get to be explorers in a quantum wonderland. Who knows what applications we will discover next. We must tread carefully and responsibly as we build our quantum future. And for me, personally, I don't see quantum physics as a tool just to build quantum computers. I see quantum computers as a way for us to probe the mysteries of nature and reveal more about this hidden world outside of our experiences. How amazing that we humans, with our relatively limited access to the universe, can still see far beyond our horizons just using our imagination and our ingenuity. And the universe rewards us by showing us how incredibly interesting and surprising it is. The future is fundamentally uncertain, and to me, that is certainly exciting. Thank you. (Applause) |
A glimpse of teenage life in ancient Rome | null | TED-Ed | It's March the 17th in A.D. 73. We're visiting ancient Rome to watch the Liberalia, an annual festival that celebrates the liberty of Rome's citizens. We're looking in at a 17-year-old named Lucius Popidius Secundus. He's not from a poor family, but he lives in the region known as the Subura, a poorer neighborhood in Rome, yet close to the center of the city. (Gong) The tenants of these apartments are crammed in, (Grunting) which poses considerable risk. Fires are frequent and the smell of ash and smoke in the morning is not uncommon. Lucius, who awoke at dawn, has family duties to perform today. (Cheering) His 15-year-old brother is coming of age. Half the children in ancient Rome die before they reach adulthood, so this is a particularly important milestone. Lucius watches his brother stand in his new toga before the household shrine with its protective deities, as he places his bulla, a protective amulet, in the shrine with a prayer of thanks. The bulla had worked. It had protected him. Unlike many others, he had survived to become an adult. At 17, Lucius has almost completed his education. He has learned to speak well, make public speeches, and how to read and write both Latin and Greek. His father has taught him the types of things you can't learn in the classroom: how to run, how to swim, and how to fight. Lucius could choose, at 17, to become a military tribune and command soldiers on the edge of the Empire. But in other ways, Lucius is still a child. He's not trusted to arrange business deals. His father will take care of that until he is 25. And Dad will arrange Lucius' marriage to a girl 10 years younger. His dad has his eye on a family with a 7-year-old daughter. Back to the Liberalia. As Lucius leaves with his family, the shops are open as the population goes about its business. The streets are full of itinerant traders selling trinkets and people bustling from place to place. Large wagons are not allowed in the city until after the ninth hour but the streets are still crowded. Fathers and uncles take the kids to the Forum Augustus to see statues of Rome's famous warriors like Aeneas, who led Rome's ancestors, the Trojans, to Italy. And Romulus, Rome's founder. And all the great generals of the Republic from more than 100 years earlier. Lovingly, we can imagine fathers and guardians with their now adult children remembering stories of Rome's glory and re-telling the good deeds and sayings of the great men of the past: lessons on how to live well, and to overcome the follies of youth. There is a sense of history in this place, relevant to their present. Romans made an empire without end in time and space. (Thump) Rome was destined to be eternal through warfare. Wars were a fact of life, even in A.D. 73. There are campaigns in the north of England and into Scotland, to the north of the River Danube into Romania, and on the frontier between Syria and Iraq to the east. It's now the eighth hour — time to head for the baths. Lucius and his family head up the Via Lata, the wide street, to the Campus Martius, and the enormous Baths of Agrippa. The family members leave the clients and freedmen outside, and enter the baths with their peer group. Baths would change from dark, steamy rooms to light ones. The Romans had perfected window glass. Everyone moves from the cold room to the tepid room and to the very hot room. (Man) Oops! More than an hour later, the bathers leave massaged, oiled, (Whistling) and have been scraped down with a strigil to remove the remaining dirt. At the ninth hour, seven hours after they left home, the men return for a celebratory dinner. Dinner is an intimate affair, with nine people reclining around the low table. Slaves attend to their every need if the diners, through gestures, demand more food and wine. As the day closes, we can hear the rumble of wagons outside. The clients and freedmen, with a meal of robust — if inferior — food inside them, shuffle off to the now tepid baths before returning to their apartment blocks. Back at Lucius' house, the drinking continues into the night. Lucius and his stepbrother don't look too well. A slave stands by in case either of them needs to vomit. With hindsight, we know Lucius' future. In 20 years' time, the Emperor Vespasian's youngest son, Domitian, as emperor, will enact a reign of terror. Will Lucius survive? (Drums) |
A mother and son's photographic journey through dementia | {0: "Tony Luciani picked up a camera in 2014 to document his aging mom's struggle with dementia, beginning a four-year-long voyage of discovery."} | TEDxCambridge | When my 91-year-old mother, Elia, moved in with me, I thought I was doing her a service. In fact, it was the other way around. You see, Mom was having issues with memory loss and accepting her age. She looked defeated. I tried to make her as comfortable as possible, but when I was at my easel, painting, I would peek over and see her just ... there. She'd be staring at nothing in particular. I'd watch her slowly climb the stairs, and she wasn't the mom I grew up with. I saw, instead, a frail, tiny, old woman. A few weeks went by, and I needed a break from my painting. I wanted to play with the new camera I had just bought. I was excited — it had all sorts of dials, buttons and settings I wanted to learn, so I set up my tripod facing this large mirror, blocking the doorway to the only bathroom in the house. (Laughter) After a while, I hear, (Imitating Italian accent) "I need to use the washroom." (Laughter) "Five minutes, Mom. I need to do this." 15 minutes later, and I hear, again, "I need to use the washroom." "Five more minutes." Then this happened. (Laughter) (Applause) And this. (Laughter) And then, this. (Laughter) I had my "aha!" moment. We connected. We had something tangible we could do together. My mom was born in a small mountain village in central Italy, where her parents had land and sheep. At a young age, her father died of pneumonia, leaving his wife and two daughters alone with all the heavy chores. They found that they couldn't cope. So a very hard decision was made. Mom, the oldest, at 13, was married off to a complete stranger twice her age. She went from being just a kid and was pushed into adulthood. Mom had her first child when she was only 16. Years later, and now living in Toronto, Mom got work in a clothing factory and soon became manager of a very large sewing department. And because it was full of immigrant workers, Mom taught herself words from translation books. She then practiced them in French, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish, Polish, Russian, Romanian, Hungarian, all around the house. I was in awe of her focus and determination to succeed at whatever she loved to do. After that bathroom "aha!" moment, I practiced my newfound camera skills with Mom as portrait model. Through all of this, she talked, and I listened. She'd tell me about her early childhood and how she was feeling now. We had each other's attention. Mom was losing her short-term memory, but was better recalling her younger years. I'd ask, and she would tell me stories. I listened, and I was her audience. I got ideas. I wrote them down, and I sketched them out. I showed her what to do by acting out the scenarios myself. We would then stage them. So she posed, and I learned more about photography. Mom loved the process, the acting. She felt worthy again, she felt wanted and needed. And she certainly wasn't camera-shy. (Laughter) (Applause) Mom laughed hysterically at this one. (Laughter) The idea for this image came from an old German film I'd seen, about a submarine, called "Das Boot." As you can see, what I got instead looked more like "E.T." (Laughter) So I put this image aside, thinking it was a total failure, because it didn't reach my particular vision. But Mom laughed so hard, I eventually, for fun, decided to post it online anyway. It got an incredible amount of attention. Now, with any Alzheimer's, dementia, there's a certain amount of frustration and sadness for everyone involved. This is Mom's silent scream. Her words to me one day were, "Why is my head so full of things to say, but before they reach my mouth, I forget what they are?" "Why is my head so full of things to say, but before they reach my mouth, I forget what they are?" (Applause) Now, as full-time care partner and full-time painter, I had my frustrations too. (Laughter) But to balance off all the difficulties, we played. That was Mom's happy place. And I needed her to be there, too. (Laughter) (Laughter) (Laughter) Now, Mom was also preoccupied with aging. She would say, "How did I get so old, so fast?" (Audience sighs) "So old." "So fast." I also got Mom to model for my oil paintings. This painting is called "The Dressmaker." I remember, as a kid, Mom sewing clothes for the whole family on this massive, heavy sewing machine that was bolted to the floor in the basement. Many nights, I would go downstairs and bring my schoolwork with me. I would sit behind her in this overstuffed chair. The low hum of the huge motor and the repetitive stitching sounds were comforting to me. When Mom moved into my house, I saved this machine and stored it in my studio for safekeeping. This painting brought me back to my childhood. The interesting part was that it was now Mom, sitting behind me, watching me paint her working on that very same machine she sewed at when I sat behind her, watching her sew, 50 years earlier. I also gave Mom a project to do, to keep her busy and thinking. I provided her with a small camera and asked her to take at least 10 pictures a day of anything she wanted. These are Mom's photographs. She's never held a camera in her life before this. She was 93. We would sit down together and talk about our work. I would try to explain (Laughter) how and why I did them, the meaning, the feeling, why they were relevant. Mom, on the other hand, would just bluntly say, "sì," "no," "bella" or "bruta." (Laughter) I watched her facial expressions. She always had the last say, with words or without. This voyage of discovery hasn't ended with Mom. She is now in an assisted living residence, a 10-minute walk away from my home. I visit her every other day. Her dementia had gotten to the point where it was unsafe for her to be in my house. It has a lot of stairs. She doesn't know my name anymore. (Voice breaking) But you know what? That's OK. She still recognizes my face and always has a big smile when she sees me. (Applause) (Applause ends) I don't take pictures of her anymore. That wouldn't be fair or ethical on my part. And she wouldn't understand the reasons for doing them. My father, my brother, (Voice breaking) my nephew, my partner and my best friend, all passed away suddenly. And I didn't have the chance to tell them how much I appreciated and loved them. With Mom, I need to be there and make it a very long goodbye. (Applause) (Applause ends) For me, it's about being present and really listening. Dependents want to feel a part of something, anything. It doesn't need to be something exceptionally profound that's shared — it could be as simple as walks together. Give them a voice of interaction, participation, and a feeling of belonging. Make the time meaningful. Life, it's about wanting to live and not waiting to die. (Applause) (Applause ends) Can I get a wave and a smile from everyone, please? (Laughter) This is for you, Mom. (Camera clicks) (Applause) |
The truth about electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) | null | TED-Ed | In 1982, a young nurse was suffering from severe, unrelenting depression. She couldn’t work, socialize, or even concentrate well enough to read the newspaper. One treatment changed everything. After two courses of electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, her symptoms lifted. She went back to work, then on to graduate school, where she earned high grades. At first, she talked openly about her life changing treatment. But as she realized many people had an extremely negative impression of ECT, she stopped sharing her experience. ECT carried a deep stigma, leftover from a history that bears little resemblance to the modern procedure. The therapy was first used in medicine in 1938. In its early years, doctors administered a strong electrical current to the brain, causing a whole-body seizure during which patients might bite their tongues or even break bones. Modern ECT is very different. While a patient is under general anesthesia, electrodes deliver a series of mild electrical pulses to the brain. This causes huge numbers of neurons to fire in unison: a brief, controlled seizure. A muscle relaxant keeps spasms from spreading to the rest of his body. The only physical indication of the electricity flooding the brain is a twitching foot. The treatment lasts for about a minute, and most patients are able to resume normal activities about an hour after each session. ECT is commonly used to treat severe cases of major depression or bipolar disorder in patients who haven’t responded to other therapies, or who have had adverse reactions to medication. Half or more of those who undergo treatment experience an improvement in their symptoms. Most patients treated with ECT have two or three sessions per week for several weeks. Some begin to notice an improvement in their symptoms after just one session, while others take longer to respond. Patients often continue less frequent treatments for several months to a year, and some need occasional maintenance sessions for the rest of their lives. Modern ECT is much safer than it used to be, but patients can still experience side effects. They may feel achy, fatigued, or nauseated right after treatment. Some have trouble remembering what happened right before a session— for example, what they had for dinner the previous evening. Rarely, they might have trouble remembering up to weeks and months before. For most patients, this memory loss does improve over time. What's fascinating is that despite its proven track record, we still don't know exactly why ECT works. Neurons in the brain communicate via electrical signals, which influence our brain chemistry, contributing to mood and behavior. The flood of electrical activity sparked by ECT alters that chemistry. For example, ECT triggers the release of certain neurotransmitters, molecules that help carry signals between neurons and influence mental health. ECT also stimulates the flow of hormones that may help reduce symptoms of depression. Interestingly, ECT maintenance works better when paired with medication, even in patients who were resistant to medication before. As we come to a better understanding of the brain, we’ll likely be able to make ECT even more effective. In 1995, more than a decade after her first course of ECT, the nurse decided to publish an account of her experience. Because of the stigma surrounding the treatment, she worried that doing so might negatively impact her personal and professional life, but she knew ECT could make a difference for patients when all else failed. Though misperceptions about ECT persist, accounts like hers have helped make doctors and patients alike aware of the treatment’s life changing potential. |
3 ways to build a happy marriage and avoid divorce | {0: 'Dr. George Blair-West is an author, researcher and doctor specializing in psychiatry.'} | TEDxBrisbane | Almost 50 years ago, psychiatrists Richard Rahe and Thomas Holmes developed an inventory of the most distressing human experiences that we could have. Number one on the list? Death of a spouse. Number two, divorce. Three, marital separation. Now, generally, but not always, for those three to occur, we need what comes in number seven on the list, which is marriage. (Laughter) Fourth on the list is imprisonment in an institution. Now, some say number seven has been counted twice. (Laughter) I don't believe that. When the life stress inventory was built, back then, a long-term relationship pretty much equated to a marriage. Not so now. So for the purposes of this talk, I'm going to be including de facto relationships, common-law marriages and same-sex marriages, or same-sex relationships soon hopefully to become marriages. And I can say from my work with same-sex couples, the principles I'm about to talk about are no different. They're the same across all relationships. So in a modern society, we know that prevention is better than cure. We vaccinate against polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles. We have awareness campaigns for melanoma, stroke, diabetes — all important campaigns. But none of those conditions come close to affecting 45 percent of us. Forty-five percent: that's our current divorce rate. Why no prevention campaign for divorce? Well, I think it's because our policymakers don't believe that things like attraction and the way relationships are built is changeable or educable. Why? Well, our policymakers currently are Generation X. They're in their 30s to 50s. And when I'm talking to these guys about these issues, I see their eyes glaze over, and I can see them thinking, "Doesn't this crazy psychiatrist get it? You can't control the way in which people attract other people and build relationships." Not so, our dear millennials. This is the most information-connected, analytical and skeptical generation, making the most informed decisions of any generation before them. And when I talk to millennials, I get a very different reaction. They actually want to hear about this. They want to know about how do we have relationships that last? So for those of you who want to embrace the post- "romantic destiny" era with me, let me talk about my three life hacks for preventing divorce. Now, we can intervene to prevent divorce at two points: later, once the cracks begin to appear in an established relationship; or earlier, before we commit, before we have children. And that's where I'm going to take us now. So my first life hack: millennials spend seven-plus hours on their devices a day. That's American data. And some say, probably not unreasonably, this has probably affected their face-to-face relationships. Indeed, and add to that the hookup culture, ergo apps like Tinder, and it's no great surprise that the 20-somethings that I work with will often talk to me about how it is often easier for them to have sex with somebody that they've met than have a meaningful conversation. Now, some say this is a bad thing. I say this is a really good thing. It's a particularly good thing to be having sex outside of the institution of marriage. Now, before you go out and get all moral on me, remember that Generation X, in the American Public Report, they found that 91 percent of women had had premarital sex by the age of 30. Ninety-one percent. It's a particularly good thing that these relationships are happening later. See, boomers in the '60s — they were getting married at an average age for women of 20 and 23 for men. 2015 in Australia? That is now 30 for women and 32 for men. That's a good thing, because the older you are when you get married, the lower your divorce rate. Why? Why is it helpful to get married later? Three reasons. Firstly, getting married later allows the other two preventers of divorce to come into play. They are tertiary education and a higher income, which tends to go with tertiary education. So these three factors all kind of get mixed up together. Number two, neuroplasticity research tell us that the human brain is still growing until at least the age of 25. So that means how you're thinking and what you're thinking is still changing up until 25. And thirdly, and most importantly to my mind, is personality. Your personality at the age of 20 does not correlate with your personality at the age of 50. But your personality at the age of 30 does correlate with your personality at the age of 50. So when I ask somebody who got married young why they broke up, and they say, "We grew apart," they're being surprisingly accurate, because the 20s is a decade of rapid change and maturation. So the first thing you want to get before you get married is older. (Laughter) Number two, John Gottman, psychologist and relationship researcher, can tell us many factors that correlate with a happy, successful marriage. But the one that I want to talk about is a big one: 81 percent of marriages implode, self-destruct, if this problem is present. And the second reason why I want to talk about it here is because it's something you can evaluate while you're dating. Gottman found that the relationships that were the most stable and happy over the longer term were relationships in which the couple shared power. They were influenceable: big decisions, like buying a house, overseas trips, buying a car, having children. But when Gottman drilled down on this data, what he found was that women were generally pretty influenceable. Guess where the problem lay? (Laughter) Yeah, there's only two options here, isn't there? Yeah, we men were to blame. The other thing that Gottman found is that men who are influenceable also tended to be "outstanding fathers." So women: How influenceable is your man? Men: you're with her because you respect her. Make sure that respect plays out in the decision-making process. Number three. I'm often intrigued by why couples come in to see me after they've been married for 30 or 40 years. This is a time when they're approaching the infirmities and illness of old age. It's a time when they're particularly focused on caring for each other. They'll forgive things that have bugged them for years. They'll forgive all betrayals, even infidelities, because they're focused on caring for each other. So what pulls them apart? The best word I have for this is reliability, or the lack thereof. Does your partner have your back? It takes two forms. Firstly, can you rely on your partner to do what they say they're going to do? Do they follow through? Secondly, if, for example, you're out and you're being verbally attacked by somebody, or you're suffering from a really disabling illness, does your partner step up and do what needs to be done to leave you feeling cared for and protected? And here's the rub: if you're facing old age, and your partner isn't doing that for you — in fact, you're having to do that for them — then in an already-fragile relationship, it can look a bit like you might be better off out of it rather than in it. So is your partner there for you when it really matters? Not all the time, 80 percent of the time, but particularly if it's important to you. On your side, think carefully before you commit to do something for your partner. It is much better to commit to as much as you can follow through than to commit to more sound-good-in-the-moment and then let them down. And if it's really important to your partner, and you commit to it, make sure you move hell and high water to follow through. Now, these are things that I'm saying you can look for. Don't worry, these are also things that can be built in existing relationships. I believe that the most important decision that you can make is who you choose as a life partner, who you choose as the other parent of your children. And of course, romance has to be there. Romance is a grand and beautiful and quirky thing. But we need to add to a romantic, loving heart an informed, thoughtful mind, as we make the most important decision of our life. Thank you. (Applause) |
Why black girls are targeted for punishment at school -- and how to change that | {0: 'As Monique W. Morris writes: "I believe in a justice not associated with any form of oppression. I work for it and I write about it."'} | TEDWomen 2018 | When I was in the sixth grade, I got into a fight at school. It wasn't the first time I'd been in a fight, but it was the first time one happened at school. It was with a boy who was about a foot taller than me, who was physically stronger than me and who'd been taunting me for weeks. One day in PE, he stepped on my shoe and refused to apologize. So, filled with anger, I grabbed him and I threw him to the ground. I'd had some previous judo training. (Laughter) Our fight lasted less than two minutes, but it was a perfect reflection of the hurricane that was building inside of me as a young survivor of sexual assault and as a girl who was grappling with abandonment and exposure to violence in other spaces in my life. I was fighting him, but I was also fighting the men and boys that had assaulted my body and the culture that told me I had to be silent about it. A teacher broke up the fight and my principal called me in her office. But she didn't say, "Monique, what's wrong with you?" She gave me a moment to collect my breath and asked, "What happened?" The educators working with me led with empathy. They knew me. They knew I loved to read, they knew I loved to draw, they knew I adored Prince. And they used that information to help me understand why my actions, and those of my classmate, were disruptive to the learning community they were leading. They didn't place me on suspension; they didn't call the police. My fight didn't keep me from going to school the next day. It didn't keep me from graduating; it didn't keep me from teaching. But unfortunately, that's not a story that's shared by many black girls in the US and around the world today. We're living through a crisis in which black girls are being disproportionately pushed away from schools —- not because of an imminent threat they pose to the safety of a school, but because they're often experiencing schools as locations for punishment and marginalization. That's something that I hear from black girls around the country. But it's not insurmountable. We can shift this narrative. Let's start with some data. According to a National Black Women's Justice Institute analysis of civil rights data collected by the US Department of Education, black girls are the only group of girls who are overrepresented along the entire continuum of discipline in schools. That doesn't mean that other girls aren't experiencing exclusionary discipline and it doesn't mean that other girls aren't overrepresented at other parts along that continuum. But black girls are the only group of girls who are overrepresented all along the way. Black girls are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to experience one or more out-of-school suspensions and they're nearly three times more likely than their white and Latinx counterparts to be referred to the juvenile court. A recent study by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality partially explained why this disparity is taking place when they confirmed that black girls experience a specific type of age compression, where they're seen as more adult-like than their white peers. Among other things, the study found that people perceive black girls to need less nurturing, less protection, to know more about sex and to be more independent than their white peers. The study also found that the perception disparity begins when girls are as young as five years old. And that this perception and the disparity increases over time and peaks when girls are between the ages of 10 and 14. This is not without consequence. Believing that a girl is older than she is can lead to harsher treatment, immediate censure when she makes a mistake and victim blaming when she's harmed. It can also lead a girl to think that something is wrong with her, rather than the conditions in which she finds herself. Black girls are routinely seen as too loud, too aggressive, too angry, too visible. Qualities that are often measured in relation to nonblack girls and which don't take into consideration what's going on in this girl's life or her cultural norms. And it's not just in the US. In South Africa, black girls at the Pretoria Girls High School were discouraged from attending school with their hair in its natural state, without chemical processing. What did those girls do? They protested. And it was a beautiful thing to see the global community for the most part wrap its arms around girls as they stood in their truths. But there were those who saw them as disruptive, largely because they dared to ask the question, "Where can we be black if we can't be black in Africa?" (Laughter) (Applause) It's a good question. Around the world, black girls are grappling with this question. And around the world, black girls are struggling to be seen, working to be free and fighting to be included in the landscape of promise that a safe space to learn provides. In the US, little girls, just past their toddler years, are being arrested in classrooms for having a tantrum. Middle school girls are being turned away from school because of the way they wear their hair naturally or because of the way the clothes fit their bodies. High school girls are experiencing violence at the hands of police officers in schools. Where can black girls be black without reprimand or punishment? And it's not just these incidents. In my work as a researcher and educator, I've had an opportunity to work with girls like Stacy, a girl who I profile in my book "Pushout," who struggles with her participation in violence. She bypasses the neuroscientific and structural analyses that science has to offer about how her adverse childhood experiences inform why she's participating in violence and goes straight to describing herself as a "problem child," largely because that's the language that educators were using as they routinely suspended her. But here's the thing. Disconnection and the internalization of harm grow stronger in isolation. So when girls get in trouble, we shouldn't be pushing them away, we should be bringing them in closer. Education is a critical protective factor against contact with the criminal legal system. So we should be building out policies and practices that keep girls connected to their learning, rather than pushing them away from it. It's one of the reasons I like to say that education is freedom work. When girls feel safe, they can learn. When they don't feel safe, they fight, they protest, they argue, they flee, they freeze. The human brain is wired to protect us when we feel a threat. And so long as school feels like a threat, or part of the tapestry of harm in a girl's life, she'll be inclined to resist. But when schools become locations for healing, they can also become locations for learning. So what does this mean for a school to become a location for healing? Well, for one thing, it means that we have to immediately discontinue the policies and practices that target black girls for their hairstyles or dress. (Applause) Let's focus on how and what a girl learns rather than policing her body in ways that facilitate rape culture or punish children for the conditions in which they were born. This is where parents and the community of concerned adults can enter this work. Start a conversation with the school and encourage them to address their dress code and other conduct-related policies as a collaborative project, with parents and students, so as to intentionally avoid bias and discrimination. Keep in mind, though, that some of the practices that harm black girls most are unwritten. So we have to continue to do the deep, internal work to address the biases that inform how, when and whether we see black girls for who they actually are, or what we've been told they are. Volunteer at a school and establish culturally competent and gender responsive discussion groups with black girls, Latinas, indigenous girls and other students who experience marginalization in schools to give them a safe space to process their identities and experiences in schools. And if schools are to become locations for healing, we have to remove police officers and increase the number of counselors in schools. (Applause) Education is freedom work. And whatever our point of entry is, we all have to be freedom fighters. The good news is that there are schools that are actively working to establish themselves as locations for girls to see themselves as sacred and loved. The Columbus City Prep School for Girls in Columbus, Ohio, is an example of this. They became an example the moment their principal declared that they were no longer going to punish girls for having "a bad attitude." In addition to building — Essentially, what they did is they built out a robust continuum of alternatives to suspension, expulsion and arrest. In addition to establishing a restorative justice program, they improved their student and teacher relationships by ensuring that every girl has at least one adult on campus that she can go to when she's in a moment of crisis. They built out spaces along the corridors of the school and in classrooms for girls to regroup, if they need a minute to do so. And they established an advisory program that provides girls with an opportunity to start every single day with the promotion of self-worth, communication skills and goal setting. At this school, they're trying to respond to a girl's adverse childhood experiences rather than ignore them. They bring them in closer; they don't push them away. And as a result, their truancy and suspension rates have improved, and girls are arriving at school increasingly ready to learn because they know the teachers there care about them. That matters. Schools that integrate the arts and sports into their curriculum or that are building out tranformative programming, such as restorative justice, mindfulness and meditation, are providing an opportunity for girls to repair their relationships with others, but also with themselves. Responding to the lived, complex and historical trauma that our students face requires all of us who believe in the promise of children and adolescents to build relationships, learning materials, human and financial resources and other tools that provide children with an opportunity to heal, so that they can learn. Our schools should be places where we respond to our most vulnerable girls as essential to the creation of a positive school culture. Our ability to see her promise should be at its sharpest when she's in the throws of poverty and addiction; when she's reeling from having been sex-trafficked or survived other forms of violence; when she's at her loudest, or her quietest. We should be able to support her intellectual and social-emotional well-being whether her shorts reach her knees or stop mid-thigh or higher. It might seem like a tall order in a world so deeply entrenched in the politics of fear to radically imagine schools as locations where girls can heal and thrive, but we have to be bold enough to set this as our intention. If we commit to this notion of education as freedom work, we can shift educational conditions so that no girl, even the most vulnerable among us, will get pushed out of school. And that's a win for all of us. Thank you. (Applause) |
The myth of Pandora's box | null | TED-Ed | Curiosity: a blessing, or a curse? The paradoxical nature of this trait was personified for the ancient Greeks in the mythical figure of Pandora. According to legend, she was the first mortal woman, whose blazing curiosity set a chain of earth-shattering events in motion. Pandora was breathed into being by Hephaestus, God of fire, who enlisted the help of his divine companions to make her extraordinary. From Aphrodite she received the capacity for deep emotion; from Hermes she gained mastery over language. Athena gave the gift of fine craftsmanship and attention to detail, and Hermes gave her her name. Finally, Zeus bestowed two gifts on Pandora. The first was the trait of curiosity, which settled in her spirit and sent her eagerly out into the world. The second was a heavy box, ornately curved, heavy to hold – and screwed tightly shut. But the contents, Zeus told her, were not for mortal eyes. She was not to open the box under any circumstance. On earth, Pandora met and fell in love with Epimetheus, a talented titan who had been given the task of designing the natural world by Zeus. He had worked alongside his brother Prometheus, who created the first humans but was eternally punished for giving them fire. Epimetheus missed his brother desperately, but in Pandora he found another fiery-hearted soul for companionship. Pandora brimmed with excitement at life on earth. She was also easily distracted and could be impatient, given her thirst for knowledge and desire to question her surroundings. Often, her mind wandered to the contents of the sealed box. What treasure was so great it could never be seen by human eyes, and why was it in her care? Her fingers itched to pry it open. Sometimes she was convinced she heard voices whispering and the contents rattling around inside, as if straining to be free. Its enigma became maddening. Over time, Pandora became more and more obsessed with the box. It seemed there was a force beyond her control that drew her to the contents, which echoed her name louder and louder. One day she could bear it no longer. Stealing away from Epimetheus, she stared at the mystifying box. She’d take one glance inside, then be able to rid her mind of it forever... But at the first crack of the lid, the box burst open. Monstrous creatures and horrendous sounds rushed out in a cloud of smoke and swirled around her, screeching and cackling. Filled with terror, Pandora clawed desperately at the air to direct them back into their prison. But the creatures surged out in a gruesome cloud. She felt a wave of foreboding as they billowed away. Zeus had used the box as a vessel for all the forces of evil and suffering he’d created – and once released, they were uncontainable. As she wept, Pandora became aware of a sound echoing from within the box. This was not the eerie whispering of demons, but a light tinkling that seemed to ease her anguish. When she once again lifted the lid and peered in, a warm beam of light rose out and fluttered away. As she watched it flickering in the wake of the evil she’d unleashed, Pandora’s pain was eased. She knew that opening the box was irreversible – but alongside the strife, she’d set hope forth to temper its effects. Today, Pandora’s Box suggests the extreme consequences of tampering with the unknown – but Pandora’s burning curiosity also suggests the duality that lies at the heart of human inquiry. Are we bound to investigate everything we don’t know, to mine the earth for more – or are there some mysteries that are better left unsolved? |
How empowering women and girls can help stop global warming | {0: 'Katharine Wilkinson is transforming how we see and relate to the earth. As a writer and messenger, she brings humanity and heart to the challenge of climate change and invites us to be awake, aware and active participants in the community of life.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | There are two powerful phenomena unfolding on earth: the rise of global warming and the rise of women and girls. The link between them is often overlooked, but gender equity is a key answer to our planetary challenge. Let me explain. For the last few years, I have been working on an effort called "Project Drawdown." Our team has scoured humanity's wisdom for solutions to draw down heat-trapping, climate-changing emissions in the atmosphere — not "someday, maybe, if we're lucky" solutions, the 80 best practices and technologies already in hand: clean, renewable energy, including solar and wind; green buildings, both new and retrofitted; efficient transportation from Brazil to China; thriving ecosystems through protection and restoration; reducing waste and reclaiming its value; growing food in good ways that regenerates soil; shifting diets to less meat, more plants; and equity for women and girls. Gender and climate are inextricably linked. Drawing down emissions depends on rising up. First, a bit of context. We are in a situation of urgency, severity and scope never before faced by humankind. So far, our response isn't anywhere close to adequate. But you already know that. You know it in your gut, in your bones. We are each part of the planet's living systems, knitted together with almost 7.7 billion human beings and 1.8 million known species. We can feel the connections between us. We can feel the brokenness and the closing window to heal it. This earth, our home, is telling us that a better way of being must emerge, and fast. In my experience, to have eyes wide open is to hold a broken heart every day. It's a grief that I rarely speak, though my work calls on the power of voice. I remind myself that the heart can simply break, or it can break open. A broken-open heart is awake and alive and calls for action. It is regenerative, like nature, reclaiming ruined ground, growing anew. Life moves inexorably toward more life, toward healing, toward wholeness. That's a fundamental ecological truth. And we, all of us, we are life force. On the face of it, the primary link between women, girls and a warming world is not life but death. Awareness is growing that climate impacts hit women and girls hardest, given existing vulnerabilities. There is greater risk of displacement, higher odds of being injured or killed during a natural disaster. Prolonged drought can precipitate early marriage as families contend with scarcity. Floods can force last-resort prostitution as women struggle to make ends meet. The list goes on and goes wide. These dynamics are most acute under conditions of poverty, from New Orleans to Nairobi. Too often, the story ends here. But not today. Another empowering truth begs to be seen. If we gain ground on gender equity, we also gain ground on addressing global warming. This connection comes to light in three key areas, three areas where we can secure the rights of women and girls, shore up resilience and avert emissions at the same time. Women are the primary farmers of the world. They produce 60 to 80 percent of food in lower-income countries, often operating on fewer than five acres. That's what the term "smallholder" means. Compared with men, women smallholders have less access to resources, including land rights, credit and capital, training, tools and technology. They farm as capably and efficiently as men, but this well-documented disparity in resources and rights means women produce less food on the same amount of land. Close those gaps, and farm yields rise by 20 to 30 percent. That means 20 to 30 percent more food from the same garden or the same field. The implications for hunger, for health, for household income — they're obvious. Let's follow the thread to climate. We humans need land to grow food. Unfortunately, forests are often cleared to supply it, and that causes emissions from deforestation. But if existing farms produce enough food, forests are less likely to be lost. So there's a ripple effect. Support women smallholders, realize higher yields, avoid deforestation and sustain the life-giving power of forests. Project Drawdown estimates that addressing inequity in agriculture could prevent two billion tons of emissions between now and 2050. That's on par with the impact household recycling can have globally. Addressing this inequity can also help women cope with the challenges of growing food as the climate changes. There is life force in cultivation. At last count, 130 million girls are still denied their basic right to attend school. Gaps are greatest in secondary school classrooms. Too many girls are missing a vital foundation for life. Education means better health for women and their children, better financial security, greater agency at home and in society, more capacity to navigate a climate-changing world. Education can mean options, adaptability, strength. It can also mean lower emissions. For a variety of reasons, when we have more years of education, we typically choose to marry later and to have fewer children. So our families end up being smaller. What happens at the individual level adds up across the world and over time. One by one by one, the right to go to school impacts how many human beings live on this planet and impacts its living systems. That's not why girls should be educated. It's one meaningful outcome. Education is one side of a coin. The other is family planning: access to high-quality, voluntary reproductive health care. To have children by choice rather than chance is a matter of autonomy and dignity. Yet in the US, 45 percent of pregnancies are unintended. Two hundred and fourteen million women in lower-income countries say they want to decide whether and when to become pregnant but aren't using contraception. Listening to women's needs, addressing those needs, advancing equity and well-being: those must be the aims of family planning, period. Curbing the growth of our human population is a side effect, though a potent one. It could dramatically reduce demand for food, transportation, electricity, buildings, goods and all the rest, thereby reducing emissions. Close the gaps on access to education and family planning, and by mid-century, we may find one billion fewer people inhabiting earth than we would if we do nothing more. According to Project Drawdown, one billion fewer people could mean we avoid nearly 120 billion tons of emissions. At that level of impact, gender equity is a top solution to restore a climate fit for life. At that level of impact, gender equity is on par with wind turbines and solar panels and forests. There is life force in learning and life force in choice. Now, let me be clear: this does not mean women and girls are responsible for fixing everything. (Laughter) Though we probably will. (Laughter) (Applause) Equity for women in agriculture, education and family planning: these are solutions within a system of drawdown solutions. Together, they comprise a blueprint of possibility. And let me be even clearer about this: population cannot be seen in isolation from production or consumption. Some segments of the human family cause exponentially greater harm, while others suffer outsized injustice. The most affluent — we are the most accountable. We have the most to do. The gender-climate connection extends beyond negative impacts and beyond powerful solutions. Women are vital voices and agents for change on this planet, and yet we're too often missing or even barred from the proverbial table. We're too often ignored or silenced when we speak. We are too often passed over when plans are laid or investments made. According to one analysis, just 0.2 percent of philanthropic funds go specifically towards women and the environment, merely 110 million dollars globally, the sum spent by one man on a single Basquiat painting last year. These dynamics are not only unjust, they are setting us up for failure. To rapidly, radically reshape society, we need every solution and every solver, every mind, every bit of heart, every set of hands. We often crave a simple call to action, but this challenge demands more than a fact sheet and more than a checklist. We need to function more like an ecosystem, finding strength in our diversity. You know what your superpowers are. You're an educator, farmer, healer, creator, campaigner, wisdom-keeper. How might you link arms where you are to move solutions forward? There is one role I want to ask that all of you play: the role of messenger. This is a time of great awakening. We need to break the silence around the condition of our planet; move beyond manufactured debates about climate science; share solutions; speak truth with a broken-open heart; teach that to address climate change, we must make gender equity a reality. And in the face of a seemingly impossible challenge, women and girls are a fierce source of possibility. It is a magnificent thing to be alive in a moment that matters so much. This earth, our home, is calling for us to be bold, reminding us we are all in this together — women, men, people of all gender identities, all beings. We are life force, one earth, one chance. Let's seize it. Thank you. (Applause) |
Inside OKCupid: The math of online dating | null | TED-Ed | Hello, my name is Christian Rudder, and I was one of the founders of OkCupid. It's now one of the biggest dating sites in the United States. Like most everyone at the site, I was a math major, As you may expect, we're known for the analytic approach we take to love. We call it our matching algorithm. Basically, OkCupid's matching algorithm helps us decide whether two people should go on a date. We built our entire business around it. Now, algorithm is a fancy word, and people like to drop it like it's this big thing. But really, an algorithm is just a systematic, step-by-step way to solve a problem. It doesn't have to be fancy at all. Here in this lesson, I'm going to explain how we arrived at our particular algorithm, so you can see how it's done. Now, why are algorithms even important? Why does this lesson even exist? Well, notice one very significant phrase I used above: they are a step-by-step way to solve a problem, and as you probably know, computers excel at step-by-step processes. A computer without an algorithm is basically an expensive paperweight. And since computers are such a pervasive part of everyday life, algorithms are everywhere. The math behind OkCupid's matching algorithm is surprisingly simple. It's just some addition, multiplication, a little bit of square roots. The tricky part in designing it was figuring out how to take something mysterious, human attraction, and break it into components that a computer can work with. The first thing we needed to match people up was data, something for the algorithm to work with. The best way to get data quickly from people is to just ask for it. So we decided that OkCupid should ask users questions, stuff like, "Do you want to have kids one day?" "How often do you brush your teeth?" "Do you like scary movies?" And big stuff like, "Do you believe in God?" Now, a lot of the questions are good for matching like with like, that is, when both people answer the same way. For example, two people who are both into scary movies are probably a better match than one person who is and one who isn't. But what about a question like, "Do you like to be the center of attention?" If both people in a relationship are saying yes to this, they're going to have massive problems. We realized this early on, and so we decided we needed a bit more data from each question. We had to ask people to specify not only their own answer, but the answer they wanted from someone else. That worked really well. But we needed one more dimension. Some questions tell you more about a person than others. For example, a question about politics, something like, "Which is worse: book burning or flag burning?" might reveal more about someone than their taste in movies. And it doesn't make sense to weigh all things equally, so we added one final data point. For everything that OkCupid asks you, you have a chance to tell us the role it plays in your life. And this ranges from irrelevant to mandatory. So now, for every question, we have three things for our algorithm: first, your answer; second, how you want someone else — your potential match — to answer; and third, how important the question is to you at all. With all this information, OkCupid can figure out how well two people will get along. The algorithm crunches the numbers and gives us a result. As a practical example, let's look at how we'd match you with another person. Let's call him "B." Your match percentage with B is based on questions you've both answered. Let's call that set of common questions "s." As a very simple example, we use a small set "s" with just two questions in common, and compute a match from that. Here are our two example questions. The first one, let's say, is, "How messy are you?" And the answer possibilities are: very messy, average and very organized. And let's say you answered "very organized," and you'd like someone else to answer "very organized," and the question is very important to you. Basically, you're a neat freak. You're neat, you want someone else to be neat, and that's it. And let's say B is a little bit different. He answered "very organized" for himself, but "average" is OK with him as an answer from someone else, and the question is only a little important to him. Let's look at the second question, from our previous example: "Do you like to be the center of attention?" The answers are "yes" and "no." You've answered "no," you want someone else to answer "no," and the question is only a little important to you. Now B, he's answered "yes." He wants someone else to answer "no," because he wants the spotlight on him, and the question is somewhat important to him. So, let's try to compute all of this. Our first step is, since we use computers to do this, we need to assign numerical values to ideas like "somewhat important" and "very important," because computers need everything in numbers. We at OkCupid decided on the following scale: "Irrelevant" is worth 0. "A little important" is worth 1. "Somewhat important" is worth 10. "Very important" is 50. And "absolutely mandatory" is 250. Next, the algorithm makes two simple calculations. The first is: How much did B's answers satisfy you? That is, how many possible points did B score on your scale? Well, you indicated that B's answer to the first question, about messiness, was very important to you. It's worth 50 points and B got that right. The second question is worth only 1, because you said it was only a little important. B got that wrong, so B's answers were 50 out of 51 possible points. That's 98% satisfactory. Pretty good. The second question the algorithm looks at is: How much did you satisfy B? Well, B placed 1 point on your answer to the messiness question and 10 on your answer to the second. Of those 11, that's 1 plus 10, you earned 10 — you guys satisfied each other on the second question. So your answers were 10 out of 11 equals 91 percent satisfactory to B. That's not bad. The final step is to take these two match percentages and get one number for the both of you. To do this, the algorithm multiplies your scores, then takes the nth root, where "n" is the number of questions. Because s, which is the number of questions in this sample, is only 2, we have: match percentage equals the square root of 98 percent times 91 percent. That equals 94 percent. That 94 percent is your match percentage with B. It's a mathematical expression of how happy you'd be with each other, based on what we know. Now, why does the algorithm multiply, as opposed to, say, average the two match scores together, and do the square-root business? In general, this formula is called the geometric mean. It's a great way to combine values that have wide ranges and represent very different properties. In other words, it's perfect for romantic matching. You've got wide ranges and you've got tons of different data points, like I said, about movies, politics, religion — everything. Intuitively, too, this makes sense. Two people satisfying each other 50 percent should be a better match than two others who satisfy 0 and 100, because affection needs to be mutual. After adding a little correction for margin of error, in the case where we have a small number of questions, like we do in this example, we're good to go. Any time OkCupid matches two people, it goes through the steps we just outlined. First it collects data about your answers, then it compares your choices and preferences to other people's in simple, mathematical ways. This, the ability to take real-world phenomena and make them something a microchip can understand, is, I think, the most important skill anyone can have these days. Like you use sentences to tell a story to a person, you use algorithms to tell a story to a computer. If you learn the language, you can go out and tell your stories. I hope this will help you do that. |
Embrace your raw, strange magic | {0: 'In his memoir, "There Will Be No Miracles Here," Casey Gerald reimagines what it means to truly live and succeed in our society.'} | TED Salon: Belonging | [This talk contains mature content] My mother called this summer to stage an intervention. She'd come across a few snippets of my memoir, which wasn't even out yet, and she was concerned. It wasn't the sex. (Laughter) It was the language that disturbed her. For example: "I have been so many things along my curious journey: a poor boy, a nigger, a Yale man, a Harvard man, a faggot, a Christian, a crack baby, alleged, the spawn of Satan, the Second Coming, Casey." That's just page six. (Laughter) So you may understand my mother's worry. But she wanted only to make one small change. So she called, and she began, "Hey, you are a man. You're not a faggot, you're not a punk, and let me tell you the difference. You are prominent. You are intelligent. You dress well. You know how to speak. People like you. You don't walk around doing your hand like a punk. You're not a vagabond on the street. You are an upstanding person who just happens to be gay. Don't put yourself over there when you are over here." She thought she'd done me a favor, and in a way, she had. Her call clarified what I am trying to do with my life and in my work as a writer, which is to send one simple message: the way we're taught to live has got to change. I learned this the hard way. I was born not on the wrong side of the tracks, but on the wrong side of a whole river, the Trinity, down in Oak Cliff, Texas. I was raised there in part by my grandmother who worked as a domestic, and by my sister, who adopted me a few years after our mother, who struggled with mental illness, disappeared. And it was that disappearance, that began when I was 13 and lasted for five years, that shaped the person I became, the person I later had to unbecome. Before she left, my mother had been my human hiding place. She was the only other person who seemed as strange as me, beautifully strange, some mix of Blanche DuBois from "A Streetcar Named Desire" and a 1980s Whitney Houston. (Laughter) I'm not saying she was perfect, just that I sure benefited from her imperfections. And maybe that's what magic is, after all: a useful mistake. So when she began to disappear for days at a time, I turned to some magic of my own. It struck me, as from above, that I could conjure up my mother just by walking perfectly from my elementary school at the top of a steep hill all the way down to my grandmother's house, placing one foot, and one foot only, in each sidewalk square. I couldn't let any part of any foot touch the line between the square, I couldn't skip a square, all the way to the last square at the last blade of grass that separated our lawn from our driveway. And I bullshit you not, it worked — just once though. But if my perfect walk could not bring my mother back, I found that this approach had other uses. I found that everyone else in charge around me loved nothing more than perfection, obedience, submission. Or at least if I submitted, they wouldn't bother me too much. So I took a bargain that I'd later see in a prison, a Stasi prison in Berlin, on a sign that read, "He who adapts can live tolerably." It was a bargain that helped ensure I had a place to stay and food to eat; a bargain that won me praise of teachers and kin, strangers; a bargain that paid off big time, it seemed, when one day at 17, a man from Yale showed up at my high school to recruit me for Yale's football team. It felt as out of the blue to me then as it may to you now. The Yale man said — everybody said — that this was the best thing that could ever happen to me, the best thing that could happen to the whole community. "Take this ticket, boy," they told me. I was not so sure. Yale seemed another world entire: a cold, foreign, hostile place. On the first day of my recruiting visit, I texted my sister an excuse for not going. "These people are so weird." She replied, "You'll fit right in." (Laughter) I took the ticket and worked damn hard to fit right in. When my freshman advisor warned me not to wear my fitted hats on campus ... "You're at Yale now. You don't have to do that anymore," she said. I figured, this was just one of the small prices that must be paid to make it. I paid them all, or tried, and sure enough they seemed to pay me back: made me a leader on the varsity football team; got me into a not-so-secret society and a job on Wall Street, and later in Washington. Things were going so well that I figured naturally I should be President of the United States. (Laughter) But since I was only 24 and since even presidents have to start somewhere, I settled instead on a run for Congress. Now, this was in the afterglow of that great 2008 election: the election during which a serious, moderate senator stressed, "The message you've got to send more than any other message is that Barack Obama is just like us." They sent that message so well that their campaign became the gold standard of modern politics, if not modern life, which also seems to demand that we each do whatever it takes to be able to say at the end of our days with peace and satisfaction, "I was just like everybody else." And this would be my message, too. So one night, I made one final call to my prospective campaign manager. We'd do the things it'd take to win, but first he had one question: "Is there anything I need to know?" I held the phone and finally said, "Well, you should probably know I'm gay." Silence. "Hmm. I see," he nearly whispered, as if he'd found a shiny penny or a dead baby bird. (Laughter) "I'm glad you told me," he continued. "You definitely didn't make my job any easier. I mean, you are in Texas. But it's not impossible, not impossible. But Casey, let me ask you something: How are you going to feel when somebody, say, at a rally, calls you a faggot? And let's be real, OK? You do understand that somebody might want to physically harm you. I just want to know: Are you really ready for this?" I wasn't. And I could not understand — could hardly breathe or think, or say a word. But to be clear: the boy that I was at that time would have leapt at the chance to be harmed, to sacrifice everything, even life, for a cause. There was something shocking, though — not that there should have been, but there was — in the notion that he might be harmed for nothing more than being himself, which he had not even tried to do in the first place. All that he — all that I — had tried to do and be was what I thought was asked of me. I was prominent for a 24-year-old: intelligent, I spoke well, dressed decent; I was an upstanding citizen. But the bargain I had accepted could not save me after all, nor can it save you. You may have already learned this lesson, or you will, regardless of your sexuality. The queer receives a concentrated dose, no doubt, but repression is a bitter pill that's offered to us all. We're taught to hide so many parts of who we are and what we've been through: our love, our pain, for some, our faith. So while coming out to the world can be hard, coming in to all the raw, strange magic of ourselves can be much harder. As Miles Davis said, "It takes a long time to sound like yourself." That surely was the case for me. I had my private revelation that night at 24, but mostly went on with my life. I went on to Harvard Business School, started a successful nonprofit, wound up on the cover of a magazine, on the stage at TED. (Laughter) I had achieved, by my late 20s, about everything a kid is supposed to achieve. But I was real cracked up: not exactly having a nervous breakdown, but not too far off, and awful sad either way. I had never thought of being a writer, didn't even read, in earnest, until I was nearly 23. But the book business is about the only industry that will pay you to investigate your own problems, so — (Laughter) So I decided to give it a try, to trace those cracks with words. Now, what came out on the page was about as strange as I felt at that time, which alarmed some people at first. A respected writer called to stage his own intervention after reading a few early chapters, and he began, much like my mother, "Hey, listen. You've been hired to write an autobiography. It's a straightforward exercise. It's got a beginning, middle and end, and is grounded in the facts of your life. And by the way, there's a great tradition of autobiography in this country, led by people on the margins of society who write to assert their existence. Go buy some of those books and learn from them. You're going in the wrong direction." But I no longer believed what we are taught — that the right direction is the safe direction. I no longer believed what we are taught — that queer lives or black lives or poor lives are marginal lives. I believed what Kendrick Lamar says on "Section.80.": "I'm not on the outside looking in. I'm not on the inside looking out. I'm in the dead fucking center looking around." (Laughter) That was the place from which I hoped to work, headed in the only direction worth going, the direction of myself, trying to help us all refuse the awful bargains we've been taught to take. We're taught to turn ourselves and our work into little nuggets that are easily digestible; taught to mutilate ourselves so that we make sense to others, to be a stranger to ourselves so the right people might befriend us and the right schools might accept us, and the right jobs might hire us, and the right parties might invite us, and, someday, the right God might invite us to the right heaven and close his pearly gates behind us, so we can bow down to Him forever and ever. These are the rewards, they say, for our obedience: to be a well-liked holy nugget, to be dead. And I say in return, "No, thank you." To the world and to my mother. Well, to tell you the truth, all I said was, "OK, Mom, I'll talk to you later." (Laughter) But in my mind, I said, "No, thank you." I cannot accept her bargain either. Nor should you. It would be easy for many of us in rooms like this to see ourselves as safe, to keep ourselves over here. We speak well, we dress decent, we're intelligent, people like us, or act like they do. But instead, I say that we should remember Lot's wife. Jesus of Nazareth said it first to his disciples: "Remember Lot's wife." Lot, in case you haven't read the Bible recently, was a man who set his family down in Sodom, in the midst of a wicked society that God decided he had to destroy. But God, being cruel, yet still a sap in part, rushed two angels out to Sodom to warn Lot to gather up his folks and get out of Dodge. Lot heard the angel's warning, but delayed. They didn't have all day to wait, so they grabbed Lot's hands and his two daughters' hands, and his wife's hands, and hurried them out of Sodom. And the angels shout, "Escape to the mountain. Whatever you do, don't look back," just as God starts raining down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. I can't figure out how Gomorrah got dragged into this. But Lot and his folks are running, fleeing all that destruction, kicking up dust while the Lord rains down death, and then, for some reason, Lot's wife looks back. God turns her into a pillar of salt. "Remember Lot's wife," Jesus says. But I've got a question: Why does she look back? Does she look back because she didn't want to miss the mayhem, wanted one last glimpse of a city on fire? Does she look back because she wanted to be sure that her people were far enough from danger to breathe a little easy? I'm so nosy and selfish sometimes, those likely would have been my reasons if I'd been in her shoes. But what if something else was going on with this woman, Lot's wife? What if she could not bear the thought of leaving those people all alone to burn alive, even for righteousness's sake? Isn't that possible? If it is, then this backward glance of a disobedient woman may not be a cautionary tale after all. It may be the bravest act in all the Bible, even braver than the act that holds the whole Book together, the crucifixion. We are told that up on Calvary, on an old rugged cross, Jesus gave his life to save everybody: billions and billions of strangers for all time to come. It's a nice thing to do. It made him famous, that's for sure. (Laughter) But Lot's wife was killed, turned into a pillar of salt, all because she could not turn her back on her friends, the wicked men of Sodom, and nobody even wrote the woman's name down. Oh, to have the courage of Lot's wife. That's the kind of courage we need today. The courage to put ourselves over there. The courage that says that either all of us have to be faggots, or none of us can be faggots, for any of us to be free. The courage to stand with other vagabonds in the street, with all the wretched of the earth, to form an army of the least of these, with the faith that from the naked crust of all we are, we can build a better world. Thank you. (Applause) |
A day in the life of a Mongolian queen | null | TED-Ed | As dawn breaks over a moveable city of ten thousand yurts, Queen Boraqchin is in for a rude awakening. A rogue sheep has slipped past her servants and guards and bolted into her yurt, where he springs into bed and bleats in her ear. Although she’s the formidable khatun of the Golden Horde, a huge kingdom in the Mongolian Empire, Boraqchin has a hands-on approach to ruling. She’s been married to Batu Khan, the fearsome grandson of Genghis Khan himself, since she was fifteen – and while her husband is out on his raids, she juggles the duties of flocks, family and empire at home. This makes her the manager – and the mover – of a city of thousands. Twice a year, Boraqchin moves the city between two seasonal camping grounds. This ensures constant water and lush grass in summer, and protection from harsh winds in winter. The whole operation requires weeks of strict planning, liaising with the other camps in her domain, strategic delegation – and the patience to move at the speed of dawdling animals. Today is moving day, and she’ll have to direct throngs of her ladies, commanders, slaves and animals up the river Volga for the summer. As Boraqchin steps outside, she’s greeted by a commotion – her unwanted visitor is now running circles around her stewards. They’re attempting to stow her possessions securely into wagons. Boraqchin orders them to get it under control – but she’s the only one quick enough to catch the stray. She next supervises her ladies who are unpinning her yurt and lifting it onto its custom wagon. It requires a team of twenty oxen to pull, and Boraqchin wouldn’t trust anyone to steer it but herself. Next, Boraqchin and her woolly companion meet with the guards. She orders them to keep close watch on her husband's special reception yurt and port-able throne during the journey. They’ll also act as outriders, and she tells them how to secure the route, surround her for safety – and keep the animals in check. But when the sheep finally breaks free and makes for the fields, the guards can barely keep up as it scampers through crowds packing up their yurts. Exasperated, Boraqchin rides down to the pastures herself. When she gets there, she catches sight of the troublesome sheep wriggling into the middle of a flock. When she follows him in, he’s nestled next to a ewe, his mother. She’s pregnant, and seems to be in pain. With a start, Boraqchin realizes that this ewe’s impending delivery has been forgotten in the flurry of moving day. There’s no time to find a shepherd – instead, Boraqchin rolls up her sleeves, greases her arm and helps the ewe give birth to two new additions to the empire. Leaving the lambs and their mother, Boraqchin dashes back to the camp. Here the final touches have been put to packing, and vehicles are starting to line up. This vast procession starts with the queen and two hundred wagons filled with her treasures. Next up are the junior wives and crew, then the concubines – and this is only Boraqchin's camp. After this comes the second imperial camp led by another senior wife, then two more camps, also led by wives. Boraqchin has been checking in with them for weeks to ensure a smooth departure and orderly queue. But they only make up the royal portion of the line – behind them winds the entire civilian city, which includes holy men with portable chapels and mosques, families, tradesmen, and shepherds. Finally, Boraqchin settles into her wagon. It’ll take weeks to reach their destination – but over the course of the journey, she’ll keep everyone expertly in check – from her proud children and attentive subjects, to the most meandering sheep at the back of line. |
A life-saving device that detects silent heart attacks | {0: 'Akash Manoj developed a novel technique that can non-invasively detect and alert at-risk patients of a potential asymptomatic heart-attack.'} | TED-Ed Weekend | When I was 13, I lost my grandfather to a silent heart attack. What happened to be more shocking was that at 75, grandpa was really normal, healthy and energetic, but he was diabetic. Learning all of this was so painful that I decided to go out on a war against this deadly killer and see what could be done. It was shocking to discover the results of recent studies that have shown an estimate of nearly eight million people who die from heart attacks every year. Heart attacks occur for many reasons, but most often, they occur when arteries get clogged, blood flow is cut off and oxygen-starved cells in the heart muscles start to die. You may know the common symptoms of a heart attack: chest pain, arm pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, et cetera ... but there is a type of heart attack that is quite common, just as deadly, but harder to detect because the symptoms are silent. People having silent heart attacks just don't realize what's happening, so they're not seeking medical attention, which means they're less likely to receive the treatment that they need at the critical moment. And even if they do get to the hospital by chance, either before or after they are struck by a heart attack, they might have to go through one or more of these time-consuming, expensive tests and treatments, which are currently considered the gold standards of heart-attack diagnosis. The greater concern, however, is that these silent heart attacks account for nearly 45 percent of all heart attacks. Patients with diabetes and similar disorders suffer from nerve damage that prevents them from feeling the sort of pain that usually signals to someone that he or she may be having a heart attack. Which means they suffer the damage of a heart attack without even knowing or feeling anything. These already at-risk patients suffer from nerve damage, and they do not get immediate medical care. They do not know anything before an unlikely event is about to occur. My grandfather was an at-risk patient, too. I probed this issue further — read as much as I could to understand the heart, met researchers and worked across labs in India. And finally, after three long years of persistent research, what I have to share with the world today is a promising solution. A noninvasive device that is inexpensive, portable, wearable by at-risk patients at all times. It greatly reduces the need for a blood test and works 24/7, collecting and analyzing data at preset intervals. And all this data is collected for a single purpose: detecting heart attacks as they occur. This is a very promising solution that might help us in the future. You may not know how intelligent your heart really is. It tries to communicate to your body multiple times before failing, by indicating symptoms like chest pain. These symptoms are triggered when the heart loses out on oxygen-rich blood flow. But remember I told you about the nerve damage. It silences these symptoms before a silent heart attack, which makes it even deadlier. And you may not even know the common symptoms. Meanwhile, the heart also sends out certain biomarkers — cardiac biomarkers or proteins that are SOS messages — in the form of SOS messages — into your bloodstream, indicating that the heart is at risk. As it gets riskier and riskier, the concentrations of these cardiac biomarker proteins keep increasing abysmally. My device solely relies on this data. The key is that these cardiac biomarkers are found in one of the earliest stages of a heart attack, when someone is almost sure to survive if he or she gets prompt care. And my device is solely based on that basis. And here's how my device works. A silicon patch is worn around your wrist or placed near your chest. Without having to prick your skin for a biomarker blood test, this patch can spot, isolate and track a heart-attack specific biomarker called H-FABP, and alerts you if and when it reaches a critical level in your bloodstream — a process that's much simpler, easier and cheaper than conventional methods of heart-attack diagnosis. By checking on biomarker concentration data, a system like this, with advanced research in the future, could significantly reduce the need for an at-risk patient to go to a doctor for a biomarker blood test, because the device could be worn at all times, sensing biomarker elevations in real time. Thus, if the device senses the biomarker levels going beyond the critical point, the at-risk patient could be warned of an impending cardiac arrest and that he or she needs immediate medical attention. Although the device may not be able to provide the patient with the complete analysis of the cardiac injury, it might be of immense help in actually indicating that the patient is in danger, so that the patient can be alarmed and know that immediate care is crucial. Every at-risk patient will now receive more time to survive and reach out for medical help. Consequently, they don't have to go for expensive and invasive medical treatments that would otherwise be necessary after a heart attack. When I got my device tested on at-risk patients under observation, results from the clinical validation tests certified close to a 96 percent accuracy and sensitivity. I intend to make my device available to people in two variants: one which gives digital analysis of the biomarker levels and a simpler version for the people in rural areas which simply vibrates when the biomarker levels go beyond the critical point. When we look at our progress in cardiac health care today, it is more of sick care than preventative self-care and technology. We literally wait for the heart attack to occur and put our vast majority of resources into post-care treatment. But by then, irreversible damage will already be done. I firmly believe it's time for us to rethink medicine. We must establish proactive health-care technologies. A change must be brought out not 10 years from now, not five years from now, but today. And so, hopefully, one day, with the help of these devices, someone else won't lose his or her grandfather just like I did. Thank you so much. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. |
Why is there a "b" in doubt? | null | TED-Ed | People often think the word "doubt" spelling is a little crazy because of the letter "b". Since it doesn't spell a sound, most folks can't figure out what it's doing there. But in spite of what most of us learn in school, sound is never the most important aspect of spelling an English word. A word's meaning and history need to come first. To doubt means to question, to waver, to hesitate. As a noun, it means uncertainty or confusion. The present-day English word "doubt" started as a Latin word, "dubitare". It first moved from Latin into French where it lost both its "buh" sound and its letter "b". And then it came into English in the 13th century. About 100 years later, scribes who wrote English but also knew Latin, started to reinsert the "b" into the word's spelling, even though no one pronounced it that way. But why would they do this? Why would anyone in their right mind reinsert a silent letter into a spelling? Well, because they knew Latin, the scribes understood that the root of "doubt" had a "b" in it. Over time, even as fewer literate people knew Latin, the "b" was kept because it marked important, meaningful connections to other related words, like "dubious" and "indubitalbly," which were subsequently borrowed into English from the same Latin root, "dubitare". Understanding these historical connections not only helped us to spell "doubt," but also to understand the meaning of these more sophisticated words. But the story doesn't end there. If we look even deeper, we can see beyond the shadow of a doubt, just how revealing that "b" can be. There are only two base words in all of English that have the letters "d-o-u-b": one is doubt, and the other is double. We can build lots of other words on each of these bases, like doubtful and doubtless, or doublet, and redouble, and doubloon. It turns out that if we look into their history, we can see that they both derive from the same Latin forms. The meaning of double, two, is reflected in a deep understanding of doubt. See, when we doubt, when we hesitate, we second guess ourselves. When we have doubts about something, when we have questions or confusion, we are of two minds. Historically, before English began to borrow words from French, it already had a word for doubt. That Old English word was "tweogan," a word whose relationship to "two" is clear in its spelling as well. So the next time you are in doubt about why English spelling works the way it does, take a second look. What you find just might make you do a double-take. |
The political progress women have made -- and what's next | {0: 'Cecile Richards is a national leader for women\'s rights and social and economic justice, and the author of the bestselling book "Make Trouble."'} | TEDWomen 2018 | Nearly 100 years ago, almost today, most women in the United States finally won the right to vote. Now, it would take decades more for women of color to earn that right, and we've come a long way since, but I would argue not nearly far enough. I think what women want today, not just only in the United States but around the globe, is to no longer be an afterthought. We don't want to continue to try to, like, look at the next 100 years and be granted, grudgingly, small legal rights and accommodations. We simply want true and full equality. I think that women are tired of retrofitting ourselves into institutions and governments that were built by men, for men, and we'd rather reshape the future on our own terms. I believe — (Applause) I believe what we need is a women's political revolution for full equality across race, across class, across gender identity, across sexual orientation, and yes, across political labels, because I believe what binds us together as women is so much more profound than what keeps up apart. And so I've given some thought about how to build this women's political revolution and that's what I want to talk to you about today. (Cheers) (Applause) The good news is that one thing that hasn't changed in the last century is women's resilience and our commitment to build a better life not only for ourselves, but for generations to come, because I can't think of a single woman who wants her daughter to have fewer rights or opportunities than she's had. So we know we all stand on the shoulders of the women who came before us, and as for myself, I come from a long line of tough Texas women. (Cheers) My grandparents lived outside of Waco, Texas, in the country. And when my grandmother got pregnant, of course she was not going to go to the hospital to deliver, she was going to have that baby at home. But when she went into labor, she called the neighbor woman over to cook dinner for my grandfather, because ... I mean, it was unthinkable that he was going to make supper for himself. (Laughter) Been there. (Laughter) The neighbor had no experience with killing a chicken, and that was what was planned for dinner that night. And so as the story goes, my grandmother, in the birthing bed, in labor, hoists herself up on one elbow and wrings that chicken's neck, right? And that is how my mother came into this world. (Laughter) (Applause) But the amazing thing is, even though my mother's own grandmother could not vote in Texas, because under Texas law, "idiots, imbeciles, the insane and women" were prevented the franchise — just two generations later, my mother, Ann Richards, was elected the first woman governor in her own right in the state of Texas. (Applause and cheers) But you see, when Mom was coming up in Texas, there weren't a lot of opportunities for women, and frankly, she spent her entire life trying to change that. She used to like to say, "As women, if you just give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." Right? And honestly, that's kind of what women have been doing for this last century: despite having very, very little political power, we have made enormous progress. So today in the United States, 100 years after getting the right to vote, women are almost half the workforce. And in 40 percent of families with children, women are the major breadwinners. Economists even estimate that if every single paid working woman took just one day off of work, it would cost the United States 21 billion dollars in gross domestic product. Now, largely because of Title IX, which required educational equity, women are actually now half the college students in the United States. We're half the medical students, we're half the law students — Exactly. (Applause) And a fact I absolutely love: One of the most recent classes of graduating NASA astronauts was ... What? For the first time, 50 percent women. (Applause and cheers) The point is that women are really changing industries, they're changing business from the inside out. But when it comes to government, it's another story, and I actually think a picture is worth 1000 words. This is a photograph from 2017 at the White House when congressional leaders were called over to put the final details into the health-care reform bill that was to go to Congress. Now, one of the results of this meeting was that they got rid of maternity benefits, which may not be that surprising, since no one at that table actually would need maternity benefits. And unfortunately, that's what we've learned the hard way in the US for women. If we're not at the table, we're on the menu, right? And we're simply not at enough tables, because even though women are the vast majority of voters in the United States, we fall far behind the rest of the world in political representation. Recent research is that when they ranked all the countries, the United States is 104th in women's representation in office. 104th ... Right behind Indonesia. So is it any big surprise, then, considering who's making decisions, we're the only developed country with no paid family leave? And despite all the research and improvements we've made in medical care — and this is really horrifying to me — the United States now leads the developed world in maternal mortality rates. Now, when it comes to equal pay, we're not doing a whole lot better. Women now, on average, in the United States, still only make 80 cents to the dollar that a man makes. Though if you're an African American woman, it's 63 cents to the dollar. And if you're Latina, it's 54 cents to the dollar. It's an outrage. Now, women in the UK, the United Kingdom, just came up with something I thought was rather ingenious, in order to illustrate the impact of the pay gap. So, starting November 10 and going through the end of the year, they simply put an out-of-office memo on their email to indicate all the weeks they were working without pay. Right? I think it's an idea that actually could catch on. But imagine if women actually had political power. Imagine if we were at the table, making decisions. Imagine if we had our own women's political party that instead of putting our issues to the side as distractions, made them the top priority. Well, we know — research shows that when women are in office, they actually act differently than men. They collaborate more with their colleagues, they work across party lines, and women are much more likely to support legislation that improves access to health care, education, civil rights. And what we've seen in our research in the United States Congress is that women sponsor more legislation and they cosponsor more legislation. So all the evidence is that when women actually have the chance to serve, they make a huge difference and they get the job done. So how would it look in the United States if different people were making decisions? Well, I firmly believe if half of Congress could get pregnant, we would finally quit fighting about birth control and Planned Parenthood. (Applause and cheers) That would be over. (Applause) I also really believe that finally, businesses might quit treating pregnancy as a nuisance, and rather understand it as a primary medical issue for millions of American workers. And I think if more women were in office, our government would actually prioritize keeping families together rather than pulling them apart. (Applause) But perhaps most importantly, I think all of these issues would no longer be seen as "women's issues." They would just be seen as basic issues of fairness and equality that everybody can get behind. So I think the question is, what would it take, actually, to build this women's political revolution? The good news is, actually, it's already started. Because women around the globe are demanding workplaces, they're demanding educational institutions, they're demanding governments where sexism and sexual harassment and sexual assault are neither accepted nor tolerated. Women around the world, as we know, are raising their hands and saying, "Me Too," and it's a movement that's made so much more powerful by the fact that women are standing together across industries, from domestic workers to celebrities in Hollywood. Women are marching, we're sitting in, we're speaking up. Women are challenging the status quo, we're busting old taboos and yes, we are proudly making trouble. So, women in Saudi Arabia are driving for the very first time. (Applause and cheers) Women in Iraq are standing in solidarity with survivors of human trafficking. And women from El Salvador to Ireland are fighting for reproductive rights. And women in Myanmar are standing up for human rights. In short, I think the most profound leadership in the world isn't coming from halls of government. It's coming from women at the grassroots all across the globe. (Applause) And here in the United States, women are on fire. So a recent Kaiser poll reported that since our last presidential election in 2016, one in five Americans have either marched or taken part in a protest, and the number one issue has been women's rights. Women are starting new organizations, they are volunteering on campaigns, and they're taking on every issue from gun-safety reform to public education. And women are running for office in record numbers, and they are winning. So — (Laughs) (Applause) Women like Lucy McBath from Georgia. (Applause and cheers) Lucy lost her son to gun violence, and it was because of her experience with the criminal justice system that she realized just how broken it is, and she decided to do something about that. So she ran for office, and this January, she's going to Congress. OK? Or — (Applause) Angie Craig from Minnesota. (Applause and cheers) So her congressman had made such hateful comments about LGBTQ people that she decided to challenge him. And you know what? She did, and she won, and when she goes to Congress in January, she'll be the first lesbian mother serving in the House of Representatives. (Applause and cheers) Or — (Applause) Or Lauren Underwood from Illinois. She's a registered nurse, and she sees every day the impact that lack of health care access has on the community where she lives, and so she decided to run. She took on six men in her primary, she beat them all, she won the general election, and when she goes to Congress in January, she's going to be the first African-American woman ever to serve her district in Washington, D.C. (Applause and cheers) So women are recognizing — this is our moment. Don't wait for permission, don't wait for your turn. As the late, great Shirley Chisholm said — Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman ever to go to Congress and the first woman to run for president in the Democratic party — but Shirley Chisholm said, "If there's no room for you at the table, just pull up a folding chair." And that's what women are doing, all across the country. I believe women are now the most important and powerful political force in the world, but how do we make sure that this is not just a moment? What we need is actually a global movement for women's full equality that is intersectional and it's intergenerational, where no one gets left behind. And so I have a few ideas about how we could do that. Number one: it's not enough to resist. It's not enough to say what we're against. It's time to be loud and proud about what we are for, because being for full equality is a mainstream value and something that we can get behind. Because actually, men support equal pay for women. Millennials, they support gender equality. And businesses are increasingly adopting family-friendly policies, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's good for their workers. It's good for their business. Number two: We have to remember, in the words of Fannie Lou Hamer, that "nobody's free 'til everybody's free." So as I mentioned earlier, women of color in this country didn't even get the right to vote until much further along than the rest of us. But since they did, they are the most reliable voters, and women of color are the most reliable voters for candidates who support women's rights, and we need to follow their lead — (Applause and cheers) Because their issues are our issues. And as white women, we have to do more, because racism and sexism and homophobia, these are issues that affect all of us. Number three: we've got to vote in every single election. Every election. And we've got to make it easier for folks to vote, and we've got to make sure that every single vote is counted, OK? (Applause and cheers) Because the barriers that exist to voting in the United States, they fall disproportionately on women — women of color, women with low incomes, women who are working and trying to raise a family. So we need to make it easier for everyone to vote, and we can start by making Election Day a federal holiday in the United States of America. (Applause and cheers) Number four: don't wait for instructions. If you see a problem that needs fixing, I think you're the one to do it, OK? So start a new organization, run for office. Or maybe it's as simple as standing up on the job in support of yourself or your coworkers. This is up to all of us. And number five: invest in women, all right? (Applause) Invest in women as candidates, as changemakers, as leaders. Just as an example, in this last election cycle in the United States, women donated 100 million dollars more to candidates and campaigns than they had just two years ago, and a record number of women won. So just think about that. (Applause and cheers) So look, sometimes I think that the challenges we face, they seem overwhelming and they seem like they almost can never be solved, but I think the problems that seem the most intractable are the ones that are most important to work on. And just because it hasn't been figured out yet doesn't mean you won't. After all, if women's work were easy, someone else would have already been doing it, right? (Laughter) But women around the globe, they're on the move, and they are taking strengths and inspiration from each other. They are doing things they never could have imagined. So if we could just take the progress we have made in joining the workforce, in joining business, in joining the educational system, and actually channel that into building true political power, we will reshape this century, because one of us can be ignored, two of us can be dismissed, but together, we're a movement, and we're unstoppable. Thank you. (Applause and cheers) Thank you. (Applause) |
Why should you read "Fahrenheit 451"? | null | TED-Ed | “It was a pleasure to burn. It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed.” Fahrenheit 451 opens in a blissful blaze - and before long, we learn what’s going up in flames. Ray Bradbury’s novel imagines a world where books are banned from all areas of life - and possessing, let alone reading them, is forbidden. The protagonist, Montag, is a fireman responsible for destroying what remains. But as his pleasure gives way to doubt, the story raises critical questions of how to preserve one’s mind in a society where free will, self-expression, and curiosity are under fire. In Montag’s world, mass media has a monopoly on information, erasing almost all ability for independent thought. On the subway, ads blast out of the walls. At home, Montag’s wife Mildred listens to the radio around the clock, and three of their parlor walls are plastered with screens. At work, the smell of kerosene hangs over Montag’s colleagues, who smoke and set their mechanical hound after rats to pass the time. When the alarm sounds they surge out in salamander-shaped vehicles, sometimes to burn whole libraries to the ground. But as he sets tomes ablaze day after day like “black butterflies,” Montag’s mind occasionally wanders to the contraband that lies hidden in his home. Gradually, he begins to question the basis of his work. Montag realizes he’s always felt uneasy - but has lacked the descriptive words to express his feelings in a society where even uttering the phrase “once upon a time” can be fatal. Fahrenheit 451 depicts a world governed by surveillance, robotics, and virtual reality- a vision that proved remarkably prescient, but also spoke to the concerns of the time. The novel was published in 1953, at the height of the Cold War. This era kindled widespread paranoia and fear throughout Bradbury’s home country of the United States, amplified by the suppression of information and brutal government investigations. In particular, this witch hunt mentality targeted artists and writers who were suspected of Communist sympathies. Bradbury was alarmed at this cultural crackdown. He believed it set a dangerous precedent for further censorship, and was reminded of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the book-burning of Fascist regimes. He explored these chilling connections in Fahrenheit 451, titled after the temperature at which paper burns. The accuracy of that temperature has been called into question, but that doesn’t diminish the novel’s standing as a masterpiece of dystopian fiction. Dystopian fiction as a genre amplifies troubling features of the world around us and imagines the consequences of taking them to an extreme. In many dystopian stories, the government imposes constrictions onto unwilling subjects. But in Fahrenheit 451, Montag learns that it was the apathy of the masses that gave rise to the current regime. The government merely capitalized on short attention spans and the appetite for mindless entertainment, reducing the circulation of ideas to ash. As culture disappears, imagination and self-expression follow. Even the way people talk is short-circuited - such as when Montag’s boss Captain Beatty describes the acceleration of mass culture: "Speed up the film, Montag, quick. Click? Pic? Look, Eye, Now, Flick, Here, There, Swift, Pace, Up, Down, In, Out, Why, How, Who, What, Where, Eh? Uh! Bang! Smack! Wallop, Bing, Bong, Boom! Digest-digests, digest-digest-digests. Politics? One column, two sentences, a headline! Then, in mid-air, all vanishes!" In this barren world, Montag learns how difficult it is to resist when there's nothing left to hold on to. Altogether, Fahrenheit 451 is a portrait of independent thought on the brink of extinction - and a parable about a society which is complicit in its own combustion. |
How to transform sinking cities into landscapes that fight floods | {0: 'Kotchakorn Voraakhom is a landscape architect who works on building green public space that tackle climate change.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | At this very moment, with every breath we take, major delta cities across the globe are sinking, including New York, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, New Orleans, and as well as my city, Bangkok. Here is the usual version of climate change. This is mine. Nothing much, just a crocodile on the street. (Laughter) This is an urgent impact of climate change: over sinking cities. Here, you can see the urbanization of Bangkok, growing in every direction, shifting from porous, agricultural land — the land that can breathe and absorb water — to a concrete jungle. This is what parts of it look like after 30 minutes of rainfall. And every time it rains, I wish my car could turn into a boat. This land has no room for water. It has lost its absorbent capacity. The reality of Bangkok's metropolitan region is a city of 15 million people living, working and commuting on top of a shifting, muddy river delta. Bangkok is sinking more than one centimeter per year, which is four times faster than the rate of predicted sea level rise. And we could be below sea level by 2030, which will be here too soon. There is no coincidence that I am here as a landscape architect. As a child, I grew up in a row house next to the busy road always filled with traffic. In front of my house, there was a concrete parking lot, and that was my playground. The only living creature I would find, and had fun with, were these sneaky little plants trying to grow through the crack of the concrete pavement. My favorite game with friends was to dig a bigger and bigger hole through this crack to let this little plant creep out — sneak out more and more. And yes, landscape architecture gives me the opportunity to continue my cracking ambition — (Laughter) to connect this concrete land back to nature. Before, Thais — my people — we were adapted to the cycle of the wet and dry season, and you could call us amphibious. (Laughter) We lived both on land and on water. We were adapted to both. And flooding was a happy event, when the water fertilized our land. But now, flooding means ... disaster. In 2011, Thailand was hit by the most damaging and the most expensive flood disaster in our history. Flooding has turned central Thailand into an enormous lake. Here, you can see the scale of the flood in the center of the image, to the scale of Bangkok, outlined in yellow. The water was overflowing from the north, making its way across several provinces. Millions of my people, including me and my family, were displaced and homeless. Some had to escape the city. Many were terrified of losing their home and their belongings, so they stayed back in the flood with no electricity and clean water. For me, this flood reflects clearly that our modern infrastructure, and especially our notion of fighting flood with concrete, had made us so extremely vulnerable to the climate uncertainty. But in the heart of this disaster, I found my calling. I cannot just sit and wait as my city continues to sink. The city needed me, and I had the ability to fix this problem. Six years ago, I started my project. My teams and I won the design competition for Chulalongkorn Centenary Park. This was the big, bold mission of the first university in Thailand for celebrating its hundredth anniversary by giving this piece of land as a public park to our city. Having a park sounds very normal to many other cities, but not in Bangkok, which has one of the lowest public green space per capita among megacities in Asia. Our project's become the first new public park in almost 30 years. The 11-acre park — a big green crack at the heart of Bangkok — opened just last year. (Applause and cheers) Thank you. (Applause) For four years, we have pushed through countless meetings to convince and never give up to convincing that this park isn't just for beautification or recreation: it must help the city deal with water, it must help the city confront climate change. And here is how it works. Bangkok is a flat city, so we harnessed the power of gravity by inclining the whole park to collect every drop of rain. The gravity force pulls down the runoff from the highest point to the lowest point. This park has three main elements that work as one system. The first — the green roof. This is the biggest green roof in Thailand, with the rainwater tanks and museum underneath. In the dry season, the collected rain can be used to water the park for up to a month. The runoff on the green roof then falls through wetlands with the native water plants that can help filter and help clean water. And at the lower end, the retention pond collects all of the water. At this pond, there are water bikes. People can pedal and help clean water. Their exercise becomes an active part of the park water system. When life gives you a flood, you have fun with the water. (Laughter) Centenary Park gives room for people and room for water, which is exactly what we and our cities need. This is an amphibious design. This park is not about getting rid of flood. It's about creating a way to live with it. And not a single drop of rain is wasted in this park. This park can hold and collect a million gallons of water. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) Every given project, for me, is an opportunity to create more green cracks through this concrete jungle by using landscape architecture as a solution, like turning this concrete roof into an urban farm, which can help absorb rain; reduce urban heat island and grow food in the middle of the city; reuse the abandoned concrete structure to become a green pedestrian bridge; and another flood-proof park at Thammasat University, which nearly completes the biggest green roof on an academic campus yet in Southeast Asia. Severe flooding is our new normal, putting the southeast Asian region — the region with the most coastline — at extreme risk. Creating a park is just one solution. The awareness of climate change means we, in every profession we are involved, are increasingly obligated to understand the climate risk and put whatever we are working on as part of the solution. Because if our cities continue the way they are now, a similar catastrophe will happen again ... and again. Creating a solution in these sinking cities is like making the impossible possible. And for that, I would like to share one word that I always keep in mind, that is, "tangjai." The literal translation for "tang" is "to firmly stand," and "jai" means "heart." Firmly stand your heart at your goal. In Thai language, when you commit to do something, you put tangjai in front of your word, so your heart will be in your action. No matter how rough the path, how big the crack, you push through to your goal, because that's where your heart is. And yes, Thailand is home. This land is my only home, and that's where I firmly stand my heart. Where do you stand yours? Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. Kòp kun ka. (Applause and cheers) |
How we see color | null | TED-Ed | You might have heard that light is a kind of wave and that the color of an object is related to the frequency of light waves it reflects. High-frequency light waves look violet, low-frequency light waves look red, and in-between frequencies look yellow, green, orange, and so on. You might call this idea physical color because it says that color is a physical property of light itself. It's not dependent on human perception. And, while this isn't wrong, it isn't quite the whole story either. For instance, you might have seen this picture before. As you can see, the region where the red and green lights overlap is yellow. When you think about it, this is pretty weird. Because light is a wave, two different frequencies shouldn't interact with each other at all, they should just co-exist like singers singing in harmony. So, in this yellow looking region, two different kinds of light waves are present: one with a red frequency, and one with a green frequency. There is no yellow light present at all. So, how come this region, where the red and green lights mix, looks yellow to us? To understand this, you have to understand a little bit about biology, in particular, about how humans see color. Light perception happens in a paper-thin layer of cells, called the retina, that covers the back of your eyeball. In the retina, there are two different types of light-detecting cells: rods and cones. The rods are used for seeing in low-light conditions, and there is only one kind of those. The cones, however, are a different story. There three kinds of cone cells that roughly correspond to the colors red, green, and blue. When you see a color, each cone sends its own distinct signal to your brain. For example, suppose that yellow light, that is real yellow light, with a yellow frequency, is shining on your eye. You don't have a cone specifically for detecting yellow, but yellow is kind of close to green and also kind of close to red, so both the red and green cones get activated, and each sends a signal to your brain saying so. Of course, there is another way to activate the red cones and the green cones simultaneously: if both red light and green light are present at the same time. The point is, your brain receives the same signal, regardless of whether you see light that has the yellow frequency or light that is a mixture of the green and red frequencies. That's why, for light, red plus green equals yellow. And, how come you can't detect colors when it's dark? Well, the rod cells in your retina take over in low-light conditions. You only have one kind of rod cell, and so there is one type of signal that can get sent to your brain: light or no light. Having only one kind of light detector doesn't leave any room for seeing color. There are infinitely many different physical colors, but, because we only have three kinds of cones, the brain can be tricked into thinking it's seeing any color by carefully adding together the right combination of just three colors: red, green, and blue. This property of human vision is really useful in the real world. For example, TV manufacturing. Instead of having to put infinitely many colors in your TV set to simulate the real world, TV manufacturers only have to put three: red, green, and blue, which is lucky for them, really. |
What's needed to bring the US voting system into the 21st century | {0: 'Tiana Epps-Johnson works to make the US election system more modern, inclusive and secure. '} | TED Salon Zebra Technologies | OK, I want to take a moment to let each of you think to yourselves about the last time you sent or received a fax. (Laughter) Well, for me, it was this morning, because one piece of my work is making sure that everyone in the US has the information that they need to make decisions about the candidates on their ballot. And collecting that information from the local government offices responsible for maintaining it means sending and receiving a lot of faxes. Voting is one of our most fundamental rights. It's one of the most tangible ways that each and every one of us can shape our communities. And as we enter this fourth industrial revolution, where technology is changing everything around us, you would think, with something as important as the right to vote, that we would have the most modern, secure, inclusive system that could exist ... But we don't. When we look at comparable democracies, the US has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the world. We have a system where even the most persistent voters come up against exhausting barriers. A system where 20th-century technology — like fax machines — and outdated practices stand in the way of full, vibrant participation. In US presidential elections, turnout hovers around 60 percent. The numbers are even lower for local elections. That means that nearly 40 percent of Americans aren't voters. That's nearly 100 million people. I believe in something very straightforward: that everyone should have the information that they need to become a voter, that the voting process should be seamless and secure and that every voter should have information they trust to make decisions about the candidates on their ballot. Because when more people vote, together, we make better decisions for our communities. So I've spent the last eight years on a mission to push our democracy into the 21st century. Now, one of the most common approaches to election modernization is advocating for policy change, and that's an incredibly important piece of the strategy for building a system where millions of more people become voters. But I've taken a different approach. I focused on a critical yet largely untapped resource for election modernization: local election officials. I work with thousands of local election officials across the country to build tools and skills that they can use immediately to transform the way that they're engaging today's voters. Folks like Kat and Marie. Kat and Marie have worked together for years in a windowless office in the basement of the Mercer County Courthouse in West Virginia. Together, they have a tremendous responsibility. They're local election officials serving Mercer County's 40,000 registered voters. Local election officials are the public servants that do the day-to-day work that makes our election system function. When you fill out a voter-registration form, they're the folks that process them and add you to the rolls. They're the folks who buy the technology that we use to cast and count ballots. They recruit and train the volunteers at your local polling place. And they're the official nonpartisan source for informing people in their communities about how to vote. And unlike other countries where there's some form of centralized election authority, in the US, there are 7,897 different county and municipal offices, like Kat and Marie's, that each have an independent role in administering elections. Yes, that's nearly 8,000 slightly different ways that you might experience voting based on where you happen to live. When I was talking with Kat and Marie, like so many election officials that I talk with in rural towns and in major cities alike, they were deeply proud of getting to help people in their communities, but they were also worried. All of the new tools that people were using to get information — the internet, social media — they were difficult to figure out how to use effectively. And they felt like they weren't fully meeting the needs of Mercer County voters. One thing that they really wished that they had was a website so they could create a hub with information about how to register in upcoming elections, and a place to put election results. See, at the time, when voters had questions, they had to either call or visit their office, which meant that Kat and Marie were inevitably answering the same questions over and over again, which is both a superinefficient use of their time, but also created totally unnecessary barriers for voters when that information could just live online. And Mercer County wasn't alone. At the time, they were one of 966 counties in the US that had no voting information online. I'll let that sink in. They were one of the nearly one-third of counties in the US that had no place online to find official information about how to vote. To Kat and Marie, not having and election website was unacceptable, but they didn't have very many options. They didn't have the budget to hire a web developer, they didn't have the expertise to build a site themselves, so they went without. And 40,000 voters in Mercer County went without. We're in a moment where we have an unprecedented opportunity to transform civic engagement. Technology is revolutionizing science and industry. It's already transformed how we connect with one another and understand the world around us, but our democratic institutions — they're being left behind. The US is one of the few major democracies in the world that puts the onus of voter registration on the individual voter, rather than the government. The rules that govern how to vote vary from state to state, and sometimes even county to county. And we have ballots that are pages and pages long. This November, on my ballot, there are literally over 100 different people and referenda for me to make decisions about. We have to be using the best tools we can bring to bear to help voters navigate this complexity, and right now, we're not. One of the most common narratives I hear in my work is that people aren't civically engaged because they're apathetic — because they don't care. But as my brilliant friends at the Center for Civic Design say, if there is apathy, it comes from the system, not the voter. We can change the system right now by connecting local election officials like Kat and Marie with 21st-century tools and the training that they need to use them to better serve voters. Tools and training to do things like use social media for voter engagement, or use data to staff and equip polling places so that we don't see hours-long lines at the polls, or training on cybersecurity best practices so that we can ensure that our voting systems are secure. When we invest in this approach, we see meaningful, lasting results. Kat and Marie are online now. Inspired by their experience, we built a website template using research-based best practices in civic design, and developed the training so that Kat and Marie are able to maintain their site themselves. In less than a week, they went from having never seen the back end of a website to building a resource for Mercer County voters that they have been independently keeping up to date since 2014. Today, the 40,000 voters in Mercer County and over 100,000 voters in counties across the country have everything that they need to become a voter directly from their local election official, on a mobile-friendly, easy-to-use, accessible website. And we can even further scale the impact when local election officials are not only reaching out through their own channels, but they're extending their reach by working in partnership with others. Efforts like the Ballot Information Project and the Voting Information Project work with election officials nationwide to create a centralized, standard database of key voting information, like what's on your ballot and where to vote. That information powers tools built by companies like Google and Facebook to get information in the places where people already are, like their newsfeed and search. In 2016, the Ballot Information Project connected the public with information about candidates and referenda over 200 millions times, helping between a third and a half of every single person who cast a ballot. And that model has been replicated for elections around the world. When we look at efforts in other areas of government, we can see the opportunity when we listen to the public's needs and we meet them with modern tools. I think about my friends at mRelief, who have helped 260,000 families unlock 42 million dollars in food benefits by helping government agencies transition away from a 20-page, paper-based application for food stamps to a process that can happen in 10 questions over text message in fewer than three minutes. That kind of transformation is possible in voting. It's happening right now, but there's still so much work to do. Now, if you have any technical bone in your body, I know what you're thinking. This is all solvable. The technology that we need exists. We collectively have the expertise. You might even be thinking about volunteering at your local election office. I love how solutions-oriented you are, but to be clear, the work that is needed to modernize our election system isn't something that's going to happen using 20 percent time, or through a hackathon, or by doing a one-off technology project. What we need is significant, sustained, long-term investment. Investment in technology and investment in the skills of local election officials to run 21st-century elections, because if we don't invest in the long game, we risk finding ourselves perpetually behind. So if you're ready to help millions, if you're ready to close the gap between the system that we have and the system that we deserve, we need you. Organizations that are doing this work year-round need you. Local election offices need you. Come join us. Thank you. (Applause) |
How CRISPR lets you edit DNA | null | TED-Ed | From the smallest single-celled organism to the largest creatures on earth, every living thing is defined by its genes. The DNA contained in our genes acts like an instruction manual for our cells. Four building blocks called bases are strung together in precise sequences, which tell the cell how to behave and form the basis for our every trait. But with recent advancements in gene editing tools, scientists can change an organism’s fundamental features in record time. They can engineer drought-resistant crops and create apples that don’t brown. They might even prevent the spread of infectious outbreaks and develop cures for genetic diseases. CRISPR is the fastest, easiest, and cheapest of the gene editing tools responsible for this new wave of science. But where did this medical marvel come from? How does it work? And what can it do? Surprisingly, CRISPR is actually a natural process that’s long functioned as a bacterial immune system. Originally found defending single-celled bacteria and archaea against invading viruses, naturally occurring CRISPR uses two main components. The first are short snippets of repetitive DNA sequences called “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” or simply, CRISPRs. The second are Cas, or “CRISPR-associated” proteins which chop up DNA like molecular scissors. When a virus invades a bacterium, Cas proteins cut out a segment of the viral DNA to stitch into the bacterium’s CRISPR region, capturing a chemical snapshot of the infection. Those viral codes are then copied into short pieces of RNA. This molecule plays many roles in our cells, but in the case of CRISPR, RNA binds to a special protein called Cas9. The resulting complexes act like scouts, latching onto free-floating genetic material and searching for a match to the virus. If the virus invades again, the scout complex recognizes it immediately, and Cas9 swiftly destroys the viral DNA. Lots of bacteria have this type of defense mechanism. But in 2012, scientists figured out how to hijack CRISPR to target not just viral DNA, but any DNA in almost any organism. With the right tools, this viral immune system becomes a precise gene-editing tool, which can alter DNA and change specific genes almost as easily as fixing a typo. Here’s how it works in the lab: scientists design a “guide” RNA to match the gene they want to edit, and attach it to Cas9. Like the viral RNA in the CRISPR immune system, the guide RNA directs Cas9 to the target gene, and the protein’s molecular scissors snip the DNA. This is the key to CRISPR’s power: just by injecting Cas9 bound to a short piece of custom guide RNA scientists can edit practically any gene in the genome. Once the DNA is cut, the cell will try to repair it. Typically, proteins called nucleases trim the broken ends and join them back together. But this type of repair process, called nonhomologous end joining, is prone to mistakes and can lead to extra or missing bases. The resulting gene is often unusable and turned off. However, if scientists add a separate sequence of template DNA to their CRISPR cocktail, cellular proteins can perform a different DNA repair process, called homology directed repair. This template DNA is used as a blueprint to guide the rebuilding process, repairing a defective gene or even inserting a completely new one. The ability to fix DNA errors means that CRISPR could potentially create new treatments for diseases linked to specific genetic errors, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. And since it’s not limited to humans, the applications are almost endless. CRISPR could create plants that yield larger fruit, mosquitoes that can’t transmit malaria, or even reprogram drug-resistant cancer cells. It’s also a powerful tool for studying the genome, allowing scientists to watch what happens when genes are turned off or changed within an organism. CRISPR isn’t perfect yet. It doesn’t always make just the intended changes, and since it’s difficult to predict the long-term implications of a CRISPR edit, this technology raises big ethical questions. It’s up to us to decide the best course forward as CRISPR leaves single-celled organisms behind and heads into labs, farms, hospitals, and organisms around the world. |
Stunning buildings made from raw, imperfect materials | {0: 'Débora Mesa Molina \u200bmakes space for experimentation in a highly regulated profession.'} | TED Salon: Radical Craft | Architecture is a profession with many rules, some written, some not, some relevant and others not. As architects, we're constantly gravitating between following these rules by the book or making a space for imagination — for experimentation. This is a difficult balance. Especially through architecture, you're trying to challenge preconceptions and push boundaries and innovate, even if just using what we have around and we overlook all the time. And this is what I've been doing along with my team, Ensamble Studio, and from our very early works that happened in strict historic contexts, like the city of Santiago de Compostela. Here we built the General Society of Authors and Editors, a cultural building. And on top of all the regulations, we had to use stone by code and our experience was limited, but we had incredible references to learn from, some coming from the city itself or from nearby landscapes or other remote places that had impacted our education as architects, and maybe you recognize here. But somehow the finished products that industry made available for us as architects to use in our buildings seemed to have lost their soul. And so we decided to go to the nearby quarries to better understand the process that transforms a mountain into a perfectly square tile that you buy from a supplier. And we were taken by the monumental scale of the material and the actions to extract it. And looking carefully, we noticed hundreds of irregular blocks piling up everywhere. They are the leftovers of an extraction sequence: the ugly parts that nobody wants. But we wanted them. We were inspired. And it was a win-win situation where we could get this residual material of great quality, doomed to be crushed, at a very low cost. Now, we had to convince our clients that this was a good idea; but foremost, we had to come up with a design process to reuse these randomly shaped rocks, and we had not done this before. Today everything would be much easier because we would go to the quarry with our smartphones equipped with 3-D scanners and we would document each rock, turn that into a digital model — highly engineer the whole process. But more than a decade ago, we had to embrace uncertainty and put on our boots, roll up our sleeves and move to the quarry for a hands-on experience. And we also had to become the contractors because we failed at finding somebody willing to share the risk with us. Now, luckily, we convinced the quarry team to help us build a few prototypes to resolve some of the technical details. And we agreed on a few mock-ups, but we got excited, and one stone led to another until we succeeded to build an 18-meter-long by eight-meter-high structure that recycled all the amorphous material of the quarry, just supported by gravity — no mortar and no ties. And once built and tested, moving it to the final site in the city center to unite it with the rest of the building was a piece of cake, because by having isolated uncertainty and managed risk in the controlled environment of the quarry, we were able to complete the whole building in time and on budget, even if using nonconventional means and methods. And I still get goosebumps when I see this big chunk of the industrial landscape in the city, in a building, experienced by the visitors and the neighbors. This building gave us quite a few headaches, and so it could have well been an exception in our work, but instead it started to inform a modus operandi where every project becomes this opportunity to test the limits of a discipline we believe has to be urgently reimagined. So what you see here are four homes that we have designed, built and inhabited. Four manifestos where we are using the small scale to ask ourselves big questions. And we are trying to discover the architectures that result from unconventional applications of pretty mundane materials and technologies, like concrete in different forms in the top row, or steel and foam in the bottom row. Take, for instance, these precast concrete beams. You have probably seen them building bridges, highways, water channels — we found them on one of our visits to a precast concrete factory. And they might not seem especially homey or beautiful, but we decided to use them to build our first house. And this was an incredible moment because we got to be architects as always, builders once more and, for the first time, we could be our own clients. So, here we are trying to figure out how we can take these huge catalogue beams of about 20 tons each and stack them progressively around a courtyard space ... the heart of the house. And due to the dimensions and their material quality, these big parts are the structure that carry the loads to the ground, but they are much more than that. They are the swimming pool; they are the walls that divide interior from exterior; they are the windows that frame the views; they are the finishes; they are the very spirit of this house. A house that is for us a laboratory where we are testing how we can use standard elements in nonstandard ways. And we are observing that the results are intriguing. And we are learning by doing that prefabrication can be much more than stacking boxes or that heavy parts can be airy and transparent. And on top of designing and building this house, we get invaluable feedback, sharing it with our family and our friends because this is our life and our work in progress. The lessons that we learn here get translated into other projects and other programs and other scales as well, and they inspire new work. Here again we are looking at very standard products: galvanized steel studs that can be easily cut and screwed, insulating foams, cement boards — all materials that you can find hidden in partition walls and that we are exposing; and we are using them to build a very lightweight construction system that can be built almost by anyone. And we are doing it ourselves with our hands in our shop, and we are architects. We're not professional builders but we want to make sure it's possible. And it's so nice that Antón can move it with his hands and Javier can put it in a container, and we can ship it like you would ship your belongings if you were moving abroad ... which is what we did five years ago. We moved our gravity center from Madrid and the house of the concrete beams to Brookline. And we found the ugly duckling of a very nice neighborhood: a one-story garage and the only thing we could afford. But it was OK because we wanted to transform it into a swan, installing on top our just-delivered kit of parts, once more becoming the scientists and the guinea pigs. So this is a house that uses some of the cheapest and most normal materials that you can find in the market that applies the ubiquitous four-by-eight modulation that governs the construction industry. And yet a different organization of the spaces and a different assembly of the parts is able to transform an economically built home into a luxurious space. And now, we're dreaming and we're actively working with developers, with builders, with communities to try to make this a reality for many more homes and many more families. And you see, the world around us is an infinite source of inspiration if we are curious enough to see beneath the surface of things. Now I'm going to take you to the other side of the moon: to the sublime landscape of Montana, where a few years ago we joined Cathy and Peter Halstead to imagine Tippet Rise Art Center on a 10,000-acre working ranch. And when we first visited the site, we realized that all we knew about what an art center is was absolutely pointless for that client, for that community, for that landscape. The kind of white-box museum type had no fit here. So we decided to explode the center into a constellation of fragments, of spaces spread across the vast territory that would immerse the visitors into the wilderness of this amazing place. So back in the office, we are thinking through making, using the land both as support and as material, learning from its geological processes of sedimentation, erosion, fragmentation, crystallization — explosion — to discover architectures that are born from the land, that are visceral extensions of the landscape, like this bridge that crosses Murphy Canyon. Or this fountain. Like this space topping a hill ... or this theatre that brings to us the space of the mountains and its sound. And in order to realize this idea, construction cannot be perfectly planned. We need to embrace the drastic weather and the local craft. We need to control just those aspects that are critical, like the structural, the thermal, the acoustical properties embedded in the form. But otherwise, improvisation is welcome and is provoked. And the moment of construction is still a moment of design and a moment of celebration where different hands, hearts, minds come together to perform a final dance. And the result then cannot be anticipated. It comes as a surprise. And we unwrap architecture like you would unwrap a birthday gift. Architecture isn't uncovered: it's discovered. It's extracted from the guts of the earth to build a shelter, one of the most basic human needs. Architecture, art, landscape, archaeology, geology — all made one. And by using the resources at our disposal in radical ways, by making a space for experimentation, we are able to bring to light architectures that find the beauty latent in the raw and imperfect things that surround us, that elevate them and let them speak their own language. Thank you. (Applause) |
What sticky sea creatures can teach us about making glue | {0: 'Jonathan Wilker explores the science and engineering happening within our oceans. He works to understand the ways that sea creatures survive and how we can adapt their technologies to create new materials.'} | TEDxPurdueU | So I'd like you to join me on a field trip, and I want to go to the beach, and take you all to the beach and so enjoy the sea air and the salt spray. And let's go down to the water's edge, and you're going to notice is we're getting knocked around by the waves, and it's really difficult to stay in place. But now, look down, and what you're going to see is that the rocks are covered by all sorts of sea creatures that are just staying there in place, no problem. And it turns out that if you want to survive in this really demanding environment, your very existence is dependent upon your ability to make glue, actually. So let me introduce you to some of the heroes of our story, just a few of them. So these are mussels, and you'll notice they're covering the rocks. They've made adhesives, and they're sticking down on the rocks, and they're also sticking to each other, actually. So they're hunkered down together as a group. This is a close-up photograph of an oyster reef, and oysters, they're amazing. What they do is they cement to each other, and they build these huge, extensive reef systems. They can be kilometers long, they can be meters deep, and arguably, they're the most dominant influence on how healthy any coastal marine ecosystem is going to be, because what they do is they're filtering the water constantly, they're holding sand and dirt in place. Actually, other species live inside of these reefs. And then, if you think about what happens when a storm comes in, if the storm surge first has to hit miles of these reefs, the coast behind it is going to be protected. So they're really quite influential. If you've been to any rocky beach pretty much anywhere in the world, you're probably familiar with what barnacles look like. What these animals do — and there's many others, these are just three of them — is they make adhesives, they stick to each other, they stick to the rocks and they build communities, and by doing this, there's a lot of survival advantages they get. So one of them is that just any individual is subjected to less of the turbulence and all the damaging features that can happen from that environment. So they're all hunkered down there. Then, also, there's a safety in numbers thing, because it also helps you keep away the predators, because if, say, a seagull wants to pick you up and eat you, it's more difficult for the seagull if they're all stuck together. And then another thing is it also helps with reproductive efficiency. So you can imagine that when Mr. and Mrs. Barnacle decide, "OK, it's time to have little baby barnacles" — I won't tell you how they do that just yet — but when they decide it's time to do that, it's a lot easier and their reproductive efficiency is higher if they're all living close together. So we want to understand how they do this, how do they stick, and I can't really tell you all the details, because it's something we're still trying to figure out, but let me give you a little flavor of some of the things that we're trying to do. This is a picture of one of the aquarium systems we have in our lab, and everything in the image is part of the system, and so what we do is we keep — and you can see in the glass tank there in the bottom, there's a bunch of mussels, we have the water chilled, we have the lights cycled, we actually have turbulence in the system because the animals make more adhesives for us when the water is turbulent. So we induce them to make the adhesive, we collect it, we study it. They're here in Indiana. As far as they know, they're in Maine in February, and they seem to be pretty happy, as far as we can tell. And then we also work with oysters, and up top, it's a photo of a small reef in South Carolina, and what we're most interested in is seeing how they attach to each other, how they connect. And so what you can see in the bottom image is there's two oysters that are cementing to each other. And we want to know what's in between, and so a lot of times, we'll cut them and look down, and in the next series of images we have here, you can see, on the bottom, we'll have two shells, the shell of one animal and the shell of another animal, and the cement's in between. And if you look at the image on the right, what you can maybe see is that there's structure in the shell of each animal, but then, the cement actually looks different. And so we're using all sorts of fancy biology and chemistry tools to understand what's going on in there, and what we're finding is the structures are different and the chemistry is actually different, and it's quite interesting. And then this picture — I guess let me step back before I tell you what this is. So do you know the cartoon "The Magic School Bus"? Or if you're a little bit older, "Fantastic Voyage," right? And you remember, they had these characters that they would shrink down to these microscopic levels, and then they would sort of swirl in and swim around and fly around all these biological structures? I think of this as like that, except for it's real, in this case. And so what we did is we have two oysters that are stuck together, and this area used to be completely filled in with the cement, and what we're finding is that the cement has lots of different components in there, but broadly speaking, there are hard, non-sticky parts and there are soft, sticky parts, and what we did is we removed the non-sticky parts selectively to see what's left for what's actually attaching the animals, and what we got is this, and we can see there's this sticky adhesive that's holding them together. And I just think it's a really cool image, because you can imagine yourself flying in and going back there. Anyways, those are some of the things we're doing to understand how marine biology is making these materials. And from a fundamental perspective, it's really exciting to learn. But what we do want to do with this information? Well, there's a lot of technological applications if we can harness what the animals are doing. So let me give you one example. So imagine you're at home and you break your favorite figurine or a mug or something like that? You want to put it back together. So where do you go? You go to my favorite place in town, which is the glue aisle of the hardware store. I know where you spend your nights, because you're all hip, cool people, because you're here, and you're going to the bars and concerts — this is where I hang out every night. So anyways, so what I want you to do is get one of every adhesive that's on the shelf, bring it home, but before you try to put things back together, I want you to try to do it in a bucket of water. It's not going to work, right? We all know this. So obviously, marine biology has solved this, so what we need to do is figure out ways to be able to copy this ourselves. And one of the issues here is, you can't just go and get the materials from the beach, because if you get a bunch of mussels and try to milk them for their adhesive, you'll get a little bit of material, but you're never going to have enough to do anything with, just enough to see. We need to scale this up, ideally maybe train car scale. So on the top is an image of one of the types of molecules that the animals are using to make their glue, and what they are is they're very long molecules, they're called proteins, and these proteins happen to have some fairly unique parts in them that bring about the adhesive properties. What we want to do is take those little parts of that chemistry, and we want to put it into other long molecules that we can get but things that we can make on a really large scale, so you might know them as plastics or polymers, and so we're sort of simplifying what they do, but then putting that adhesion chemistry into these large molecules. And we've developed many different adhesive systems in doing this, and when you make a new adhesive that looks pretty good, what do you do? You start running around the lab, just sticking stuff together. We took a tiny bit of a glue and glued together two pieces of metal and we wanted to hang something from it, so we used a pot of live mussels and thought we were very clever. (Laughs) We're obviously much more quantitative about this most often, and so we benchmark against commercial adhesives, and we actually have some materials now that are stronger than superglue. So to me, that's really cool. That's a good day in the lab. It's stronger than superglue. And here's something else that we can do. So this is a tank of seawater, and then, in that syringe is one of our adhesive formulations, and what we're doing is we're dispensing it completely underwater, on a piece of metal. And then, we want to make an adhesive bond, or joint, and so we take another piece of metal and we put it on there and just position it. And you want to let it set up for a while, give it a chance, so we'll just put a weight on it, nothing fancy. This is a tube with lead shot in it, nothing fancy. And then you let it sit for a while. So this has never seen air. It's completely underwater. And you pick it up. I never know what's going to happen. I'm always very anxious here. Pick it up ... and it's stuck. To me, this is really cool. So we can actually get very strong underwater adhesion. Possibly, it's the strongest or at least one of the strongest underwater adhesives that's ever been seen. It's even stronger than the materials that the animals produce, so for us, it's pretty exciting. It's pretty cool. So what do we want to do with these things? Well, here are some products that you're probably really familiar with. So think about your cell phone, your laptop, plywood in most structures, the interior of your car, shoes, phone books, things like this. They're all held together with adhesives, and there's two main problems with the adhesives used in these materials. The first one is that they're toxic. So the worst offender here is plywood. Plywood, or a lot of furniture, or wood laminate in floors — a main component of the adhesives here is formaldehyde, and it's maybe a compound you've heard of. It's a gas, and it's also a carcinogen, and so we're constructing a lot of structures from these adhesives, and we're also breathing a lot of this carcinogen. So not good, obviously. Right? The other issue is that these adhesives are all permanent. And so what do you do with your shoes or your car or even your laptop at the end of life, when you're done using it? For the most part, they end up in landfills. And there's a lot of precious materials in there we'd love to be able to get out and recycle them. We can't do it so easily because they're all stuck together permanently. So here's one approach we're taking to try and solve some of these problems, and what we've done here is we've taken another long molecule that we can actually get from corn, and then into that molecule, we've put some of the adhesion chemistry from the mussels. So because we've got the corn and we've got the mussels, we call this our surf-and-turf polymer. And it sticks. It sticks really well. It's very strong. It's also bio-based. That's nice. But maybe more importantly, here, it's also degradable, and we can degrade it under very mild conditions, with water. And so what we can do is we can set things up and we can bond them strongly when we want, but then we can also take them apart. It's something we're thinking about. And here is a place where a lot of us want to be. Well, actually, in this specific case, this is a place we do not want to be, but we'd like to replace this. So sutures, staples, screws: this is how we put you back together if you've had some surgery or an injury. It's just awful. It hurts. In the case of the sutures, look at how much you're making concentrated, mechanical stresses as you pull things together. You're making sites for infection. Poke holes in healthy tissue. It's not so good. Or if you need a plate to hold together your bones, look at how much healthy bone you have to drill out just to hold the plate in place. So this is awful. To me, it looks like these were things devised in a medieval torture chamber, but it's our modern surgical joinery. So I'd love it if we could replace systems like these with adhesives. We're working on this, but this is not easy. So think about what you would need for adhesives in these cases. So first of all, you would need an adhesive that is going to set in a wet environment. And if you look at the silly little picture there, it's just to illustrate that our bodies are about 60 percent water, so it's a wet environment. It's also to illustrate that this is why I am a scientist and not an artist. I did not miss my calling at all. So then the other requirements you need for a good biomedical adhesive: it needs to bond strongly, of course, and it needs to not be toxic. You don't want to hurt the patients. And getting any two of those requirements in a material is pretty easy. It's been done many times. But getting all three hasn't been done. It's very hard. And if you start talking to surgeons, they get picky — "Oh, actually I want the adhesive to set on the same time frame as the surgery." Or, "Oh, I want the adhesive to degrade so the patient's tissues can remodel the site." So this is really hard. We're working on it. This is just one image we have. So what we're doing is we're getting all sorts of bones and skin and soft and hard tissue, and sometimes we'll whack it with a hammer. Usually, we're cutting it in precise shapes. And then we glue them back together. We've got some exciting results, some strong materials, some things that look like they're not toxic, they set wet, but I'm not going to tell you we've solved the wet adhesion problem, because we haven't, but it's certainly in our sights for the future. So that's one place that we'd like to see things go farther down the road. And there are a lot of other places, too, you can imagine we might be better off if we could get more adhesives in there. Even cosmetics. So if you think about people putting on fake nails or eyelash extensions, what do they use? They use very toxic adhesives right now. So it's just ripe for replacement. That's something we'd like to do. And then there are other places too. So think about cars and planes. The lighter you can make them, the more fuel-efficient they're going to be. And so if we can get away from rivets and get away from welding and put more adhesives in there, then we might be better off with our future generation of transportation. So for us, this all comes back to the beach. So we look around and we wonder, "How do these sea creatures stick? And what can we do with the technology?" And I would argue that we have really a lot of things we can still learn from biology and from nature. So what I would like to encourage you all to do in the future is put down your nonrecyclable laptops and cell phones and go out and explore the natural world and then start asking some of your own questions. Thanks very much. (Applause) |
"Autopilote" / "Pumper" | {0: 'Mai Lan is a French-Vietnamese artist and musician.'} | TED Salon Samsung | (Music) À voir le sale temps qu'il fait, je crois que je vais crever de froid avec le pâle teint que j'ai, bah... du noir je broie Ça doit faire dix millions d'années que je suis terrée chez moi Je suis comme un lapin de neige, j'attends que ça passe et voilà Et si le phone sonne, c'est presque jamais pour moi Ce qu'ils veulent, c'est personne, c'est juste un miroir en soi Leurs mots résonnent comme les miens et se cognent dans les coins Je suis plus de bonne, bonne, bonne, bonne humeur le matin En autopilote Je suis comme endormie Dans mon bordel je mets de l'ordre Je rouvre les plaies guéries En autopilote Je ne serai pas lucide Dans ton bordel mettre de l'ordre Ne cherche plus mon avis Ne cherche plus mon avis (Music) Avec mes millions de nœuds et même plus en arrière je fais des millions de feux, je cherche l'épine en fer Puis je regrette de n'avoir pas eu trop de cran C'est la même chose pour eux, s'ils s'ouvrent, ils se ferment Dans des jours vaporeux ils se retrouvent et se perdent Ce qu'ils voudraient juste un peu remonter le temps En autopilote Je suis comme endormie Dans mon bordel je mets de l'ordre Je rouvre les plaies guéries En autopilote Je ne serai pas lucide Dans ton bordel mettre de l'ordre Ne cherche plus mon avis Ne cherche plus... En autopilote Je suis comme endormie Dans mon bordel je mets de l'ordre Je rouvre les plaies guéries En autopilote Je ne serai pas lucide Dans ton bordel mettre de l'ordre Ne cherche plus mon avis Ne cherche plus mon avis (Music) Thank you for listening so carefully. Maybe you guys don't understand what I'm talking about in the song as it is in French. It's called "Autopilote," it gave its name to my album because it explains the mood I was in when I wrote it. It's a little deep and personal. It's like my body is a huge vessel, and there are some things that need to be fixed inside, especially in the head. So, pilot, some mini me, has to get in there and dig a little, see what's going on, try to find out where my fears come from, where my anger comes from, and then try to repair them by understanding them. (Applause) So, thank you, little pilot. (Applause) I bet some of you guys have little pilots working inside, too. There is actually somebody else in my big vessel now, look. Whoo! (Laughter) Say hello to our new band member, Belly Joe. He's an inside drummer, and he's actually pretty good. He gives little hits so we can keep the right rhythm. Because only he knows what the right rhythm is, because he feels it from the inside, you know. The next song is called "Pumper." I wrote it when I was in French Guiana. And there in French Guiana it's really, really, really hot. So, Belly Joe is going to give you guys the rhythm. Get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear Get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear (Synth music) I'm so dizzy, the air is so hot Beads of sweat runnin' down my back All my friends are made of wax moving slowly, they gonna melt Knees are bending, the heat so high Wind's so heavy, the bees can't fly What can stop it now? What can stop it now? Téh téh téh téh téh téh What can stop it now? Téh téh téh téh téh téh What? So let's get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there this heat is hard to bear! Get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear If we don't move, then the sea's gonna dry All the walls of the town are gonna crack Some of us are stuck on chairs Welding to them, they're gonna die All these trees begging for some water What can stop it now? Find this truck, baby, I'm gonna drive What can stop it? Téh téh téh téh téh téh What can stop it now? Téh téh téh téh téh téh What can stop it now? So let's get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear Get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear So let's get it, get it, get it, get it C'est trop sec, sec, sec, sec, sec So let's get it, get it, get it, get it C'est trop sec, sec, sec, sec, sec Let's get a pumper 'Cause we need a pumper Gotta find it, catch it, ride it like some kind of jumper Get down to your underwear 'Cause this heat is hard to bear The rain is gonna come This rain is gonna come, so... Let's get a pumper Wanna see it from above You can get it, fill it, drive it like a fireman would do it Drop the water here and there, On my t-shirt, on my hair Sing a prayer, hit the drum The rain is gonna come This heat is hard to bear This heat is hard to bear Just get a pumper Just get a pumper This heat is hard to bear This heat is hard to bear Just get a pumper Just get a pumper This heat is hard to bear So let's get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear Get a pumper Drop the water from above Send it here and there This heat is hard to bear So let's get it, get it, get it, get it C'est trop sec, sec, sec, sec, sec So let's get it, get it, get it, get it C'est trop sec, sec, sec, sec, sec C'est trop sec (Synth music) (Music ends) (Applause) |
A powerful way to unleash your natural creativity | {0: "Tim Harford's writings reveal the economic ideas behind everyday experiences."} | TED@Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany | "To do two things at once is to do neither." It's a great smackdown of multitasking, isn't it, often attributed to the Roman writer Publilius Syrus, although you know how these things are, he probably never said it. What I'm interested in, though, is — is it true? I mean, it's obviously true for emailing at the dinner table or texting while driving or possibly for live tweeting at TED Talk, as well. But I'd like to argue that for an important kind of activity, doing two things at once — or three or even four — is exactly what we should be aiming for. Look no further than Albert Einstein. In 1905, he published four remarkable scientific papers. One of them was on Brownian motion, it provided empirical evidence that atoms exist, and it laid out the basic mathematics behind most of financial economics. Another one was on the theory of special relativity. Another one was on the photoelectric effect, that's why solar panels work, it's a nice one. Gave him the Nobel prize for that one. And the fourth introduced an equation you might have heard of: E equals mc squared. So, tell me again how you shouldn't do several things at once. Now, obviously, working simultaneously on Brownian motion, special relativity and the photoelectric effect — it's not exactly the same kind of multitasking as Snapchatting while you're watching "Westworld." Very different. And Einstein, yeah, well, Einstein's — he's Einstein, he's one of a kind, he's unique. But the pattern of behavior that Einstein was demonstrating, that's not unique at all. It's very common among highly creative people, both artists and scientists, and I'd like to give it a name: slow-motion multitasking. Slow-motion multitasking feels like a counterintuitive idea. What I'm describing here is having multiple projects on the go at the same time, and you move backwards and forwards between topics as the mood takes you, or as the situation demands. But the reason it seems counterintuitive is because we're used to lapsing into multitasking out of desperation. We're in a hurry, we want to do everything at once. If we were willing to slow multitasking down, we might find that it works quite brilliantly. Sixty years ago, a young psychologist by the name of Bernice Eiduson began a long research project into the personalities and the working habits of 40 leading scientists. Einstein was already dead, but four of her subjects won Nobel prizes, including Linus Pauling and Richard Feynman. The research went on for decades, in fact, it continued even after professor Eiduson herself had died. And one of the questions that it answered was, "How is it that some scientists are able to go on producing important work right through their lives?" What is it about these people? Is it their personality, is it their skill set, their daily routines, what? Well, a pattern that emerged was clear, and I think to some people surprising. The top scientists kept changing the subject. They would shift topics repeatedly during their first 100 published research papers. Do you want to guess how often? Three times? Five times? No. On average, the most enduringly creative scientists switched topics 43 times in their first 100 research papers. Seems that the secret to creativity is multitasking in slow motion. Eiduson's research suggests we need to reclaim multitasking and remind ourselves how powerful it can be. And she's not the only person to have found this. Different researchers, using different methods to study different highly creative people have found that very often they have multiple projects in progress at the same time, and they're also far more likely than most of us to have serious hobbies. Slow-motion multitasking among creative people is ubiquitous. So, why? I think there are three reasons. And the first is the simplest. Creativity often comes when you take an idea from its original context and you move it somewhere else. It's easier to think outside the box if you spend your time clambering from one box into another. For an example of this, consider the original eureka moment. Archimedes — he's wrestling with a difficult problem. And he realizes, in a flash, he can solve it, using the displacement of water. And if you believe the story, this idea comes to him as he's taking a bath, lowering himself in, and he's watching the water level rise and fall. And if solving a problem while having a bath isn't multitasking, I don't know what is. The second reason that multitasking can work is that learning to do one thing well can often help you do something else. Any athlete can tell you about the benefits of cross-training. It's possible to cross-train your mind, too. A few years ago, researchers took 18 randomly chosen medical students and they enrolled them in a course at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where they learned to criticize and analyze works of visual art. And at the end of the course, these students were compared with a control group of their fellow medical students. And the ones who had taken the art course had become substantially better at performing tasks such as diagnosing diseases of the eye by analyzing photographs. They'd become better eye doctors. So if we want to become better at what we do, maybe we should spend some time doing something else, even if the two fields appear to be as completely distinct as ophthalmology and the history of art. And if you'd like an example of this, should we go for a less intimidating example than Einstein? OK. Michael Crichton, creator of "Jurassic Park" and "E.R." So in the 1970s, he originally trained as a doctor, but then he wrote novels and he directed the original "Westworld" movie. But also, and this is less well-known, he also wrote nonfiction books, about art, about medicine, about computer programming. So in 1995, he enjoyed the fruits of all this variety by penning the world's most commercially successful book. And the world's most commercially successful TV series. And the world's most commercially successful movie. In 1996, he did it all over again. There's a third reason why slow-motion multitasking can help us solve problems. It can provide assistance when we're stuck. This can't happen in an instant. So, imagine that feeling of working on a crossword puzzle and you can't figure out the answer, and the reason you can't is because the wrong answer is stuck in your head. It's very easy — just go and do something else. You know, switch topics, switch context, you'll forget the wrong answer and that gives the right answer space to pop into the front of your mind. But on the slower timescale that interests me, being stuck is a much more serious thing. You get turned down for funding. Your cell cultures won't grow, your rockets keep crashing. Nobody wants to publish you fantasy novel about a school for wizards. Or maybe you just can't find the solution to the problem that you're working on. And being stuck like that means stasis, stress, possibly even depression. But if you have another exciting, challenging project to work on, being stuck on one is just an opportunity to do something else. We could all get stuck sometimes, even Albert Einstein. Ten years after the original, miraculous year that I described, Einstein was putting together the pieces of his theory of general relativity, his greatest achievement. And he was exhausted. And so he turned to an easier problem. He proposed the stimulated emission of radiation. Which, as you may know, is the S in laser. So he's laying down the theoretical foundation for the laser beam, and then, while he's doing that, he moves back to general relativity, and he's refreshed. He sees what the theory implies — that the universe isn't static. It's expanding. It's an idea so staggering, Einstein can't bring himself to believe it for years. Look, if you get stuck and you get the ball rolling on laser beams, you're in pretty good shape. (Laughter) So, that's the case for slow-motion multitasking. And I'm not promising that it's going to turn you into Einstein. I'm not even promising it's going to turn you into Michael Crichton. But it is a powerful way to organize our creative lives. But there's a problem. How do we stop all of these projects becoming completely overwhelming? How do we keep all these ideas straight in our minds? Well, here's a simple solution, a practical solution from the great American choreographer, Twyla Tharp. Over the last few decades, she's blurred boundaries, mixed genres, won prizes, danced to the music of everybody, from Philip Glass to Billy Joel. She's written three books. I mean, she's a slow-motion multitasker, of course she is. She says, "You have to be all things. Why exclude? You have to be everything." And Tharp's method for preventing all of these different projects from becoming overwhelming is a simple one. She gives each project a big cardboard box, writes the name of the project on the side of the box. And into it, she tosses DVDs and books, magazine cuttings, theater programs, physical objects, really anything that's provided a source of creative inspiration. And she writes, "The box means I never have to worry about forgetting. One of the biggest fears for a creative person is that some brilliant idea will get lost because you didn't write it down and put it in a safe place. I don't worry about that. Because I know where to find it. It's all in the box." You can manage many ideas like this, either in physical boxes or in their digital equivalents. So, I would like to urge you to embrace the art of slow-motion multitasking. Not because you're in a hurry, but because you're in no hurry at all. And I want to give you one final example, my favorite example. Charles Darwin. A man whose slow-burning multitasking is so staggering, I need a diagram to explain it all to you. We know what Darwin was doing at different times, because the creativity researchers Howard Gruber and Sara Davis have analyzed his diaries and his notebooks. So, when he left school, age of 18, he was initially interested in two fields, zoology and geology. Pretty soon, he signed up to be the onboard naturalist on the "Beagle." This is the ship that eventually took five years to sail all the way around the southern oceans of the Earth, stopping at the Galápagos, passing through the Indian ocean. While he was on the "Beagle," he began researching coral reefs. This is a great synergy between his two interests in zoology and geology, and it starts to get him thinking about slow processes. But when he gets back from the voyage, his interests start to expand even further: psychology, botany; for the rest of his life, he's moving backwards and forwards between these different fields. He never quite abandons any of them. In 1837, he begins work on two very interesting projects. One of them: earthworms. The other, a little notebook which he titles "The transmutation of species." Then, Darwin starts studying my field, economics. He reads a book by the economist Thomas Malthus. And he has his eureka moment. In a flash, he realizes how species could emerge and evolve slowly, through this process of the survival of the fittest. It all comes to him, he writes it all down, every single important element of the theory of evolution, in that notebook. But then, a new project. His son William is born. Well, there's a natural experiment right there, you get to observe the development of a human infant. So immediately, Darwin starts making notes. Now, of course, he's still working on the theory of evolution and the development of the human infant. But during all of this, he realizes he doesn't really know enough about taxonomy. So he starts studying that. And in the end, he spends eight years becoming the world's leading expert on barnacles. Then, "Natural Selection." A book that he's to continue working on for his entire life, he never finishes it. "Origin of Species" is finally published 20 years after Darwin set out all the basic elements. Then, the "Descent of Man," controversial book. And then, the book about the development of the human infant. The one that was inspired when he could see his son, William, crawling on the sitting room floor in front of him. When the book was published, William was 37 years old. And all this time, Darwin's working on earthworms. He fills his billiard room with earthworms in pots, with glass covers. He shines lights on them, to see if they'll respond. He holds a hot poker next to them, to see if they move away. He chews tobacco and — (Blows) He blows on the earthworms to see if they have a sense of smell. He even plays the bassoon at the earthworms. I like to think of this great man when he's tired, he's stressed, he's anxious about the reception of his book "The Descent of Man." You or I might log into Facebook or turn on the television. Darwin would go into the billiard room to relax by studying the earthworms intensely. And that's why it's appropriate that one of his last great works is the "Formation of Vegetable Mould Through The Action of Worms." (Laughter) He worked upon that book for 44 years. We don't live in the 19th century anymore. I don't think any of us could sit on our creative or scientific projects for 44 years. But we do have something to learn from the great slow-motion multitaskers. From Einstein and Darwin to Michael Crichton and Twyla Tharp. The modern world seems to present us with a choice. If we're not going to fast-twitch from browser window to browser window, we have to live like a hermit, focus on one thing to the exclusion of everything else. I think that's a false dilemma. We can make multitasking work for us, unleashing our natural creativity. We just need to slow it down. So ... Make a list of your projects. Put down your phone. Pick up a couple of cardboard boxes. And get to work. Thank you very much. (Applause) |
The power of women's anger | {0: 'Soraya Chemaly writes and thinks about social justice.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | So sometimes I get angry, and it took me many years to be able to say just those words. In my work, sometimes my body thrums, I'm so enraged. But no matter how justified my anger has been, throughout my life, I've always been led to understand that my anger is an exaggeration, a misrepresentation, that it will make me rude and unlikable. Mainly as a girl, I learned, as a girl, that anger is an emotion better left entirely unvoiced. Think about my mother for a minute. When I was 15, I came home from school one day, and she was standing on a long veranda outside of our kitchen, holding a giant stack of plates. Imagine how dumbfounded I was when she started to throw them like Frisbees... (Laughter) into the hot, humid air. When every single plate had shattered into thousands of pieces on the hill below, she walked back in and she said to me, cheerfully, "How was your day?" (Laughter) Now you can see how a child would look at an incident like this and think that anger is silent, isolating, destructive, even frightening. Especially though when the person who's angry is a girl or a woman. The question is why. Anger is a human emotion, neither good nor bad. It is actually a signal emotion. It warns us of indignity, threat, insult and harm. And yet, in culture after culture, anger is reserved as the moral property of boys and men. Now, to be sure, there are differences. So in the United States, for example, an angry black man is viewed as a criminal, but an angry white man has civic virtue. Regardless of where we are, however, the emotion is gendered. And so we teach children to disdain anger in girls and women, and we grow up to be adults that penalize it. So what if we didn't do that? What if we didn't sever anger from femininity? Because severing anger from femininity means we sever girls and women from the emotion that best protects us from injustice. What if instead we thought about developing emotional competence for boys and girls? The fact is we still remarkably socialize children in very binary and oppositional ways. Boys are held to absurd, rigid norms of masculinity — told to renounce the feminine emotionality of sadness or fear and to embrace aggression and anger as markers of real manhood. On the other hand, girls learn to be deferential, and anger is incompatible with deference. In the same way that we learned to cross our legs and tame our hair, we learned to bite our tongues and swallow our pride. What happens too often is that for all of us, indignity becomes imminent in our notions of femininity. There's a long personal and political tale to that bifurcation. In anger, we go from being spoiled princesses and hormonal teens, to high maintenance women and shrill, ugly nags. We have flavors, though; pick your flavor. Are you a spicy hot Latina when you're mad? Or a sad Asian girl? An angry black woman? Or a crazy white one? You can pick. But in fact, the effect is that when we say what's important to us, which is what anger is conveying, people are more likely to get angry at us for being angry. Whether we're at home or in school or at work or in a political arena, anger confirms masculinity, and it confounds femininity. So men are rewarded for displaying it, and women are penalized for doing the same. This puts us at an enormous disadvantage, particularly when we have to defend ourselves and our own interests. If we're faced with a threatening street harasser, predatory employer, a sexist, racist classmate, our brains are screaming, "Are you kidding me?" And our mouths say, "I'm sorry, what?" (Laughter) Right? And it's conflicting because the anger gets all tangled up with the anxiety and the fear and the risk and retaliation. If you ask women what they fear the most in response to their anger, they don't say violence. They say mockery. Think about what that means. If you have multiple marginalized identities, it's not just mockery. If you defend yourself, if you put a stake in the ground, there can be dire consequences. Now we reproduce these patterns not in big, bold and blunt ways, but in the everyday banality of life. When my daughter was in preschool, every single morning she built an elaborate castle — ribbons and blocks — and every single morning the same boy knocked it down gleefully. His parents were there, but they never intervened before the fact. They were happy to provide platitudes afterwards: "Boys will be boys." "It's so tempting, he just couldn't help himself." I did what many girls and women learn to do. I preemptively kept the peace, and I taught my daughter to do the same thing. She used her words. She tried to gently body block him. She moved where she was building in the classroom, to no effect. So I and the other adults mutually constructed a particular male entitlement. He could run rampant and control the environment, and she kept her feelings to herself and worked around his needs. We failed both of them by not giving her anger the uptake and resolution that it deserved. Now that's a microcosm of a much bigger problem. Because culturally, worldwide, we preference the performance of masculinity — and the power and privilege that come with that performance — over the rights and needs and words of children and women. So it will come as absolutely no surprise, probably, to the people in this room that women report being angrier in more sustained ways and with more intensity than men do. Some of that comes from the fact that we're socialized to ruminate, to keep it to ourselves and mull it over. But we also have to find socially palatable ways to express the intensity of emotion that we have and the awareness that it brings of our precarity. So we do several things. If men knew how often women were filled with white hot rage when we cried, they would be staggered. (Laughter) We use minimizing language. "We're frustrated. No, really, it's OK." (Laughter) We self-objectify and lose the ability to even recognize the physiological changes that indicate anger. Mainly, though, we get sick. Anger has now been implicated in a whole array of illnesses that are casually dismissed as "women's illnesses." Higher rates of chronic pain, autoimmune disorders, disordered eating, mental distress, anxiety, self harm, depression. Anger affects our immune systems, our cardiovascular systems. Some studies even indicate that it affects mortality rates, particularly in black women with cancer. I am sick and tired of the women I know being sick and tired. Our anger brings great discomfort, and the conflict comes because it's our role to bring comfort. There is anger that's acceptable. We can be angry when we stay in our lanes and buttress the status quo. As mothers or teachers, we can be mad, but we can't be angry about the tremendous costs of nurturing. We can be angry at our mothers. Let's say, as teenagers — patriarchal rules and regulations — we don't blame systems, we blame them. We can be angry at other women, because who doesn't love a good catfight? And we can be angry at men with lower status in an expressive hierarchy that supports racism or xenophobia. But we have an enormous power in this. Because feelings are the purview of our authority, and people are uncomfortable with our anger. We should be making people comfortable with the discomfort they feel when women say no, unapologetically. We can take emotions and think in terms of competence and not gender. People who are able to process their anger and make meaning from it are more creative, more optimistic, they have more intimacy, they're better problem solvers, they have greater political efficacy. Now I am a woman writing about women and feelings, so very few men with power are going to take what I'm saying seriously, as a matter of politics. We think of politics and anger in terms of the contempt and disdain and fury that are feeding a rise of macho-fascism in the world. But if it's that poison, it's also the antidote. We have an anger of hope, and we see it every single day in the resistant anger of women and marginalized people. It's related to compassion and empathy and love, and we should recognize that anger as well. The issue is that societies that don't respect women's anger don't respect women. The real danger of our anger isn't that it will break bonds or plates. It's that it exactly shows how seriously we take ourselves, and we expect other people to take us seriously as well. When that happens, chances are very good that women will be able to smile when they want to. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) (Cheers) |
The disarming case to act right now on climate change | {0: 'Greta Thunberg is a Swedish climate activist.'} | TEDxStockholm | When I was about eight years old, I first heard about something called climate change or global warming. Apparently, that was something humans had created by our way of living. I was told to turn off the lights to save energy and to recycle paper to save resources. I remember thinking that it was very strange that humans, who are an animal species among others, could be capable of changing the Earth's climate. Because if we were, and if it was really happening, we wouldn't be talking about anything else. As soon as you'd turn on the TV, everything would be about that. Headlines, radio, newspapers, you would never read or hear about anything else, as if there was a world war going on. But no one ever talked about it. If burning fossil fuels was so bad that it threatened our very existence, how could we just continue like before? Why were there no restrictions? Why wasn't it made illegal? To me, that did not add up. It was too unreal. So when I was 11, I became ill. I fell into depression, I stopped talking, and I stopped eating. In two months, I lost about 10 kilos of weight. Later on, I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, OCD and selective mutism. That basically means I only speak when I think it's necessary - now is one of those moments. (Applause) For those of us who are on the spectrum, almost everything is black or white. We aren't very good at lying, and we usually don't enjoy participating in this social game that the rest of you seem so fond of. (Laughter) I think in many ways that we autistic are the normal ones, and the rest of the people are pretty strange, (Laughter) especially when it comes to the sustainability crisis, where everyone keeps saying climate change is an existential threat and the most important issue of all, and yet they just carry on like before. I don't understand that, because if the emissions have to stop, then we must stop the emissions. To me that is black or white. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival. Either we go on as a civilization or we don't. We have to change. Rich countries like Sweden need to start reducing emissions by at least 15 percent every year. And that is so that we can stay below a two-degree warming target. Yet, as the IPCC have recently demonstrated, aiming instead for 1.5 degrees Celsius would significantly reduce the climate impacts. But we can only imagine what that means for reducing emissions. You would think the media and every one of our leaders would be talking about nothing else, but they never even mention it. Nor does anyone ever mention the greenhouse gases already locked in the system. Nor that air pollution is hiding a warming so that when we stop burning fossil fuels, we already have an extra level of warming perhaps as high as 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Celsius. Furthermore does hardly anyone speak about the fact that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, with up to 200 species going extinct every single day, that the extinction rate today is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than what is seen as normal. Nor does hardly anyone ever speak about the aspect of equity or climate justice, clearly stated everywhere in the Paris Agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale. That means that rich countries need to get down to zero emissions within 6 to 12 years, with today's emission speed. And that is so that people in poorer countries can have a chance to heighten their standard of living by building some of the infrastructure that we have already built, such as roads, schools, hospitals, clean drinking water, electricity, and so on. Because how can we expect countries like India or Nigeria to care about the climate crisis if we who already have everything don't care even a second about it or our actual commitments to the Paris Agreement? So, why are we not reducing our emissions? Why are they in fact still increasing? Are we knowingly causing a mass extinction? Are we evil? No, of course not. People keep doing what they do because the vast majority doesn't have a clue about the actual consequences of our everyday life, and they don't know that rapid change is required. We all think we know, and we all think everybody knows, but we don't. Because how could we? If there really was a crisis, and if this crisis was caused by our emissions, you would at least see some signs. Not just flooded cities, tens of thousands of dead people, and whole nations leveled to piles of torn down buildings. You would see some restrictions. But no. And no one talks about it. There are no emergency meetings, no headlines, no breaking news. No one is acting as if we were in a crisis. Even most climate scientists or green politicians keep on flying around the world, eating meat and dairy. If I live to be 100, I will be alive in the year 2103. When you think about the future today, you don't think beyond the year 2050. By then, I will, in the best case, not even have lived half of my life. What happens next? The year 2078, I will celebrate my 75th birthday. If I have children or grandchildren, maybe they will spend that day with me. Maybe they will ask me about you, the people who were around, back in 2018. Maybe they will ask why you didn't do anything while there still was time to act. What we do or don't do right now will affect my entire life and the lives of my children and grandchildren. What we do or don't do right now, me and my generation can't undo in the future. So when school started in August of this year, I decided that this was enough. I set myself down on the ground outside the Swedish parliament. I school striked for the climate. Some people say that I should be in school instead. Some people say that I should study to become a climate scientist so that I can "solve the climate crisis." But the climate crisis has already been solved. We already have all the facts and solutions. All we have to do is to wake up and change. And why should I be studying for a future that soon will be no more when no one is doing anything whatsoever to save that future? And what is the point of learning facts in the school system when the most important facts given by the finest science of that same school system clearly means nothing to our politicians and our society. Some people say that Sweden is just a small country, and that it doesn't matter what we do, but I think that if a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not coming to school for a few weeks, imagine what we could all do together if you wanted to. (Applause) Now we're almost at the end of my talk, and this is where people usually start talking about hope, solar panels, wind power, circular economy, and so on, but I'm not going to do that. We've had 30 years of pep-talking and selling positive ideas. And I'm sorry, but it doesn't work. Because if it would have, the emissions would have gone down by now. They haven't. And yes, we do need hope, of course we do. But the one thing we need more than hope is action. Once we start to act, hope is everywhere. So instead of looking for hope, look for action. Then, and only then, hope will come. Today, we use 100 million barrels of oil every single day. There are no politics to change that. There are no rules to keep that oil in the ground. So we can't save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed. Everything needs to change — and it has to start today. Thank you. (Applause) |
Can you solve the vampire hunter riddle? | null | TED-Ed | The greatest challenge a vampire hunter can take on is to bring sunlight into a vampire's lair. You’ve stealthily descended into the darkness of a vampire cave, setting a sequence of mirrors as you go. When the sun reaches the right angle in the sky, a focused beam of light will ricochet along the mirrors, strike your diffuser, and illuminate the great chamber where the vampires sleep. You set the final mirror and sneak through an opening in the corner of the great chamber. The diffuser must be wall-mounted, but the walls are crowded with coffins, which you don’t dare disturb. The only open spots are in the other three corners of the room. The light will enter through the southwest corner at a 45 degree angle and bounce off the perfectly smooth metallic walls until it hits one of the other three corners. But which corner will it hit? You know the room is a rectangle 49 meters wide and 78 meters long. You could probably find the answer by drawing a scale model of the room and tracing the path of the light, but the sun will be in its place in just minutes, and you’ve got no time to spare. Fortunately, there’s a different way to solve this puzzle that’s both simple and elegant. So in which corner should you place the diffuser to flood the vampire lair with sunlight? Pause the video if you want to figure it out for yourself. Answer in 2 Answer in 1 You could tackle this problem by examining smaller rooms, and you’d find a lot of interesting patterns. But there’s one insight that can unravel this riddle in almost no time at all. Let’s draw the chamber on a coordinate grid, with the Southwest corner at the point (0,0). The light passes through grid points with coordinates that are either both even or both odd. This is true even after it bounces off one or more walls. Another way of thinking about it is this: since the light travels at a 45 degree angle, it always crosses the diagonal of a unit square. Traveling 1 meter horizontally changes the x coordinate from even to odd or vice versa. Traveling 1 meter vertically changes the y coordinate from even to odd or vice versa. Traveling diagonally – as the light does here – does both at once, so the x and y coordinates of any points the light passes through must be both even, or both odd. This observation is more powerful than it seems. In particular, it means that we have a way to identify the kinds of points the light won’t ever go through If one of the coordinates is even and the other is odd, the light will miss them. That means it’ll miss the top two corners of the room, since those points have one even and one odd coordinate. The Southeast corner is the only option for the diffuser. And indeed, when that precious beam of sunlight enters the hall, it bounces between the walls and strikes the Southeast corner, spot on. The vampires, sensing the intrusion, burst from their coffins and turn to dust in the light. It was a “high stakes” test, and you passed with flying colors. |
The infamous and ingenious Ho Chi Minh Trail | null | TED-Ed | Deep in the jungles of Vietnam, soldiers from both sides battled heat exhaustion and each other for nearly 20 long years. But the key to Communist victory wasn't weapons or stamina, it was a dirt road. The Ho Chi Minh Trail, winding through Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, started as a simple network of dirt roads and blossomed into the centerpiece of the winning North Vietnamese strategy during the Vietnam War, supplying weapons, troops, and psychological support to the South. The trail was a network of tracks, dirt roads, and river crossings that threaded west out of North Vietnam and south along the Truong Son Mountain Range between Vietnam and Laos. The journey to the South originally took six months. But, with engineering and ingenuity, the Vietnamese expanded and improved the trail. Towards the end of war, as the main roads detoured through Laos, it only took one week. Here is how it happened. In 1959, as relations deteriorated between the North and the South, a system of trails was constructed in order to infiltrate soldiers, weapons, and supplies into South Vietnam. The first troops moved in single-file along routes used by local ethnic groups, and broken tree branches at dusty crossroads were often all that indicated the direction. Initially, most of the Communist cadres who came down the trail were Southerners by birth who had trained in North Vietnam. They dressed like civilian peasants in black, silk pajamas with a checkered scarf. They wore Ho Chi Minh sandals on their feet, cut from truck tires, and carried their ration of cooked rice in elephants' intestines, a linen tube hung around the body. The conditions were harsh and many deaths were caused by exposure, malaria, and amoebic dysentery. Getting lost, starving to death, and the possibility of attacks by wild tigers or bears were constant threats. Meals were invariably just rice and salt, and it was easy to run out. Fear, boredom, and homesickness were the dominant emotions. And soldiers occupied their spare time by writing letters, drawing sketches, and drinking and smoking with local villagers. The first troops down the trail did not engage in much fighting. And after an exhausting six month trip, arriving in the South was a real highlight, often celebrated by bursting into song. By 1965, the trip down the trail could be made by truck. Thousands of trucks supplied by China and Russia took up the task amidst ferocious B-52 bombing and truck drivers became known as pilots of the ground. As traffic down the trail increased, so did the U.S. bombing. They drove at night or in the early morning to avoid air strikes, and watchmen were ready to warn drivers of enemy aircraft. Villages along the trail organized teams to guarantee traffic flow and to help drivers repair damage caused by air attacks. Their catch cries were, "Everything for our Southern brothers!" and, "We will not worry about our houses if the vehicles have not yet gotten through." Some families donated their doors and wooden beds to repair roads. Vietnamese forces even used deception to get the U.S. aircraft to bomb mountainsides in order to make gravel for use in building and maintaining roads. The all-pervading red dust seeped into every nook and cranny. The Ho Chi Minh Trail had a profound impact on the Vietnam War and it was the key to Hanoi's success. North Vietnamese victory was not determined by the battlefields, but by the trail, which was the political, strategic, and economic lynchpin. Americans recognized its achievement, calling the trail, "One of the great achievements in military engineering of the 20th century." The trail is a testimony to the strength of will of the Vietnamese people, and the men and women who used the trail have become folk heros. |
Can we solve global warming? Lessons from how we protected the ozone layer | {0: 'Sean Davis studies the climate impacts from human-caused changes of the chemical composition of the atmosphere.'} | TEDxBoulder | So, I'm a climate scientist, and if this room is representative of the country we live in, that means about 60 percent of you, so maybe from about there over, don't strongly trust me for information on the causes of climate change. Now, I promise to tell the truth tonight, but just to humor that demographic, I've started this talk with a falsehood. [The Paris Climate Accord is a product of the recognition that climate change is a global problem ...] This statement was not made by President Obama. It was made by President Reagan, and it wasn't about climate change and the Paris Climate Accord. It was actually about the Montreal Protocol and stratospheric ozone depletion. Now, I'm sure that many of you aren't familiar with this environmental problem, but you should be, because it's a rare environmental success story. And it's worth revisiting, because sometimes, we need to examine the world we've avoided in order to find guidance for the choices we make today. So let's go back to the 1970s, when some questionable choices were made: first of all — hoo — hairstyles. (Laughs) Second of all, objectively terrible quantities of hairspray, and third, CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, man-made chemicals that were used as propellant in aerosol spray cans. And see, it turns out these CFCs were a problem because they were destroying the ozone layer. Now I'm sure most of you have heard of the ozone layer, but why does it matter? Well, quite simply, the ozone layer is earth's sunscreen, and it's really fragile. If you could take all of the ozone, which is mostly about 10 to 20 miles up above our heads, and compress it down to the surface of the earth, it would form a thin shell only about two pennies thick, about an eighth of an inch. And that thin shell does an amazing amount of work, though. It filters out more than 90 percent of the harmful UV radiation coming from the sun. And while I'm sure many of you enjoy that suntan that you get from the remaining 10 percent, it causes a lot of problems: cataracts, damage to crops, damage to immune systems and also skin cancer. It's not an exaggeration to say that a threat to the ozone layer is a threat to human safety. And actually, ironically, it was human safety that motivated the invention of CFCs in the first place. You see, in the early days of refrigeration, refrigerators used toxic and flammable chemicals like propane and ammonia. For good reason, the refrigeration industry wanted a safe alternative, and they found that in 1928, when a scientist named Thomas Midgley synthesized the first commercially viable CFCs. And in fact, Midgley famously inhaled CFCs and blew out a candle to demonstrate, at a scientific conference, that they were safe and nonflammable. And in fact, as a scientist, I can tell you there is no way you could get away with that kind of antic today. I mean, wow. But really, at the time, CFCs were a really remarkable invention. They allowed what we now know as modern-day refrigeration and air-conditioning and other things. So it wasn't actually until over 40 years later, in the 1970s, when scientists realized that CFCs would break down high in the atmosphere and damage the ozone layer. And this finding really set off a lot of public concern. It led, ultimately, to the banning of CFC usage in aerosol spray cans in the US and a few other countries in 1978. Now, the story doesn't end there, because CFCs were used in much more than just spray cans. In 1985, scientists discovered the Antarctic ozone hole, and this was a truly alarming discovery. Scientists did not expect this at all. Before the Antarctic ozone hole, scientists expected maybe a five or 10 percent reduction in ozone over a century. But what they found over the course of less than a decade was that more than a third of the ozone had simply vanished, over an area larger than the size of the US. And although we now know that CFCs are the root cause of this ozone hole, at the time, the science was far from settled. Yet despite this uncertainty, the crisis helped spur nations to act. So that quote that I started this talk with, about the Montreal Protocol, from President Reagan — that was his signing statement when he signed the Montreal Protocol after its unanimous ratification by the US Senate. And this is something that's truly worth celebrating. In fact, yesterday was the 30th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. (Applause) Because of the protocol, ozone-depleting substances are now declining in our atmosphere, and we're starting to see the first signs of healing in the ozone layer. And furthermore, because many of those ozone-depleting substances are also very potent greenhouse gases, the Montreal Protocol has actually delayed global warming by more than a decade. That's just wonderful. But I think it's worth asking the question, as we face our current environmental crisis, global warming, what lessons can we learn from Montreal? Are there any? I think there are. First, we don't need absolute certainty to act. When Montreal was signed, we were less certain then of the risks from CFCs than we are now of the risks from greenhouse gas emissions. A common tactic that people who oppose climate action use is to completely ignore risk and focus only on uncertainty. But so what about uncertainty? We make decisions in the face of uncertainty all the time, literally all the time. You know, I'll bet those of you who drove here tonight, you probably wore your seat belt. And so ask yourself, did you wear your seat belt because someone told you with a hundred percent [certainty] that you would get in a car crash on the way here? Probably not. So that's the first lesson. Risk management and decision making always have uncertainty. Ignoring risk and focusing only on uncertainty is a distraction. In other words, inaction is an action. Second, it takes a village to raise a healthy environment. The Montreal Protocol wasn't just put together by industry and governments or environmental advocacy groups and scientists. It was put together by all of them. They all had a seat at the table, and they all played an important role in the solution. And I think in this regard, we're actually seeing some encouraging signs today. We see not just environmental groups concerned about climate change but also civic and religious groups, the military and businesses. So wherever you find yourself on that spectrum, we need you at the table, because if we're going to solve global warming, it's going to take actions at all levels, from the individual to the international and everything in between. Third lesson: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. While Montreal has become the brake pedal for stopping ozone depletion, at its beginning, it was more just like a tap on the brakes. It was actually the later amendments to the protocol that really marked the decision to hit the brakes on ozone depletion. So to those who despair that the Paris Climate Accord didn't go far enough or that your limited actions on their own won't solve global warming, I say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And finally, I think it helps us to contemplate the world we've avoided. Indeed, the world we have avoided by enacting the Montreal Protocol is one of catastrophic changes to our environment and to human well-being. By the 2030s, we'll be avoiding millions of new skin cancer cases per year with a number that would only grow. If I'm lucky, I'll live long enough to see the end of this animation and to see the ozone hole restored to its natural state. So as we write the story for earth's climate future for this century and beyond, we need to ask ourselves, what will our actions be so that someone can stand on this stage in 30 or 50 or a hundred years to celebrate the world that they've avoided. Thank you. (Applause) |
Reflections from a lifetime fighting to end child poverty | {0: "Marian Wright Edelman fights for a level playing field for all children, so their chances to succeed don't have to depend on the lottery of birth.", 1: 'Pat Mitchell is a lifelong advocate for women and girls.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | Pat Mitchell: I know you don't like that "legend" business. Marian Wright Edelman: I don't. (Laughter) PM: Why not, Marian? Because you are somewhat of a legend. You've been doing this for a long time, and you're still there as founder and president. MWE: Well, because my daddy raised us and my mother raised us to serve, and we are servant-leaders. And it is not about external things or labels, and I feel like the luckiest person in the world having been born at the intersection of great needs and great injustices and great opportunities to change them. So I just feel very grateful that I could serve and make a difference. PM: What a beautiful way of saying it. (Applause) You grew up in the American South, and like all children, a lot of who you became was molded by your parents. Tell me: What did they teach you about movement-building? MWE: I had extraordinary parents. I was so lucky. My mother was the best organizer I ever knew. And she always insisted, even back then, on having her own dime. She started her dairy so that she could have her penny, and that sense of independence has certainly been passed on to me. My daddy was a minister, and they were real partners. And my oldest sibling is a sister, I'm the youngest, and there are three boys in between. But I always knew I was as smart as my brothers. I always was a tomboy. I always had the same high aspirations that they had. But most importantly, we were terribly blessed, even though we were growing up in a very segregated small town in South Carolina — we knew it was wrong. I always knew, from the time I was four years old, that I wasn't going to accept being put into slots. But Daddy and Mama always had the sense that it was not us, it was the outside world, but you have the capacity to grow up to change it, and I began to do that very early on. But most importantly, they were the best role models, because they said: if you see a need, don't ask why somebody doesn't do it. See what you can do. There was no home for the aged in our hometown. And Reverend Reddick, who had what we know now, 50 years later, as Alzheimer's, and he began to wander the streets. And so Daddy and Mama figured out he needed a place to go, so we started a home for the aged. Children had to cook and clean and serve. We didn't like it at the time, but that's how we learned that it was our obligation to take care of those who couldn't take care of themselves. I had 12 foster sisters and brothers. My mother took them in after we left home, and she took them in before we left home. And again, whenever you see a need, you try to fulfill it. God runs, Daddy used to say, a full employment economy. (Laughter) And so if you just follow the need, you will never lack for something to do or a real purpose in life. And every issue that the Children's Defense Fund works on today comes out of my childhood in a very personal way. Little Johnny Harrington, who lived three doors down from me, stepped on a nail; he lived with his grandmother, got tetanus, went to the hospital, no tetanus shots, he died. He was 11 years old. I remember that. An accident in front of our highway, turns out to have been two white truck drivers and a migrant family that happened to be black. We all ran out to help. It was in the front of a church, and the ambulance came, saw that the white truck drivers were not injured, saw the black migrant workers were, turned around and left them. I never forgot that. And immunizations was one of the first things I worked on at the Children's Defense Fund to make sure that every child gets immunized against preventable diseases. Unequal schools ... (Applause) Separate and unequal, hand-me-downs from the white schools. But we always had books in our house. Daddy was a great reader. He used to make me read every night with him. I'd have to sit for 15 or 20 minutes. One day I put a "True Confessions" inside a "Life Magazine" and he asked me to read it out loud. I never read a "True Confessions" again. (Laughter) But they were great readers. We always had books before we had a second pair of shoes, and that was very important. And although we had hand-me-down books for the black schools and hand-me-down everythings, it was a great need. He made it clear that reading was the window to the outside world, and so that was a great gift from them. But the reinforced lesson was that God runs a full employment economy, and that if you just follow the need, you will never lack for a purpose in life, and that has been so for me. We had a very segregated small town. I was a rebel from the time I was four or five. I went out to a department store and there was "white" and "black" water signs, but I didn't know that and didn't pay much attention to that, and I was with one of my Sunday school teachers. I drank out of the wrong water fountain, and she jerked me away, and I didn't know what had happened, and then she explained to me about black and white water. I didn't know that, and after that, I went home, took my little wounded psyche to my parents, and told them what had happened, and said, "What's wrong with me?" And they said, "It wasn't much wrong with you. It's what's wrong with the system." And I used to go then secretly and switch water signs everywhere I went. (Laughter) And it felt so good. (Applause) PM: There is no question that this legend is a bit of a rebel, and has been for a long time. So you started your work as an attorney and with the Civil Rights Movement, and you worked with Dr. King on the original Poor People's Campaign. And then you made this decision, 45 years ago, to set up a national advocacy campaign for children. Why did you choose that particular service, to children? MWE: Well, because so many of the things that I saw in Mississippi and across the South had to do with children. I saw children with bloated bellies in this country who were close to starvation, who were hungry, who were without clothes, and nobody wanted to believe that there were children who were starving, and that's a slow process. And nobody wanted to listen. Every congressman that would come to Mississippi, I'd say, "Go see," and most of them didn't want to do anything about it. But I saw grinding poverty. The state of Mississippi wanted, during voter registration efforts — and with outside white kids coming in to help black citizens register to vote — they wanted everybody to leave the state, so they were trying to starve them out. And they switched from free food commodities to food stamps that cost two dollars. People had no income, and nobody in America wanted to believe that there was anybody in America without any income. Well, I knew hundreds of them, thousands of them. And malnutrition was becoming a big problem. And so one of these days came Dr. King down on a number of things we were fighting to get the Head Start program — which the state of Mississippi turned down — refinanced. And he went into a center that the poor community was running without any help, and he saw a teacher carve up an apple for eight or 10 children, and he had to run out, because he was in tears. He couldn't believe it. But only when Robert Kennedy decided he would come — I had gone to testify about the Head Start program, because they were attacking. And I asked, please, come and see yourself, and when you come and see, see hungry people and see starving children. And they came, and he brought the press, and that began to get the movement going. But they wanted to push all the poor people to go north and to get away from being voters. And I'm proud of Mike Espy. Even though he lost last night, he'll win one of these days. (Applause) But you wouldn't have seen such grinding poverty, and the outside white kids who'd come in to help register voters in the 1964 Summer Project where we lost those three young men. But once they left, the press left, and there was just massive need, and people were trying to push the poor out. And so, you know, Head Start came, and we applied for it, because the state turned it down. And that's true of a lot of states that don't take Medicaid these days. And we ran the largest Head Start program in the nation, and it changed their lives. They had books that had children who looked like them in it, and we were attacked all over the place. But the bottom line was that Mississippi gave birth to the Children's Defense Fund in many ways, and it also occurred to me that children and preventive investment, and avoiding costly care and failure and neglect, was a more strategic way to proceed. And so the Children's Defense Fund was born out of the Poor People's Campaign. But it was pretty clear that whatever you called black independent or brown independent was going to have a shrinking constituency. And who can be mad at a two-month-old baby or at a two-year-old toddler? A lot of people can be. They don't want to feed them, neither, from what we've seen. But it was the right judgment to make. And so out of the privilege of serving as the Poor People's Campaign coordinator for policy for two years, and there were two of them, and it was not a failure, because the seeds of change get planted and have to have people who are scut workers and follow up. And I'm a good scut worker and a persistent person. And you know, as a result, I would say that all those people on food stamps today ought to thank those poor people in the mud in Resurrection City. But it takes a lot of follow-up, detailed work — and never going away. PM: And you've been doing it for 45 years, and you've seen some amazing outcomes. What are you proudest of out of the Children's Defense Fund? MWE: Well, I think the children now have sort of become a mainstream issue. We have got lots of new laws. Millions of children are getting food. Millions of children are getting a head start. Millions of children are getting Head Start and have gotten a head start, and the Child Health Insurance Program, CHIP, Medicaid expansions for children. We've been trying to reform the child welfare system for decades. We finally got a big breakthrough this year, and it says, be ready with the proposals when somebody's ready to move, and sometimes it takes five years, 10 years, 20 years, but you're there. I've been trying to keep children out of foster care and out of institutions and with their families, with preventive services. That got passed. But there are millions of children who have hope, who have access to early childhood. Now, we are not finished, and we are not going to ever feel finished until we end child poverty in the richest nation on earth. It's just ridiculous that we have to be demanding that. (Applause) PM: And there are so many of the problems in spite of the successes, and thank you for going through some of them, Marian — the Freedom Schools, the generations of children now who have gone through Children's Defense Fund programs. But when you look around the world, in this country, the United States, and in other countries, there are still so many problems. What worries you the most? MWE: What worries me is how irresponsible we adults in power have been in passing on a healthier earth. And it worries me when I read the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" and see now that we are two minutes from midnight, and that's gotten closer. We have put our future and our children's future and safety at risk in a world that is still too much governed by violence. We must end that. We must stop investing in war and start investing in the young and in peace, and we are really so far away from doing that. (Applause) And I don't want my grandchildren to have to fight these battles all over again, and so I get more radical. The older I get, the more radical I get, because there are just some things that we as adults have to do for the next generations. And I looked at the sacrifices of Mrs. Hamer and all those people in Mississippi who risked their lives to give us a better life. But the United States has got to come to grips with its failure to invest in its children, and it's the Achilles' heel of this nation. How can you be one of the biggest economies in the world and you let 13.2 million children go live in poverty, and you let children go homeless when you've got the means to do it? We've got to rethink who we are as a people, be an example for the world. There should be no poverty. In fact, we want to say we're going to end poverty in the world. Just start at home. And we've made real progress, but it's such hard work, and it's going to be our Achilles' heel. We should stop giving more tax cuts, sorry folks, to billionaires rather than to babies and their health care. We should get our priorities straight. (Applause) That's not right, and it's not cost-effective. And the key to this country is going to be an educated child population, and yet we've got so many children who cannot read or write at the most basic levels. We're investing in the wrong things, and I wouldn't be upset about anybody having one billion, 10 billion [US dollars], if there were no hungry children, if there were no homeless children, if there were no uneducated children. And so it's really about what does it mean to live and lead this life. Why were we put on this earth? We were put on this earth to make things better for the next generations. And here we're worrying about climate change and global warming. And we're looking at, again, I constantly cite — I look at that "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" every year. And it says now: "Two minutes to midnight." Are we out of our minds, adults, about passing on a better a world to our children? That's what our purpose is, to leave a better world for everybody, and the concept of enough for everybody. There should be no hungry children in this world with the rich wealth that we have. And so I can't think of a bigger cause, and I think that I'm driven by my faith. And it's been a privilege to serve, but I always had the best role models in the world. Daddy always said God runs a full employment economy, and that if you just follow the need, you'll never lack for a purpose in life. And I watched the partnership — because my mother was a true partner. I always knew I was as smart as my brothers, at least. And we always knew that we were not just to be about ourselves, but that we were here to serve. PM: Well, Marian, I want to say, on behalf of all the world's children, thank you for your passion, your purpose and your advocacy. (Applause) |
The way we think about biological sex is wrong | {0: 'Emily Quinn describes herself as "a ballsy intersex activist who uses humor and storytelling to create a more welcoming world for people who don’t fit in a box."'} | TEDWomen 2018 | [This talk contains mature content] I have a vagina. (Laughter) Just thought you should know. That might not come as a surprise to some of you. I look like a woman. I'm dressed like one, I guess. The thing is, I also have balls. And it does take a lot of nerve to come up here and talk to you about my genitalia. Just a little. But I'm not talking about bravery or courage. I mean literally — I have balls. Right here, right where a lot of you have ovaries. I'm not male or female. I'm intersex. Most people assume that you're biologically either a man or a woman, but it's actually a lot more complex than that. There are so many ways somebody could be intersex. In my case, it means I was born with XY chromosomes, which you probably know as male chromosomes. And I was born with a vagina and balls inside my body. I don't respond to testosterone, so during puberty, I grew breasts, but I never got acne or body hair, body oil. You can be jealous of that. (Laughter) But even though I don't actually have a uterus — I was born without one, so I don't menstruate, I can't have biological children. We put people in boxes based on their genitalia. Before a baby's even born, we ask whether it's a boy or a girl, as if it actually matters; as if you're going to be less excited about having a baby if it doesn't have the genitals you wanted; as if what's between somebody's legs tells you anything about that person. Are they kind, generous, funny? Smart? Who do they want to be when they grow up? Genitals don't actually tell you anything. Yet, we define ourselves by them. In this society, we love putting people into boxes and labeling each other. It kind of gives us a sense of belonging and teaches us how to interact with one another. But there's one really big problem: biological sex is not black or white. It's on a spectrum. Besides your genitalia, you also have your chromosomes, your gonads, like ovaries or testicles. You have your internal sex organs, your hormone production, your hormone response and your secondary sex characteristics, like breast development, body hair, etc. Those seven areas of biological sex all have so much variation, yet we only get two options: male or female. Which is kind of absurd to me, because I can't think of a single other human trait that there's only two options for: skin color, hair, height, eyes. You can either have nose A or nose B, that's it, no other options. If there are infinite ways for our bodies to look, our minds to think, personalities to act, wouldn't it make sense that there's that much variety in biological sex, too? Did you know that besides XX or XY chromosomes, you could have XX and XY chromosomes? Or you could have an extra X — XXY. Or two extra — XXXY. Goes on from there. And for those "normal" people with XX or XY, what does that mean? I have XY chromosomes. If my DNA is found at the scene of a crime — not saying it will, but, you know, we'll see. (Laughter) If my skeleton is discovered thousands of years from now, I'll be labeled male. Is that the truth? My balls would say so. But what about the rest of me? And what if a woman has ovarian cancer and has to have her ovaries removed? Does she still qualify as a woman? What about other intersex people who are born without balls or ovaries or with just one or a combination of the two? Where do they go? Do you have to have a uterus to be a woman? There's a lot of us who are born without one. And everyone's favorite part, genitalia: you either have one or the other, right? You either have a six-inch-long penis that's exactly this thick, jutting straight out of the body at a 90-degree angle, or you have a vagina that's this wide internally and a clitoris that's half an inch above the vaginal opening and labia that look exactly like they're supposed to look like, according to that one porn video you watched that one time. You know the one. If you've been with more than one sexual partner in your lifetime, and you line them up, one by one, I guarantee you can identify them just by their genitalia. (Laughter) Think about it. Go on. (Laughter) I see you. No judging. Just notice. All different, right? The sex and gender binary are both so ingrained in our society, that we never stop to think about it. We just automatically place each other into one box or the other, as if it actually matters. Until somebody comes along to make you question it. And if you're thinking that I'm the exception, an anomaly, an outlier: intersex people represent around two percent of the population. That's the same percentage as genetic redheads. It's about 150 million people, roughly, which is more than the entire population of Russia. So there's a lot of us, needless to say. We're not new or rare. We're just invisible. We've existed throughout every culture in history. Yet, we never talk about it. In fact, a lot of people might not know that they're intersex. Have you had a karyotype test to determine your chromosomes? What about a full blood panel for all of your hormone levels? A friend of mine found out last year, in his 50s. The executive director of interACT, which is the leading organization for intersex human rights here in the US, she found out she was intersex at age 41. Her doctors found out when she was 15, but they didn't tell her. They lied and said that she had cancer, because that seemed like an easier option than finding out she wasn't "fully" a woman. This kind of thing happens a lot, where intersex people are lied to or kept in the dark about our bodies, which comes as a surprise to a lot of people. But we live in a society that doesn't talk about sex or bodies at all, unless it's to mock or shame each other. I found out I was intersex at age 10, and for the most part, I was fine with that information. It didn't really faze me; I was still developing my understanding of the world. It wasn't until I got older and realized I didn't fit society's expectations of me, that I didn't belong, that I was abnormal. And that's when the shame started. How many times have you seen kids play with the "wrong" toys for their gender? Or try on the "wrong" clothes? All the time, right? Kids don't have these ideas about gender norm, they don't have shame about who they're supposed to be or what they're supposed to like or love. They don't care about any of this stuff. They don't have shame until we put it on them. I also had doctors lie to me. At age 10, they told me that I would also get cancer unless I removed my balls. Then they proceeded to tell me that every year. Until today, there are still doctors who want me to remove them. But there's literally no reason. If a typical XY male, like yourself, has testicles, and one is undescended, there's a high chance of it becoming cancerous — or a higher chance of it becoming cancerous. They need to thermoregulated. So they drop down away from the body to cool off, or they shrink back up to get warm. Mine don't need to do that. They're not responding to testosterone, they're not producing sperm. They're fine right here inside my body. Yet, because there's such a lack of information about intersex people, my doctors never understood the difference. They never really understood my body. As I got older, I had another doctor tell me that I needed to have surgery on my vagina. She said that until I had an operation, until she operated, I would not be able to have "normal sex" with my husband one day. Her words. I didn't end up going through with the operation, and I'm incredibly grateful for that. I'm not here to talk about my sex life. (Laughter) But let's just say it's fine. (Laughter) I'm fine, my body is fine. You actually wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between me and another person unless I told you; you wouldn't be able to tell that I was intersex unless I told you. But again, because of the lack of understanding about bodies, my doctor didn't understand the difference. And for the most part, my sex life is fine. The only issue that really comes up is that sometimes, sexual situations bring up memories of doctors touching me, over and over again since I was 10. I've been really lucky to escape — I didn't think I would get emotional — I've been really lucky to escape the physical harm that comes from these unnecessary surgeries. But no intersex person is free from the emotional harm that comes from living in a society that tries to cover up your existence. Most of my intersex friends have had operations like these. Oftentimes, they will remove testes like mine, even though my risk of testicular cancer is lower than the risk of breast cancer in a typical woman with no predisposition, no family history. But we don't tell her to remove her breasts, do we? It's rare to meet an intersex person that hasn't been operated on. Oftentimes, these surgeries are done to improve intersex kids' lives, but they usually end up doing the opposite, causing more harm and complications, both physical and emotional. I'm not saying that doctors are bad or evil. It's just that we live in a society that causes some doctors to "fix" those of us who don't fit their definition of normal. We're not problems that need to be fixed. We just live in a society that needs to be enlightened. One of the ways I'm doing that is by creating a genderless puberty guidebook that can teach kids about their bodies as they grow up. Not their girl bodies or their boy bodies — just their bodies. We often place unrealistic expectations on the things that our bodies do that are outside of our control. I mean, if one man can grow a full, luxurious, hipster beard, and the other can only grow a few mustache hairs, what does that mean about who they are as men? Nothing. It literally, most likely, just means that their hair follicles respond to testosterone in different ways. Yet, how many times have you heard a man ashamed about something like this? Imagine a world where we could live in a society that teaches us not to have shame about the things that our bodies do or do not do. I want to change the way that we think about biological sex in this society — which is a lot to ask for. You could say it's ballsy, I guess. (Laughter) But eventually we accepted the world as round, right? We no longer diagnose gay people with mental disorders or women with hysteria. We don't think epilepsy is caused by the devil anymore, so that's cool. (Laughter) We constantly change and evolve, the more we understand as a society. And biological sex is on a spectrum. It's not black or white. Not only could that knowledge save intersex kids from physical and emotional harm, I think it would help everyone else, too. Who here has ever felt inadequate or ashamed because you weren't girly enough, you were too girly, you weren't manly enough, or too manly? We constantly shame people for not fitting into a box, but the reality is, I think we shame others because it prevents them from seeing that we don't fit inside our boxes, either. And the truth is that nobody actually fits in a box, because they don't exist. This binary, this false male-female facade is something we constructed, we built ourselves. But it doesn't have to exist. We can break it down. And that's what I want to do. Will you join me? Thanks. (Applause) |
How do ocean currents work? | null | TED-Ed | In 1992, a cargo ship carrying bath toys got caught in a storm. Shipping containers washed overboard, and the waves swept 28,000 rubber ducks and other toys into the North Pacific. But they didn’t stick together. Quite the opposite– the ducks have since washed up all over the world, and researchers have used their paths to chart a better understanding of ocean currents. Ocean currents are driven by a range of sources: the wind, tides, changes in water density, and the rotation of the Earth. The topography of the ocean floor and the shoreline modifies those motions, causing currents to speed up, slow down, or change direction. Ocean currents fall into two main categories: surface currents and deep ocean currents. Surface currents control the motion of the top 10 percent of the ocean’s water, while deep-ocean currents mobilize the other 90 percent. Though they have different causes, surface and deep ocean currents influence each other in an intricate dance that keeps the entire ocean moving. Near the shore, surface currents are driven by both the wind and tides, which draw water back and forth as the water level falls and rises. Meanwhile, in the open ocean, wind is the major force behind surface currents. As wind blows over the ocean, it drags the top layers of water along with it. That moving water pulls on the layers underneath, and those pull on the ones beneath them. In fact, water as deep as 400 meters is still affected by the wind at the ocean’s surface. If you zoom out to look at the patterns of surface currents all over the earth, you’ll see that they form big loops called gyres, which travel clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. That’s because of the way the Earth’s rotation affects the wind patterns that give rise to these currents. If the earth didn’t rotate, air and water would simply move back and forth between low pressure at the equator and high pressure at the poles. But as the earth spins, air moving from the equator to the North Pole is deflected eastward, and air moving back down is deflected westward. The mirror image happens in the southern hemisphere, so that the major streams of wind form loop-like patterns around the ocean basins. This is called the Coriolis Effect. The winds push the ocean beneath them into the same rotating gyres. And because water holds onto heat more effectively than air, these currents help redistribute warmth around the globe. Unlike surface currents, deep ocean currents are driven primarily by changes in the density of seawater. As water moves towards the North Pole, it gets colder. It also has a higher concentration of salt, because the ice crystals that form trap water while leaving salt behind. This cold, salty water is more dense, so it sinks, and warmer surface water takes its place, setting up a vertical current called thermohaline circulation. Thermohaline circulation of deep water and wind-driven surface currents combine to form a winding loop called the Global Conveyor Belt. As water moves from the depths of the ocean to the surface, it carries nutrients that nourish the microorganisms which form the base of many ocean food chains. The global conveyor belt is the longest current in the world, snaking all around the globe. But it only moves a few centimeters per second. It could take a drop of water a thousand years to make the full trip. However, rising sea temperatures are causing the conveyor belt to seemingly slow down. Models show this causing havoc with weather systems on both sides of the Atlantic, and no one knows what would happen if it continues to slow or if it stopped altogether. The only way we’ll be able to forecast correctly and prepare accordingly will be to continue to study currents and the powerful forces that shape them. |
The difference between classical and operant conditioning | null | TED-Ed | When we think about learning, we often picture students in a classroom or lecture hall, books open on their desks, listening intently to a teacher or professor in the front of the room. But in psychology, learning means something else. To psychologists, learning is a long-term change in behavior that's based on experience. Two of the main types of learning are called classical conditioning and operant, or instrumental, conditioning. Let's talk about classical conditioning first. In the 1890's, a Russian physiologist named Ivan Pavlov did some really famous experiments on dogs. He showed dogs some food and rang a bell at the same time. After a while, the dogs would associate the bell with the food. They would learn that when they heard the bell, they would get fed. Eventually, just ringing the bell made the dogs salivate. They learned to expect food at the sound of a bell. You see, under normal conditions, the sight and smell of food causes a dog to salivate. We call the food an unconditioned stimulus, and we call salivation the unconditioned response. Nobody trains a dog to salivate over some steak. However, when we pair an unconditioned stimulus like food with something that was previously neutral, like the sound of a bell, that neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus. And so classical conditioning was discovered. We see how this works with animals, but how does it work with humans? In exactly the same way. Let's say that one day you go to the doctor to get a shot. She says, "Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit," and then gives you the most painful shot you've ever had. A few weeks later you go to the dentist for a check-up. He starts to put a mirror in your mouth to examine your teeth, and he says, "Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit." Even though you know the mirror won't hurt, you jump out of the chair and run, screaming from the room. When you went to get a shot, the words, "This won't hurt a bit," became a conditioned stimulus when they were paired with pain of the shot, the unconditioned stimulus, which was followed by your conditioned response of getting the heck out of there. Classical conditioning in action. Operant conditioning explains how consequences lead to changes in voluntary behavior. So how does operant conditioning work? There are two main components in operant conditioning: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcers make it more likely that you'll do something again, while punishers make it less likely. Reinforcement and punishment can be positive or negative, but this doesn't mean good and bad. Positive means the addition of a stimulus, like getting dessert after you finish your veggies, and negative means the removal of a stimulus, like getting a night of no homework because you did well on an exam. Let's look at an example of operant conditioning. After eating dinner with your family, you clear the table and wash the dishes. When you're done, your mom gives you a big hug and says, "Thank you for helping me." In this situation, your mom's response is positive reinforcement if it makes you more likely to repeat the operant response, which is to clear the table and wash the dishes. Operant conditioning is everywhere in our daily lives. There aren't many things we do that haven't been influenced at some point by operant conditioning. We even see operant conditioning in some extraordinary situations. One group of scientists showed the power of operant conditioning by teaching pigeons to be art connoisseurs. Using food as a positive reinforcer, scientists have taught pigeons to select paintings by Monet over those by Picasso. When showed works of other artists, scientists observed stimulus generalization as the pigeons chose the Impressionists over the Cubists. Maybe next they'll condition the pigeons to paint their own masterpieces. |
An astronaut's story of curiosity, perspective and change | {0: 'Leland Melvin is an engineer, educator, former NASA astronaut and NFL wide receiver. He shares his stories of perseverance and excellence to inspire communities for lasting positive change.'} | TED Salon: Radical Craft | [This talk contains mature content] In 1969, I was standing behind a Sylvania black-and-white television set. Hearing about these things happening on the set in the front, I was the guy, you know, moving the rabbit ears for my dad, and my sister and my mom. "Move over here, turn over here, move this way, we can't see the screen." And what they were watching was: "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Neil [Armstrong] and Buzz Aldrin were walking on the Moon. And I was five years old in Lynchburg, Virginia, a skinny black kid in a kind of somewhat racist town. And I was trying to figure out what I was going to do with my life. And my parents, you know, they were educators, they'd said that you can do anything. But after that moon landing, all the kids in the neighborhood were like, "You're going to be an astronaut?" I'm like, "No." I don't want a buzz cut, and I don't see someone who looks like me. Because representation does matter. And I knew that there was a guy five blocks down the street on Pierce Street who was training to play tennis. And it was Arthur Ashe. And my dad talked about his character, his discipline, his intelligence, his athleticism. I wanted to be Arthur Ashe, I didn't want to be one of those moon guys. And as I went on through this journey, my dad, who was a school teacher, he played in a band, he did all these things to make money for my sister and I to take piano lessons and do these different things with education. And he one day decides to drive up into the driveway with this bread truck. And I'm thinking, "OK, bread truck, me delivering bread while my dad's driving the truck." I'm like, "OK, I'm going to be a bread guy now." But he says, "This is our camper." I'm like, "Dude, come one, I can read: 'Merita Bread and Rolls' on the side of this truck. And he says, "No, we're going to build this into our camper." And over that summer, we rewired the entire electrical system. We plumbed a propane tank to a Coleman stove, we built bunk beds that flip down. We were turning this into our summer vacation launch pad, escape pod, this thing that could take us out of Lynchburg. And before that, I was actually raped at five by some neighbors. And I didn't tell anyone, because I had friends that didn't have fathers. And I knew that my father would have killed the people that did that to his son. And I didn't want my father to be gone. So as we got in this bread truck and escaped from Lynchburg, it was my time with my dad. And we went to the Smoky Mountains and looked at the purple mountains' majesty. And we walked along the beach in Myrtle Beach, and this thing was transformative. It showed me what it meant to be an explorer, at a very early age. And I suppressed all that negativity, all that trauma, because I was learning to be an explorer. And a little bit later, my mother gave me an age-inappropriate, non-OSHA-certified chemistry set, (Laughter) where I created the most incredible explosion in her living room. (Laughter) And so I knew I could be a chemist. So as I went on this journey through a high school, and I went to college, and I got a football scholarship to play football in college. And I knew that I could be a chemist, because I'd already blown stuff up. (Laughter) And when I graduated, I got drafted to the Detroit Lions. But I pulled a hamstring in training camp, and so what every former NFL player does, they go work for NASA, right? So I went to work for NASA. (Laughter) And this friend of mine said, "Leland, you'd be great astronaut." I just laughed at him, I was like, "Yeah, me, an astronaut?" You know that Neil and Buzz thing from back in '69? And he handed me an application, and I looked at it, and I didn't fill it out. And that same year, another friend of mine filled out the application and he got in. And I said to myself, "If NASA's letting knuckleheads like that be astronauts," (Laughter) "maybe I can be one, too." So the next selection, I filled out the application, and I got in. And I didn't know what it meant to be an astronaut: the training, the simulations, all these things to get you ready for this countdown: three, two, one, liftoff. And in 2007, I was in Space Shuttle "Atlantis," careening off the planet, traveling at 17,500 miles per hour. And eight and a half minutes later, the main engines cut off, and we're now floating in space. And I push off and float over to the window, and I can see the Caribbean. And I need new definitions of blue to describe the colors that I see. Azure, indigo, navy blue, medium navy blue, turquoise don't do any justice to what I see with my eyes. And my job on this mission was to install this two-billion dollar Columbus laboratory. It was a research laboratory for materials research, for human research. And I reached into the payload bay of the space shuttle, grabbed out this big module, and I used the robotic arm and I attached it to the space station. And the European team have been waiting 10 years for this thing to get installed, so I'm sure everyone in Europe was like, "Leland! Leland! Leland!" (Laughter) And so this moment happened, this was our primary mission objective, it was done. And I had this big sigh of relief. But then, Peggy Whitson, the first female commander, she invited us over to the Russian segment. And the space station's about the size of a football field, with solar panel and trusses and all of these modules. And she says, "Leland, you go get the rehydrated vegetables, we have the meat." So we float over with the bag of vegetables, all rehydrated, and we get there. And there's this moment where I get [transported] back to my mother's kitchen. You can smell the beef and barley heating up, you can smell the food, the colors, and there are people there from all around the world. It's like a Benetton commercial, you know, you have African American, Asian American, French, German, Russian, the first female commander, breaking bread at 17,500 miles per hour, going around the planet every 90 minutes, seeing a sunrise and a sunset every 45. And Peggy would say, "Hey, Leland, try some of this," and she'd float it over to my mouth, and I'd catch it and we'd go back and forth. And we're doing all of this while listening to Sade's "Smooth Operator." (Laughter) I mean, this is like blowing my mind, you know. (Laughter) And I float over to the window, and I look down at the planet, and I see all of humanity. And my perspective changes at that moment, because, I'm flying over Lynchburg, Virginia, my home town, and my family's probably breaking bread. And five minutes later, we're flying over Paris, where Leo Eyharts is looking down at his parents, probably having some wine and cheese, and Yuri's looking off to Moscow, and they're probably eating borscht or something else. But we're all having this moment where we see our respective families working together as one civilization, at 17,500 miles per hour. My perspective shifted cognitively, it changed me. And when I think about being that little skinny boy, from sometimes racist Lynchburg, Virginia, I would never have had that perspective to think about myself of being an astronaut, if my father hadn't taken us on a journey in this radical craft that we built with our own two hands. When I came home, I realized that perspective is something that we all get and we all have. It's just how far do we open up our blinders to see that shift and that change. And going back to the space station, I think of, you know, Germans and Russians fighting Americans. We have these people living and working together. White folks, black folks, Russian folks, French folks, you know. All these different people coexisting in harmony as one race. And I think about the colors that I saw, the design of the modules, the way that things fit together, the way that it made us a community, our home. And so when I look up to space now, and I have this newfound perspective on the space station going overhead and looking there, and then looking back at my community and seeing the people that I'm living and working with, and coexisting with, I think it's something that we all can do now, especially in these times, to make sure that we have the right perspective. Thank you. (Applause) Chee Pearlman: If you don't mind, could I just chat with you for a minute, because they're going to set up some things here. And I get to have you all to myself, OK. Leland Melvin: Alright. CP: You guys don't get to hear this. So I have to tell you that in my family, we watch a lot of space movies about astronauts and stuff like that. I can't tell you why, but we do. (Laughter) The thing that I wanted to ask you, though, is that we were seeing this movie the other day, and it was about one of the astronauts, one of your colleagues, and before he went up into space, they actually wrote an obituary, NASA wrote an obituary for him. And I was like, is that normal? And is that part of the job? Do you think about that peril that you're putting yourself in as you go into space? LM: Yeah. So, I don't remember anyone writing my obituary, maybe that was an Apollo-day thing. But I do know that in the 135 shuttle flights that we've had, the shuttle that I flew on, we had two accidents that killed everyone on that mission. And we all know the perils and the risks that go along with this, but we're doing something that's much bigger than ourselves, and helping advance civilization, so the risk is worth the reward. And we all feel that way when we get into that vehicle ans strap into those million pounds of rocket fuel and go up to space. CP: Yeah, I've only seen the Hollywood version — it looks pretty terrifying, I have to tell you. LM: You should go. (Laughter) CP: Yeah, my husband's told me that a few times. (Laughter) LM: One-way trip or two-way? (Laughter) CP: That’s a bit of a debate in our house. (Laughter) I wanted to, if I may ... You did touch on something that was very powerful and difficult, which is, you spoke about this incident that had happened to you when you were five years old, and that you were raped. And I just think that for you to be able to say those things, you know, on the TED stage, to be able to talk about that at all, is pretty fearless. And I wanted to get a sense from you, is that something that you think is important for you to share that now, to speak about it? LM: It's so important, especially for men, to talk about things that have happened, because we've been trained and told by our society that we have to be so tough and so hard and we can't tell of things that are happening to us. But I've had so many men contact me and tell me that, "You came through that, you got over that, I'm going to get over my alcoholism," and these things that are going on in them, because of what happened to them. And so we must share these stories, this is part of storytelling, to heal us and to make us whole as a community. CP: That's wonderful. (Applause) And you know, quite honestly, you spoke about perspective shift, and that is a shift that I think we've been very slow to accept and to be able to speak about that, so we thank you for that. We thank you for being the amazing astronaut that you are, and thank you for coming to the TED stage, Leland. LM: Thank you so much, Chee. (Applause) |
The beginning of the universe for beginners | {0: 'Tom Whyntie was the STFC-funded ‘Researcher in Residence’ for the CERN@School (link sends e-mail) project. He completed his PhD and worked as a Research Assistant at Imperial College London’s High Energy Physics Group.'} | TED-Ed | The universe, rather beautiful, isn't it? It's quite literally got everything, from the very big to the very small. Sure, there are some less than savory elements in there, but on the whole, scholars agree that its existence is probably a good thing. Such a good thing that an entire field of scientific endeavor is devoted to its study. This is known as cosmology. Cosmologists look at what's out there in space and piece together the tale of how our universe evolved: what it's doing now, what it's going to be doing, and how it all began in the first place. It was Edwin Hubble who first noticed that our universe is expanding, by noting that galaxies seem to be flying further and further apart. This implied that everything should have started with the monumental explosion of an infinitely hot, infinitely small point. This idea was jokingly referred to at the time as the "Big Bang," but as the evidence piled up, the notion and the name actually stuck. We know that after the Big Bang, the universe cooled down to form the stars and galaxies that we see today. Cosmologists have plenty of ideas about how this happened. But we can also probe the origins of the universe by recreating the hot, dense conditions that existed at the beginning of time in the laboratory. This is done by particle physicists. Over the past century, particle physicists have been studying matter and forces at higher and higher energies. Firstly with cosmic rays, and then with particle accelerators, machines that smash together subatomic particles at great energies. The greater the energy of the accelerator, the further back in time they can effectively peek. Today, things are largely made up of atoms, but hundreds of seconds after the Big Bang, it was too hot for electrons to join atomic nuclei to make atoms. Instead, the universe consisted of a swirling sea of subatomic matter. A few seconds after the Big Bang, it was hotter still, hot enough to overpower the forces that usually hold protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. Further back, microseconds after the Big Bang, and the protons and neutrons were only just beginning to form from quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of the standard model of particle physics. Further back still, and the energy was too great even for the quarks to stick together. Physicists hope that by going to even greater energies, they can see back to a time when all the forces were one and the same, which would make understanding the origins of the universe a lot easier. To do that, they'll not only need to build bigger colliders, but also work hard to combine our knowledge of the very, very big with the very, very small and share these fascinating insights with each other and with, well, you. And that's how it should be! Because, after all, when it comes to our universe, we're all in this one together. |
How peer educators can transform sex education | {0: 'Thea is a citizen of the outdoors, the Internet, and the broader nerd community. '} | TEDxSaltLakeCity | Greetings audience, I'm Thea, I'm a high school student, and today we're going to talk about sex. [It won't be too scary.] Operating on the assumption you're human, you've certainly heard of sex. In case you haven't, to get you up to speed, sex is the process by which many organisms ensure their continued existence. Here's the thing though: sex is more complicated than that because - spoiler alert! - humans are complicated. So how do we learn about sex if it's so complicated? You might remember sex education like this: [Don't have sex; you will get PREGNANT and die.] Urban Dictionary - your source for news and information about the 21st century zeitgeist - describes sex education as: ".. where they try to scare you out of having sex with pictures of diseased genitals..." A more hopeful description of sex education would be something like: a lifelong process of learning about sex and sexuality, exploring values and beliefs and gaining skills to navigate relationships and manage your sexual health. This, as far as I'm concerned, is a solid definition. So what can we do to make sex education something that teens find actually, like, educational. Clearly, teens need answers to their questions. Where do people go when they have questions? [The Internet] Listen, I love the Internet. It's one of the greatest developments in human information exchange. [Yes. Thanks Internet.] But what it says about sexual health is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination or is so laden with bias that it feels more like being pelted with judgement than actually receiving information. Unfortunately, not every teen is willing and able to chat it up with their parents about sex. So if not always the Internet, where can teens turn? Enter the peer educator. People my age do, indeed, talk to each other about sex. So when teens are sources of accurate information, it spreads among us quickly. As a peer educator, I belong to a program that gives me the tools to learn about everything from STIs and safe sex to contraception and consent. Basically, I can tell you more about human sexuality than the average adult. When teens see someone like me instead of someone older, they're quite open to the information I have to offer them. At lunch once, some friends wanted to know the difference between hormonal and copper IUDs. So I brought this to the table. Another day, my teacher didn't understand how emergency contraception works. So I explained it to the class. What does it look like when teens ask me questions about sexual health? It goes something like this. Venereal disease, STD, STI? This terminology, it baffles me. STI stands for sexually transmitted infection. We used to say STD, which stood for sexually transmitted disease, but it was changed recently because STI is a more medically accurate term, and taking away the big scary word "disease" helps decrease stigma. What the heck is trichomoniasis? Well, trichomoniasis is a STI usually spread through vaginal intercourse. It's curable with just one dose of an oral drug. Common symptoms, regardless of a person's sex, are unusual discharge, painful urination and itching. But it spreads really quickly because most of the time it's asymptomatic, which means people don't realize they have it. That's why it's so important to get tested regularly. Is it OK to be gay? Yes, all people of all identities and backgrounds, including on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, can live healthy and productive lives. Regardless of your beliefs, everyone has the right to explore and express their sexuality without the fear of shame or judgement. Thanks! So often, when my peers approach me with questions like these, seeking this or that piece of information, at least a sliver of what they're wondering is: "Am I normal?" So let's talk about normal. Part of the point of peer education is to give teens the opportunity to understand that there is no such thing as the elusive "normal." Peer educators are here to say they're armed with information that empowers you to make informed decisions; you are going to be OK. "Normal" isn't really necessary. When you can get accurate, judgement-free information from your peers, you realize that sex-ed doesn't have to be scary. So instead of striving to be normal, let's talk to each other. Since peer education allows sex-ed to reach the community in ways that go far beyond pictures of diseased genitals, it turns out to be pretty brilliant. An idea that, unlike trichomoniasis, is certainly worth spreading. |
How we can start to heal the pain of racial division | {0: 'Ruby Sales has preached around the country on race, class, gender and reconciliation.'} | TED Salon Verizon | I want to share with you a moment in my life when the hurt and wounds of racism were both deadly and paralyzing for me. And I think what I've learned can be a source of healing for all of us. When I was 17 years old, I was a college student at Tuskegee University, and I was a worker in the Southern freedom movement, which we call the Civil Rights Movement. During this time, I met another young 26-year-old, white seminary and college student named Jonathan Daniels, from Cambridge, Massachusetts. He and I were both part of a generation of idealistic young people, whose life has been ignited by the freedom fire that ordinary black people were spreading around the nation and throughout the South. We had come to Lowndes County to work in the movement. And it was a nonviolent movement to redeem the souls of America. We believe that everyone, both black and white, people in the South, could find a redemptive pathway out of the stranglehold of racism that had gripped them for more than 400 years. And on a hot, summer day in August, Jonathan and I joined a demonstration of local young black people, who were protesting the exploitation [of] black sharecroppers by rich land holders who cheated them out of their money. We decided to demonstrate alongside them. And on the morning that we showed up for the demonstration, we were met with a mob of howling white men with baseball bats, shotguns and any weapon that you could imagine. And they were threatening to kill us. And the sheriff, seeing the danger that we faced, arrested us and put us on a garbage truck and took us to the local jail, where we were put in cells with the most inhumane conditions you can imagine. And we were threatened by the jailers with drinking water that came from toilets. We were finally released on the sixth day, without any knowledge, without any forewarning. Just out of the clear blue sky, we were made to leave. And we knew that this was a dangerous sign, because Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney had also been forced to leave jail and were murdered because no one knew what had happened to them. And so, despite our fervent resistance, the sheriff made us leave the jail, and of course, nobody was waiting for us. It was hot, one of those Southern days where you could literally feel the pavement — the vapor seeping out of the pavement. And the group of about 14 of us selected Jonathan Daniels, Father Morrisroe, who had recently come to the county, Joyce Bailey, a local 17-year-old girl and I to go and get the drinks. When we got to the door, a white man was standing in the doorway with a shotgun, and he said, "Bitch, I'll blow your brains out!" And before I could even react, before I could even process what was going on, Jonathan intentionally pulled my blouse, and I fell back, thinking that I was dead. And in that instant, when I looked up, Jonathan Daniels was standing in the line of fire, and he took the blast, and he saved my life. I was so traumatized and paralyzed by that event, where Tom Coleman deliberately, with malicious intent, killed my beloved friend and colleague, Jonathan Myrick Daniels. On that day, which was one of the most important days in my life, I saw both love and hate coming from two very different white men that represented the best and the worst of white America. So deep was my hurt at seeing Tom Coleman murder Jonathan before my eyes, that I became a silent person, and I did not speak for six months. I finally learned to touch that hurt in me as I became older and began to talk about the Southern freedom movement, and began to connect my stories with the stories of my other colleagues and freedom fighters, who, like me, had faced deadly trauma of racism, and who had lost friends along the way, and who themselves have been beaten and thrown in jail. It is 50 years later. Many people were beaten and thrown in jail. Others were murdered like Jonathan Daniels. And yet, we are still, as a nation, mired down in the quicksand of racism. And everywhere I go around the nation, I see and hear the hurt. And I ask people everywhere, "Tell me, where does it hurt?" Do you see and feel the hurt that I see and feel? I feel and see the hurt in black and brown people who every day feel the vicious volley of racism and every day have their civil and human rights stripped away. And the people who do this use stereotypes and myths to justify doing it. Everywhere I go, I see and hear women who speak out against — who speak out against men who invade our bodies. These same men who then turn around — the same men who promote racism and then turn around and steal our labor and pay us unequal wages. I hear and feel the hurt of white men at the betrayal by the same powerful white men who tell them that their skin color is their ticket to a good life and power, only to discover, as the circle of whiteness narrows, that their tickets have expired and no longer carry first-class status. Now that we've touched the hurt, we must ask ourselves, "Where does it hurt and what is the source of the hurt?" I propose that we must look deeply into the culture of whiteness. That is a river that drowns out all of our identities and drowns us in false uniformity to protect the status quo. Notice, everybody, I said culture of whiteness, and not white people. Because in my estimation, the problem is not white people. Instead, it is the culture of whiteness. And by culture of whiteness, I mean a systemic and organized set of beliefs, values, canonized knowledge and even religion, to maintain a hierarchical, over-and-against power structure based on skin color, against people of color. It is a culture where white people are seen as necessary and friendly insiders, while people of color, especially black people, are seen as dangerous and threatening outsiders, who pose a clear and present danger to the safety and the efficacy of the culture of whiteness. Listen to me and see if you can imagine the culture of whiteness as a dehumanizing process that melts away all of our multiple and interlocking identities, such as race, class, gender and sexualities, so that ... so that unity is maintained for power. I believe, because I know and believe that the culture of whiteness is a social construct. Each of us, from birth to death, are socialized in this culture. And it marks people of color also. And it makes people of color, like white people, vote against our interests. Some of you might ask — and my students always tell me I give hard assignments — some of you might ask, and rightfully so, "How do we fix this? It seems so all-powerful and overwhelming." I believe that we must fix it, because we cannot humanize our future if we continue to be complicit with the culture of whiteness. Each of us must connect with our authentic selves, with our authentic ethnic selves. And we must connect with the other aspects of our identities. And we must move out of the constructs of whiteness, brownness and blackness to become who we are at our fullest. How do we do this? I believe that we do this through our collective narratives. And our collective narratives must contain our individual stories, the arts, spiritual reflections, literature, and yes, even drumming. (Laughter) It must be a collective telling, because individual stories just create a paradigm where we are pitting one story against another story. These different models that I have talked about tonight I think are essential to providing us a pathway out of the quagmire of racism. And I want to talk about another very important model. And that is redemption. I believe that movements for racial justice must be redemptive rather than punitive. And yes, I believe that we must provide the possibility of redemption for everyone. And we must be willing, despite some of the vitriolic language that might come from those very people who oppress us, I think that we must listen to them and try to figure out where do they hurt. We must do this, I believe, because our redemption is tied into their redemption, And we will not be free until we've all been redeemed from unredemptive anger. The challenge is not easy. And in a technological society, it grows even more complicated, because often we use technologies to perpetuate the very values of racism that we indulge in every day. We use technology to bully, to perpetuate hate speech and to degrade each other's humanities. And so I believe that if we're going to humanize the future, we must design ways to use technology not to degrade us, but to elevate us so that we can live into the fullest of our capacities. And I believe that technology must provide us larger vistas so that we might engage with each other and move beyond the segregated spaces that we live in, every day of our lives. I believe that we can achieve this if we set our minds and hopes on the prize. The question before us tonight is very serious. It is: "Do you want to be healed? Do you want to be healed?" Do you want to become whole and live into all of your identities? Or do you want to continue to cannibalize your multiple identities and privilege one identity over the other? Do you want to join a long line of generations of people who believed in the promise of America and had the faith to upbuild democracy? Do you want to live into the fullest of your potential? I certainly do. And I believe you do, too. Let me just say, quite seriously, I believe in you. And despite everything, I still believe in America. I hope that this offering that I've given to you tonight, that I've shared with you tonight, will provide redemptive pathways so that you might claim the fullest of your identity and become a major participant in humanizing not only the future for yourselves, but also for our democracy. Thank you. (Applause) |
To find your perfect mate, think like an evolutionist | {0: 'David Puts is an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University and a biological anthropologist studying human sexuality, behavior and psychology.'} | TEDxPSU | Hi there. I could be wrong, but I think this talk may have the distinction of being the one talk in this series that ends with orgasm. (Laughter) But let's not get ahead of ourselves. (Laughter) Have you ever thought about the fact that you're here, alive on this planet because every one of your ancestors reproduced? Every one, in an unbroken chain, all the way back to the first life on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago. That's a lot of reproducing. And for the past billion years, your ancestors reproduced sexually. So sex is a pretty big deal. But you probably knew that. But let's talk about human mating. Why does human mating take the forms that it does? Why are we attracted to certain people? Why do we sometimes form long-term romantic relationships? Why do we sometimes cheat? Now I don't mean why consciously do we do these things. I don't mean what happens in the brain to cause it. I mean, why did we evolve these feelings and these behaviors? In other words, how did the underlying brain structures and brain chemistry contribute to our ancestors' reproductive success so that those traits got passed on into the present generation while others didn't. Answering evolutionary questions like this is like being a crime scene investigator, we're left with the evidence, and we have to try to establish what happened. So let's go back six or seven million years ago to our early ancestors. This is right after the split between our lineage and the lineage that would eventually give rise to chimpanzees. Now these were small brained apes, they walked on two legs, and males probably fought each other for mating opportunities. We know this because males fight for mates in all of our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas. And because males are larger than females when they fight for mates. And the fossil record indicates that our male ancestors were larger than females. So males tend to be larger, more muscular, stronger, more physically aggressive, when they fight for mates. Our species has all the hallmarks of a species that's experienced an evolutionary history of male fighting for mates. For example, men have, on average, 60 percent more muscle mass, and 75 percent more upper body muscle mass, and those differences in musculature translate into large sex differences in strength. The average man is stronger than 99.9% of women. These are data on hand strength, which is a good predictor of overall upper body strength, on over 600 men and women. And as you can see, there's a large sex difference. And in fact, not one of almost 400 women had as strong of a hand strength as the average man. So, men can open jars. (Laughter) And move furniture or at least two things that we're good for. Who cares, right? The answer is that men care. Men, especially young men, seem really concerned about figuring out who's the toughest or strongest, or the most physically formidable, and sometimes they devise elaborate ways for determining this. From early development, boys and men are more physically aggressive than girls and women all over the world, and this aggression sometimes results in violence. Men have a virtual monopoly on same-sex homicides. In other words, men are vastly more likely to kill each other than women are to kill each other. These are data from every society from every time period in history for which data were available when the authors compiled them, on proportion of same-sex homicides that are male killing male. And as you can see, the percentage is always close to 100%. On average, 95% of same-sex homicides are committed by males, and importantly, these don't include war killings, which would bring the percentages even closer to 100%. And from what evidence that we have, a dominance among men translates into mating and reproductive opportunities. So we're a species that's experienced an evolutionary history in which our male ancestors won mating opportunities through the use or threat of force. In that regard, our apple has not fallen far from the evolutionary tree. But in other ways, human mating and reproduction are profoundly different from what we see in our close relatives, and they've changed a lot since our early ancestors. For example, males in chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas, spend time and effort competing for mates, but don't spend much time with individual females and don't provide resources. They don't provide food for their offspring. So that's a big change. Although most human societies allow polygamous marriage, that is one man married to more than one woman, even within polygamous societies, most marriages are monogamous. And in the average hunter-gatherer society, almost 80% of married women are monogamous, so that's different. And, importantly, men provide resources for their mates and offspring. So how did we get there? Well, in species where males fight each other for mates, dominant males indicated by the larger, darker male symbols here, tend to have more mating opportunities, and hence more offspring. And subordinate males tend to have fewer mating opportunities and are more likely to fail to reproduce. So this sets up an interesting situation, because for subordinate males, it would be advantageous to attempt monogamy rather than winning lots of mating opportunities. One mate is better than none. The problem is that in general, subordinate males cannot defend females from dominant males, and besides, females tend to prefer mating with dominant males for the genetic benefits, producing stronger, healthier offspring. So what changed all of this was probably several transitions happening together around the same time. By about two and a half million years ago, we had started to incorporate more meat into our diet. We know this from various lines of evidence, including - this is cool - stone tool cut marks on animal bones dated to 2.5 million years ago. That's cool. I love this stuff! And then by about 2 million years ago, brain size really started to increase, and with that came a lengthening of the juvenile period, so now kids became both really costly and costly for a long period of time. And this made male provisioning both possible and necessary. Possible because it's much easier to bring back calories, protein, fats, in the form of meat than trying to do that by transporting plant foods, and necessary because kids became so energetically costly that individual females would have had trouble providing resources for themselves and their offspring. And when we look at modern hunter-gatherer societies, that's what we see. These are aggregate data across several hunter-gatherer societies on net daily calories. Are you bringing in more calories than you consume, through foraging, or are you consuming more than you bring in? And the green bars are net daily caloric surplus, in other words, bringing in more than you consume. And the red bars are a deficit, so you're consuming more than you bring in. And you'll notice that men from about 20 years of age to 60 years of age are operating at a daily caloric surplus. They bring in, generally through hunting, more calories than they can consume, and these calories are distributed. If it's large game, it's generally distributed equally to everybody in the village or camp. Smaller items can be brought back to individual family, but this contrasts with what's going on with women, in their reproductive years, they're operating at a daily caloric deficit. Gestation, lactation, carrying babies, are extremely costly energetically and limit one's ability to forage efficiently. So male provisioning, both possible through hunting, and necessary. And this change had profound impacts on human mating and reproduction. In a sense, it tipped the balance for females. So now it was sometimes worth mating with a subordinate male, even if he may not possess the best genes, if he provided resources. And this is baboon pornography. (Laughter) I probably should have warned you there'd be monkey porn. This is from PlayBaboon Magazine. Alright, I'm going to stop with the jokes. This is a female baboon in estrus, so her genitals are swollen, and this happens in a lot of primate species. Females' appearance changes over the cycle, and becomes more attractive and this incites male competition for females during the fertile part of the cycle, with dominant males tending to monopolize copulations, closer to ovulation. Well. We don't look like this. And you knew that. But what you might not know is that women's attractiveness does change over the cycle. My lab, and others, have shown that women's faces, voices, even odors, are more attractive to men during the fertile part of the cycle. But these changes are extremely subtle. And compared to other primates, the evidence indicates that we've evolved to suppress cues to ovulation. That in a sense, ovulation is concealed in humans. But think about what impact this would have. This would mean that dominant males would not be able to monopolize copulations near ovulation. It would protect the pair bond from invasion by a dominant male. So that a male in a pair would have more confidence that he was the father of the offspring. The couple is having sex throughout the cycle. And this is unique to human mating, we don't see it in many other primates. We have sex throughout the cycle. And so this would essentially increase a male's confidence in paternity, because a dominant or some other male wouldn't be able to target the female and bully their way in at the fertile point in the cycle. And this would have important implications for parental investment, in particular, males providing resources for their offspring. Because across species, when males provide resources for offspring, they target those resources toward their own biological offspring, and they avoid investing in the offspring of unrelated males. And so the evolution of male care for offspring and investing in resources and offspring, pair bonding, and concealed ovulation, went very much hand-in-hand over our evolution. We have also evolved a specialized psychology for forming long-term romantic relationships with the possibility of investing in offspring together. We fall in love. All around the world, people prefer mates who are kind and generous and capable and willing to care for mates and offspring. In one of the largest cross-cultural studies of human mate preferences ever conducted, covering 33 countries shown in red here, the single most important mate choice criterion to both men and women, was mutual love and attraction. But as you also know, people are not always perfectly faithful to their mates. And in particular, women sometimes face a tradeoff between good genes and investment. Women sometimes find themselves in relationships with men who may be caring providers, but may not possess the best quality genes for offspring making them strong and healthy. And several features of women's mating psychology seem to have evolved, in part, to resolve this trade off. And I mean, recruiting genes, if you will, from outside of the long-term relationship. For example, women have more sexual fantasies about men other than their long-term partner, during the fertile part of the cycle, and that's particularly true if the long-term partner has physical signs of being lower in genetic quality, like he's less physically attractive. I think that's interesting. (Laughter) That's why I'm talking about it, I hope you do too. And women's mate preferences similarly change over the cycle so that they prefer more dominant, more masculine males during the fertile part of the cycle. These are results of a study that I conducted on women's preferences for men's voices. And I used computer software to manipulate recordings of men's voices to make them sound either more masculine or more dominant, or more subordinate, more feminine. And I had women rate them on how attractive would this man be for a short-term, purely sexual relationship, and for a long-term committed relationship? And I also got information about where women were in their cycles. Were they in the fertile or non-fertile part of the cycle? These were all women not taking hormonal contraception. And what I found was that women preferred a more masculine, dominant-sounding voice, specifically in the fertile point of the cycle, and only for a sexual relationship versus a long-term committed relationship. Now, this sounds like science fiction, but it's science, fact. Because this result has been shown lots of times across a variety of domains from women's preferences for men's voices, that this result was replicated by another lab. Women's preferences for men's faces, bodies, odors, and even behavior. Well, I said that we would get to orgasm. (Laughter) And we're there. I just want to start by saying I'm for it. (Laughter) I'm pro-orgasm. I think more people should have more orgasms. But from a scientific perspective, women's orgasm is especially fascinating because there's evidence indicating that it increases the probability that conception will result from an act of sex. There's evidence that it brings sperm up through the female reproductive tract and toward the egg. And think about what the implications here could be. If women were more likely to have orgasms with some men than others, then this could be a mechanism by which they choose, not consciously, to be fertilized by some males and not others. And wouldn't you predict that women would be more likely to have orgasms with males of high genetic quality? And in fact, a study by my lab published just a couple of years ago found that women reported more orgasms, earlier timed orgasms, that is, they were easier to achieve, they achieved them more quickly, when they were having sex when their mate was more masculine and more dominant, and what's interesting is that this was true only for their orgasms from sexual intercourse, but not from other partnered sexual behaviors. I'll let you use your imagination what those might be. So we've seen that thinking like an evolutionist can enable us to predict things about ourselves that we did not already know, and would not likely have guessed for a long time. We didn't know that women's mate preferences changed over the cycle. Until evolutionary thinking led us to that discovery. So that's one point that I want to make. But we've also seen how evolutionary thinking can clarify and unite diverse parts of the human experience, and help us understand the best and the worst of ourselves, from violence and aggression and infidelity to men's care for their children, sexual attraction, sexual pleasure, and even the strength and fragility of romantic love. Thank you. (Applause) |
A case for cliteracy | {0: 'Sophia Wallace is a conceptual artist and photographer.'} | TEDxSalford | Hello, Manchester. I'm so happy to be here. (Responses) (Cheers) My name is Sophia Wallace. I'm an artist. And I'm here today to share with you a project that I hope will empower you personally, and by extension those that you love, especially if they have a clitoris. (Cheers) (Laughter) To make this work, I have to talk about independent female desire. I have to speak about a universal taboo - female genitals. This is not easy. It taints the speaker. I want to thank TEDxSalford for having me here and hosting this conversation. All bodies are entitled to experience the pleasure that they are capable of. This is a core pillar of cliteracy. In making this work, I had to say that the clitoris, first, as an organ, has a right to being, and that this right is not just about not being cut off. Sadly, to this day, over a 140 million women have had their external clitorises cut off. This doesn't make it into the news very often, and this doesn't come up in foreign policy discussion. So number one, the clitoris has a right to exist, free of harm, like any other organ. But secondly, I argue with cliteracy that the clitoris has a right to pleasure, and this is part of its primary right of being. How is it possible that we landed on the Moon and walked around 29 years before we discovered the anatomy of the clitoris? (Laughter) We actually cloned sheep, identified the Higgs boson particle, and only discovered the clitoris 29 years ago. Unfortunately, this discovery has not been adopted, so most people don't know the actual anatomy of the clitoris. The clitoris is not a button. It is an iceberg. Like many in the room who are hearing this for the first time, I was shocked to find out that I didn't know the actual anatomy of half of the population, that I didn't know my own anatomy. In fact, the clitoris is not a button, it is like an iceberg. Most of the organ is internal. This slide is an anatomical example of the penis and the clitoris side by side. Now, we've all been taught that male bodies and female bodies are opposites: the male body sort of sticks out, the female body is solely internal. Well, in fact, there're so many similarities between the penis and the clitoris. So, if you'll see, both the glans and - The glans of the penis and the glans of the clitoris - both organs have a glans. There are 3000 nerves in the glans of the penis. There are 8000 nerves in the glans of the clitoris. Both organs have a corpus cavernosum. Both organs have crura, like two little legs or wings. Both organs have bulbs of erectile tissue. Both organs get erect. The penis is outside of the body mostly, and the clitoris is inside the body mostly. That's the biggest difference. In fact, they're very similar. Actually, fetuses have the same tissue, and in boys it develops as a penis, in girls it develops as a clitoris. Some people have small penises, some people have very large clitorises. If one has a clitoris and takes testosterone, their clitoris can expand. What I'm saying is that these organs are actually quite similar. And, while we are different, while we are unique as men and women, our differences are not a sign of opposition. In fact, we're related to each other, we're connected. And that's an exciting fact. With Cliteracy, I started with language. Language has been a place that so much of sort of the division of men and women and the subjugation of women has been entrenched with the language itself. 'Vagina' - the single most misused word in the English language. This is one of the laws of Cliteracy. It's intentionally hyperbolic. But unfortunately, it's more true than I wish it was. 'Vagina' is a Latin word. It means 'sword holder'. (Laughter) Vagina, medically, technically, only includes the opening. This term is used almost universally in doctor's offices. It's also used in feminism to sort of advocate. But it's a term that ignores the clitoris, which is the female sexual organ. And secondly, it reduces the female body to being a receptacle, a sword holder. If you want to use a term that addresses all the female genitals, both the reproductive and the sexual parts of it, the word is 'vulva'. This is a word that almost no one uses, but this is the word if you want to talk about female genitals - vulva. If you want to talk about pleasure, 'clitoris' is the term. The clitoris is both internal and external. So, when the clitoris is engaged, internal stimulation feels great. If the clitoris is not engaged, it can feel not great, or it can feel painful. It's all about what's happening with the clitoris. If it was about the vagina, there would be so many nerves that childbirth would be impossible. There're very few nerves in the vagina. All of the nerves inside are from the internal clitoris, which gets stimulated both from external and internal portions. With Cliteracy I felt that - Yes, language has been this way of restricting and confining the female body, but if language can do these thing, it can also liberate, it can also be expansive. It's also an opportunity to come together. And so I sought to use language as a way to shift the discourse and create new space and more alignment. With Cliteracy, I first began with the term, and then a definition of the term, and then an eye chart. The aesthetics of this project were also extremely important and intentional. I avoided any kind of pink and purple; I didn't use flowers; I didn't use any fabric or yarn, anything soft and fluffy. I also didn't make any small works that you could hold in your hand or eat off of like plates. I also intentionally avoided any kind of sexual imagery, any kind of graphic, close-up, literal depictions. I think that everywhere we see the exposed female body, and yet we don't know the actual female sexual organ, the clitoris. So showing it is not the point, right? Understanding it is the point. Literacy of it, knowledge of it is the point. [The hole is not the whole] (Laughter) The hole is not the whole. With Cliteracy I had a lot of fun with word-play. There was just so much material to work with and so much to talk about. I also am making the radical claim with Cliteracy that we can't truly be free if our bodies are assailed. We can't truly be fully enjoying our democracy when half of the population can't speak about their own body, is censored when they say the words because these words are taboo, or are regularly having sex without orgasms. And we don't talk about this. I'm making the radical claim that freedom in society can also be measured by the distribution of orgasms. This could be one indicator that we use when we look at education, access to health care, economics. We could also say: How are orgasms being distributed? That tells us something about a society. There is no lack. Truly. Freud invented the paradigm of the phallus versus the lack. He said that men have the phallus, they have the penis, they have agency; women have a lack, they have a vagina, they have a void. In fact, Freud was wrong, the vagina is not the female sexual organ, it is the clitoris. There is no lack, none of us have lack, none of us are lacking, we're all whole. And none of us need to be depicted in terms solely of a void. [Girls are taught it's normal for sex to hurt. Phallusy.] In many ways, all of us have had a psychological clitoridectomy because the clitoris is never taught. In sex education it is taught that boys are both sexual and reproductive, boys have erections, boys have wet dreams, boys ejaculate, and then the semen fertilizes the egg. Girls, we're taught, have reproductive organs, they menstruate, menstruation is painful. Girls should not get pregnant if they don't mean to. Girls should not get sexually transmitted diseases. We never learn about the clitoris. We never learn that girls have desire, that this is natural, that girls have sexual dreams, that girls have fantasies. So already, as a culture, I would say we all have clitoridectomies. 'Clitoris, say my name, say my name.' I really enjoyed using word-play and putting the clitoris into popular culture and song lyrics. So much of popular culture, music - the female genitals are kind of riffed on but almost always in a negative way. If you want to humiliate a man, call him a word for female genitals, right? But this is also an opportunity, you can just pop in the clit, and suddenly the whole song changes; it's very powerful. So, this is a Destiny's Child song, there're many more in the Laws of Cliteracy like 'Ain't no half-stepping to the clit,' 'Sleeping on the clit? That shit cray', which it is. Here's an example from looking below at the 100 Laws of Cliteracy. So this work spans 13 feet long by 10 feet tall. It dwarfs anyone's body. When I first showed this work, I had no idea what the response would be. Of course, I was hoping it would be positive, but I didn't know. And I have to say, I was overwhelmed with the way audiences responded. They really wanted to have this conversation. They would stay with the work for 15 minutes. I would come back, they would still be there, they would have friends with them. And I felt like this work was needed. I was invited to speak about it a lot, and I was also contacted privately. People shared secrets with me, people told me for the first time they didn't feel ashamed about their body, or they went home with this knowledge and are having a great time with their girlfriend, and wanted to thank me for that. So this was extremely gratifying. I think for me, what made me feel like I was onto something was that such a diverse group of people supported this project: men and women, young and old, religious and secular, queer and straight. So many people came together to support this project. And I was contacted by people from as far as New Zealand, Egypt, Brazil, saying: 'How can we help you with this project? Can you translate this project into Arabic or into Portuguese, like, we need this here in our country.' I wanted Cliteracy to go everywhere, but I didn't know how to do that yet, and I'm still figuring that out. But I know that it's needed. And I know that it can't just stay within the walls of the art world. I don't consider myself a street artist, but I began making work on the street for the same reason that I think a lot of artist do - I wanted to communicate more broadly. This is an example from a documentary of just me putting up some pieces. These are prints that I made on a news print, then I'm putting them up with wheat paste just like old posters were put up. I'm just doing this in Brooklyn. Some people like to do street art at the night time, I do it in the day because I feel like it's a little safer, the anonymity of the crowd in New York. So far so good. And one of the cool things about doing street art is that people will comment on your work. Sometimes they cross it out or destroy it, but other times they put their art on top of it. And in this case that happened. Again, like when I showed the work in the gallery, on the street there was a big response, people would photograph it, they would post it on Twitter and Instagram. And it felt like I was talking about something that needed to be talked about, that the project was needed and people were grateful to find it and to keep pushing it out there more. Doing the street work emboldened me to take on even crazier ideas that I never thought I would find myself doing. And I actually, together with an artist named Clit Eastwood, or Ken Thomas, held the world's first-ever clit rodeo last summer. We created a rideable golden clit. (Laughter) And we held the first clit rodeo. And, you know, there were two rules to the rodeo. Basically, one: respect the clit. Respect it. Two: have fun. Those were the rules. We had so many riders who wanted to ride, more than we could host for our event. But the riders were judged on three categories: dexterity, style and generosity. And they were really good riders, I have to say. I was worried that it might get a little boring because as you saw on the previous slide, it was just a spring. But people were reading erotica to the clit, someone did a striptease for the clit, someone surfed the clit, someone offered a cigarette to the clit, and then, like - There was a couple where the woman was nine-months-pregnant; she was riding, and her husband was in the background as her backup dancer, dancing around ... So, it was way better than I ever expected. I just was thrilled because the clit was the star of the show. Finally! I've always wanted Cliteracy to be in the public space, to be at large scale, to be seen over time, not to have to be hidden away or be a secret. And I had the opportunity last fall. Together with Center and Santa Fe we put up a 35 feet billboard of Cliteracy, or 11 metre billboard. The text says: 'Democracy without cliteracy - phallusy'. And I was thrilled to do this, especially because where it was on this highway is travelled by such a broad range of people, from long-haul truck drivers to art collectors and everyone in between. The billboard company was a little bit less psyched about how much feedback they got about the billboard, but I thought this was great. A lot of people were like: 'What are you selling? I don't understand.' I actually got a call that I'll never forget from a mom, saying: 'I have to drive this route with my son every day, and I don't know what to tell him.' But I was thrilled because she's going to talk to him about cliteracy, and this is something that he needs to know about. Cliteracy needs more than text though, and I always knew that I wanted to explore the form as well. None of us know this form, right? I didn't know this form. So I set about making the world's first anatomically correct sculpture of the clitoris. And this was something that was actually quite hard to do because there are so few accurate representations of the anatomy. And when you find these very few drawings or scans, they contradict each other, they don't make sense. So, it was actually not that easy to do, but I set about making this form. With the form I wanted to not only explore the anatomy and get it accurate, but I also wanted to show the gesture of beauty of this organ and the gracefulness of it. Here is the first sculpture that I know of of the anatomically correct clitoris. It's six feet tall and five feet wide. And I wanted to create an iconic form of this unseen organ half of us have, all of us were born through the body of someone that has a clitoris. Everyone in this room was born through the body of someone that has a clitoris. So all of us have been touched by the clitoris. This is universal and yet we don't know about it. So I wanted to create an iconic form that's memorable, that puts this into our consciousness. And I hope that finally this form would be treated with honour and respect and not be treated as obscene. I think it's a beautiful form, and I didn't know it, but once I saw it, it started to feel familiar in this way. And I started to see it around in the natural world, in plants. I also saw it in engravings, on architectural sites. I saw it in weavings of oriental tapestries. I started to see it around. And that was very exciting. And the form is interesting not strictly as a sculpture, but in patterns. There's something very exciting about looking into the power of the small, the power of multiplicity. Instead of creating just this singular superior object, what about putting all these tiny beautiful forms that together form a baby-clit army. The one on the right, (Laughter) I call it 'Fleur-de-clits', and the one on the left was later used in the intervention at the Whitney Museum. So here's a sort of subversive clit army coming together to make the 'Fleur-de-clit', which is this beautiful pattern. But unfortunately, if some people knew what it was, it wouldn't be allowed to be. And that's sort of the rub of it. Here is an example of more clit forms and patterns that I created. This is a clit damask pattern with clit forms burnished onto wood. On the left is a new sculpture. So, this is the first sketch of an invisible clit sculpture. It's the same digital form that I used to make the gold sculpture I just showed to you. But this exists in the negative space. So I used the laser to actually cut out the form from clear plexiglass. And so this invisible sculpture addresses the fact that this is omnipresent, and yet it's negated, it's invisible, it's not allowed to be spoken of. I also continued with this idea of negation and using the laser to burn away with laser-cut works on paper. And I developed a brand new technology. You might not have heard about it, but it's very cutting edge. I'll try to explain. It's called 'clitglass', and the way that it works - anyone can wear it; anyone who wants neutral vision can wear a clitglass. So you put on the clitglass, and you look through the perspective of the clit. And the clit refracts any kind of phallocentricacy that's coming back at you. And so you obtain neutral vision, or what I like to call 'normal' vision. (Laughter) Now, you can use clitglass at the Whitney Museum, or you can use it at work, in front of the TV, even at a family reunion. (Laughter) This is an example of looking through this cutting edge technology. So those forms that I showed earlier, I also played a game at my intervention at the Whitney Museum, called 'put a clit on it', or - 'clit-dazzle the Whitney'. So basically I handed out these unknown clit forms, and I said: 'Put the clit wherever you think it needs to go - put it as a subject in art history, put into the designs, put it on the American flag. Whole country has a problem with illcliteracy. Help America out. Just take the clit where it needs to go.' So you can see on the lower left, that's a Clitchtenstein. On the lower right, Clitsper Johns. This is the family at the Whitney Museum during the intervention, and the boy on the left who looks to be about 11 years old, at one point asks his mom - they'd been wearing the clitglasses for about 15 minutes, having a great time. He was like, 'Mom, what's a clit?' (Laughter) And she said: 'Oh, it's a really sensitive part of the woman's body.' And he was like, 'Okay, cool.' And I was thrilled because one: he felt comfortable asking the question; two: his mom was supportive and answered the question. And it was totally normal - nothing obscene, nothing secret, no one had to be dragged out of the room, no one had to be ashamed. And that's what I'm hoping that Cliteracy can continue to do. Overwhelmingly, the response to Cliteracy has been positive. So many people have supported the project and wanted to help with it. And there've been a few institutions who have courageously started showing it. But there's so much more that needs to be done. My dream is to radically change the way that we think about bodies so that everyone's body is respected. I want to do this by creating large scale permanent public sculptures that exist for thousands of years. I want to work with metals and stone so that these forms don't disappear in future generations, and we don't have to have this conversation again and again. Democracy without cliteracy is a phallusy. I want cliteracy to be taught in schools so that no child has an unnameable part of their body. The clit should be a starring role in any bedroom that it's in. And it shouldn't be censored in the Parliament. So, in closing, I want to ask you to see the clit. See it everywhere. Don't stop seeing it. And if you need help, you can borrow this pair of glasses from me. And don't just stop with seeing it. Say it. Say its name. (Applause) (Cheers) Thank you. (Applause) |
The science of sex | {0: 'Pere Estupinyà is a science communicator and the author of "S=EX2: La ciencia del sexo."'} | TEDxRiodelaPlata | In fact, I'm a science disseminator out of curiosity, that extreme curiosity in understanding the way nature works, our body, the universe, the brain, these 87 billion of interconnected neurons that encode this strange behavior we have, that we don't know if we should follow reason or feelings. Science, actually, gives us a different perspective of the reality and opens up our minds and amazes us even in the most ordinary events. In fact, one of the most revolutionary days in my career as a science disseminator was at a neuroscience congress where, walking by the posters section, I read the following work: "Clitoral stimulation induces Fos activation in the rat brain." Sure, you keep staring at the poster and get closer to the researcher and say: "Do you stimulate the rats' clitoris?" (Laughter) "Yes, I do." "And how do you do it?" "With a brush; I do three or four repetitions and stop. Three or four repetitions and stop. Because that is the way rats copulate." I kept thinking and she noticed I was somewhat skeptical. And I said: "Hey, it is very important that we investigate the sexual function. We, scientists, investigate the complete functioning of the body, why aren't we going to research on sexuality?" I thought for a while, and it's true: after so much time working as a communicator, Why haven't I written about sexuality? Out of taboo? The same taboo society has about sex, is shared by medicine and science. But she said something very curious: "I study the hormones that encode desire. And I'm convinced about it because neurophysiologically, we are not that different from rats — and it's true; psychologically, yes; but neurophysiologically, no — I'm convinced that behind that there could also be an explanation for some male and female issues related to desire. There are many sexual problems." "More than you think," she told me. And I was wondering, is it true? I searched for scientific material, and, indeed, I found in "The Lancet," one of the greatest science magazines, data that show that approximately 40 percent of men and more than 50 percent of women, even excepting old age, at a certain moment will have a problem related to sexuality. Clearly, it was something I had to investigate about. And where to start? To see the researcher then and learn about all this hormone issue; testosterone and desire increase, dopamine and pleasure stimulation, prolactin and pleasure decrease, oxytocin segregated after orgasm is the love hormone keeping us together, but also, let's see something — I teach you right now because, surely, you have never seen it before — (Laughter) clitorial stimulation of rats. It's curious, because a lot of people say: "I had no idea rats had clitoris." And some women say: "Well, there are some men that seem to ignore women have it too!! (Laughter) But many of us don't know — I didn't know it, at least when I started this research — is that clitoris is much bigger than we think. It is internal, in most of the cases; on the exterior, the glans is like the tip of the iceberg Actually, these images you see in grey, with a triangular shape, is the internal part of the clitoris, it is like a penis, that grows inside, has an erection and it is so big that gets closer to the front wall of the vagina and sometimes, you've heard about G spot... the G spot none of you know about; you know it's a spot that generates more sexual arousal, but you don't know why. It is because the clitoris gets so close to the vagina that when you touch 2 to 3 centimeters upwards, you get in contact with its internal part, and, at that moment, pleasure increases. But truly, what is an orgasm? Orgasm, physiologically, is the activation of the sympathetic nervous system. That is, to experience sexual arousal, to be normal, we have a parasympathetic nervous system which keeps us relaxed. But during sexual arousal there is a moment of explosion when the pupils dilate, the blood flows to the muscles, a series of secretions are released in the body that activate this orgasmic response. A piece of advice: for example, now you know this, if you are having sexual intercourse and someone groans with pleasure, but pupils are not dilated, there is no tachycardia, or no blushing of the upper part of the chest or chins, that person may be faking it. It's really important to know that, because these sympathetic nerves regulate the coming of the orgasm. For example, when someone is nervous and has the fibers excited, has premature ejaculation. Or when wine relaxes us, if we drink a lot of wine that slows down the sympathetic nervous system, women, particularly, take longer to reach orgasm. Or dominance and submission that generate tension in the body and facilitate orgasm. Or the tantra, that wonderful species of sexual behavior that allows the body to feel relaxed and excited at the same time and entirely sensitive. I had to move a step forward, because eventually, when we talk about orgasm, people say: "Yes, they are clitoral or vaginal orgasms." Actually, they are all brain orgasms. The order to begin orgasm comes from the brain. I interviewed Barry Komisaruk. Barry Komisaruk is a researcher of the Rutgers University who asked women to stimulate different areas of their genitals to see which areas of their brains were activated in order to study the sexual response. It was really interesting, because he even saw different types of orgasms. If you haven't felt different kind of orgasms it means you haven't experienced enough. Because they are real, different nerves send the information from the internal part of the vagina, from the external part, so it is worth the exploration. But Barry told me something. He said: "I'm going to start a research with men. Would you like to be a volunteer?" And my first answer was: "No." And I realized this social restrain we have regarding sex. I had taken part in a lot of studies; why did I repressed myself from participation on a study on sexuality? So then I rebelled, and became the first man in the world having an orgasm under a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan (Laughter) (Applause) And this is my brain from the beginning of the stimulation to the end, and it was interesting as it perceived the areas that started; the limbic system, the hypothalamus, the cortex. Well, in fact, a part of the brain cortex related to control, is the only one off during orgasm. All the rest of the brain was... is the activity that activates most areas of the brain at the same time; except for this cortex. And it was fantastic, 20 seconds later, the brain was completely off. And it is very similar to what happened with women. Actually, the scans were the same; men and women. Men and women are more alike than we believe. There is much more diversity within the men group and within the women group, than in the opposite sex cases. But this takes place when we move forward and take the psychological part and here comes the complexity, because sexuality, indeed, has an endocrine, physiological, neuroscientific, psychological and cultural side. And now, one of the most peculiar cases is the attraction. Why are we attracted to a certain person and not to another? Surely there is a biological aspect. It's said the symmetry is a beauty trait. Surely, there's a cultural part: in a culture, we like ones and others. But through experiments you realize that even, the emotional part plays a relevant role. When we are sad, we don't like the same people than when we are happy. When you go to a party and feel the most attractive woman there, you'll check out certain kind of guys. If you are not that self confident, and see other women you consider prettier, you will check out other guys. Even hunger affects your choices. And this is a very funny experiment. Half of the students were asked to come to the experiment satisfied, after having eaten a lot. They had no idea. And other students came hungry, with a 10 hours fast. They were shown these images of the same girl, but they distorted her shape from a slimmer to a more plump body. And you know what? They were asked which they liked best. and the hungry group liked more plump figures. Our inner emotional state conditions our likes in each moment. Talking about attraction, there is a very important issue. If I tell you, we should respect any sexual diversity it's rather obvious. A lot more people say so. But, I had a question from a scientific point of view which is valid from that approach. Can the sexual orientation be changed? It's absurd, we know that, to ask people to try to change their nature, but, is it possible? And I ran into this scientific study from 1968 where it was intended, through electroshocks, and aversive chemical therapy, when they were watching homosexual images, to change gays' sexual orientation. And I interviewed, since he's still alive, the author, John Bancroft, once the director of Kings Institute. You know what he said? It was quite revealing. He said, "We, at that time — now we know it's atrocious — but we thought we were doing them a favor, because at that time, homosexuality was not approved and they suffered a lot and we thought we could change them. You know what? Despite their intentions, and electroshocks, aversive therapy, they didn't change. And the ones who tried it, bore a great suffering for not changing. So, the conclusion is pretty obvious: the ones to be cured are not homosexuals. The ones are homophobes. (Applause) We... (Applause) Thank you. (Applause) It is essential to accept diversity and we have to be the first ones to accept it. For instance, each person lives sexuality as desired. Kiko is a boy who uses a wheelchair. And has no sensitivity in his genitals. I'm treated as if I were asexual; as if I had no desire, and of course I have it, of course I get aroused, and of course I have a different sexuality." Actually, Kiko is a very sexual person, who has his partners. Opposite to Rebeca; she is asexual and has no desire. She has never felt desire; not even as a teenager, and she doesn't feel attracted to anybody either, neither boys nor girls. This is called an asexual person. And Rebeca told me: "And you know what? I'm really happy." But the key is not about having more or less sex, it's about having the sex quantity and quality you want. That's the important thing. Then, we get into this scientific-sexual adventure into something even more complicated. The couple; it's not about one but two. And here there is a constant interplay between nature and culture. Because if we look at our nature, we do have a monogamy tendency, since we are primates — actually, in this aspect, we are more similar to birds than to cats — because our offspring needs both progenitors to survive. That's why nature has codified monogamy; that is, the tendency to fall in love and have a couple. Monogamy is natural. But not fidelity. There is no animal species that is faithful to a partner, even birds, that are such a romantic couple. If they get lost, when going for food and find better genes, they definitely take the most of it. So, here we have the culture pressure in our relationships with a partner. And it's ok, we have to obey culture not biology. But, there are people who start looking for other couple models, they look for broadening this behavior to polyamory or swinging in order to adapt them to their needs. I, after all this adventure, realized that there are five steps to have a complete sexual life. The first one, to eliminate traumas. Possibly, most of you have no traumas, but the ones who unconsciously have them and are a little haunted and not fully aware of them, should have a psychological cleanse. Be at ease with yourselves. Then, health. People always ask me: "Is sex good for health?" I say: "Yes, but health has to be good for sex." That is, the cardiovascular and the nervous system, they have to be in very good condition to have satisfying sexual intercourses. Then, after knowing yourself; self awareness seems a cliché but I mean knowing how our body works and also our couple; men have the feeling that they already know a lot of themselves, and... No, no, no. We have to know ourselves better. With these three things: psychological cleanse, health and self-awareness, we have a satisfactory sex life. Now, if we want to have a great sex life, it's the turn to open our minds, read, explore, and, finally, experiment. I wish you a joyful sex life and, above all, enjoy science and knowledge as well. Thank you very much. (Applause) |
How do we learn to work with intelligent machines? | {0: "Matt Beane is an Assistant Professor in the Technology Management Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara and a Research Affiliate with MIT's Institute for the Digital Economy."} | TED Salon Zebra Technologies | It’s 6:30 in the morning, and Kristen is wheeling her prostate patient into the OR. She's a resident, a surgeon in training. It’s her job to learn. Today, she’s really hoping to do some of the nerve-sparing, extremely delicate dissection that can preserve erectile function. That'll be up to the attending surgeon, though, but he's not there yet. She and the team put the patient under, and she leads the initial eight-inch incision in the lower abdomen. Once she’s got that clamped back, she tells the nurse to call the attending. He arrives, gowns up, And from there on in, their four hands are mostly in that patient — with him guiding but Kristin leading the way. When the prostates out (and, yes, he let Kristen do a little nerve sparing), he rips off his scrubs. He starts to do paperwork. Kristen closes the patient by 8:15, with a junior resident looking over her shoulder. And she lets him do the final line of sutures. Kristen feels great. Patient’s going to be fine, and no doubt she’s a better surgeon than she was at 6:30. Now this is extreme work. But Kristin’s learning to do her job the way that most of us do: watching an expert for a bit, getting involved in easy, safe parts of the work and progressing to riskier and harder tasks as they guide and decide she’s ready. My whole life I’ve been fascinated by this kind of learning. It feels elemental, part of what makes us human. It has different names: apprenticeship, coaching, mentorship, on the job training. In surgery, it’s called “see one, do one, teach one.” But the process is the same, and it’s been the main path to skill around the globe for thousands of years. Right now, we’re handling AI in a way that blocks that path. We’re sacrificing learning in our quest for productivity. I found this first in surgery while I was at MIT, but now I’ve got evidence it’s happening all over, in very different industries and with very different kinds of AI. If we do nothing, millions of us are going to hit a brick wall as we try to learn to deal with AI. Let’s go back to surgery to see how. Fast forward six months. It’s 6:30am again, and Kristen is wheeling another prostate patient in, but this time to the robotic OR. The attending leads attaching a four-armed, thousand-pound robot to the patient. They both rip off their scrubs, head to control consoles 10 or 15 feet away, and Kristen just watches. The robot allows the attending to do the whole procedure himself, so he basically does. He knows she needs practice. He wants to give her control. But he also knows she’d be slower and make more mistakes, and his patient comes first. So Kristin has no hope of getting anywhere near those nerves during this rotation. She’ll be lucky if she operates more than 15 minutes during a four-hour procedure. And she knows that when she slips up, he’ll tap a touch screen, and she’ll be watching again, feeling like a kid in the corner with a dunce cap. Like all the studies of robots and work I’ve done in the last eight years, I started this one with a big, open question: How do we learn to work with intelligent machines? To find out, I spent two and a half years observing dozens of residents and surgeons doing traditional and robotic surgery, interviewing them and in general hanging out with the residents as they tried to learn. I covered 18 of the top US teaching hospitals, and the story was the same. Most residents were in Kristen's shoes. They got to “see one” plenty, but the “do one” was barely available. So they couldn’t struggle, and they weren’t learning. This was important news for surgeons, but I needed to know how widespread it was: Where else was using AI blocking learning on the job? To find out, I’ve connected with a small but growing group of young researchers who’ve done boots-on-the-ground studies of work involving AI in very diverse settings like start-ups, policing, investment banking and online education. Like me, they spent at least a year and many hundreds of hours observing, interviewing and often working side-by-side with the people they studied. We shared data, and I looked for patterns. No matter the industry, the work, the AI, the story was the same. Organizations were trying harder and harder to get results from AI, and they were peeling learners away from expert work as they did it. Start-up managers were outsourcing their customer contact. Cops had to learn to deal with crime forecasts without experts support. Junior bankers were getting cut out of complex analysis, and professors had to build online courses without help. And the effect of all of this was the same as in surgery. Learning on the job was getting much harder. This can’t last. McKinsey estimates that between half a billion and a billion of us are going to have to adapt to AI in our daily work by 2030. And we’re assuming that on-the-job learning will be there for us as we try. Accenture’s latest workers survey showed that most workers learned key skills on the job, not in formal training. So while we talk a lot about its potential future impact, the aspect of AI that may matter most right now is that we’re handling it in a way that blocks learning on the job just when we need it most. Now across all our sites, a small minority found a way to learn. They did it by breaking and bending rules. Approved methods weren’t working, so they bent and broke rules to get hands-on practice with experts. In my setting, residents got involved in robotic surgery in medical school at the expense of their generalist education. And they spent hundreds of extra hours with simulators and recordings of surgery, when you were supposed to learn in the OR. And maybe most importantly, they found ways to struggle in live procedures with limited expert supervision. I call all this “shadow learning,” because it bends the rules and learner’s do it out of the limelight. And everyone turns a blind eye because it gets results. Remember, these are the star pupils of the bunch. Now, obviously, this is not OK, and it’s not sustainable. No one should have to risk getting fired to learn the skills they need to do their job. But we do need to learn from these people. They took serious risks to learn. They understood they needed to protect struggle and challenge in their work so that they could push themselves to tackle hard problems right near the edge of their capacity. They also made sure there was an expert nearby to offer pointers and to backstop against catastrophe. Let’s build this combination of struggle and expert support into each AI implementation. Here’s one clear example I could get of this on the ground. Before robots, if you were a bomb disposal technician, you dealt with an IED by walking up to it. A junior officer was hundreds of feet away, so could only watch and help if you decided it was safe and invited them downrange. Now you sit side-by-side in a bomb-proof truck. You both watched the video feed. They control a distant robot, and you guide the work out loud. Trainees learn better than they did before robots. We can scale this to surgery, start-ups, policing, investment banking, online education and beyond. The good news is we’ve got new tools to do it. The internet and the cloud mean we don’t always need one expert for every trainee, for them to be physically near each other or even to be in the same organization. And we can build AI to help: to coach learners as they struggle, to coach experts as they coach and to connect those two groups in smart ways. There are people at work on systems like this, but they’ve been mostly focused on formal training. And the deeper crisis is in on-the-job learning. We must do better. Today’s problems demand we do better to create work that takes full advantage of AI’s amazing capabilities while enhancing our skills as we do it. That’s the kind of future I dreamed of as a kid. And the time to create it is now. Thank you. (Applause) |
How one journalist risked her life to hold murderers accountable | null | TED-Ed | In March of 1892, three Black grocery store owners in Memphis, Tennessee, were murdered by a mob of white men. Lynchings like these were happening all over the American South, often without any subsequent legal investigation or consequences for the murderers. But this time, a young journalist and friend of the victims set out to expose the truth about these killings. Her reports would shock the nation and launch her career as an investigative journalist, civic leader, and civil rights advocate. Her name was Ida B. Wells. Ida Bell Wells was born into slavery in Holly Springs, Mississippi on July 16, 1862, several months before the Emancipation Proclamation released her and her family. After losing both parents and a brother to yellow fever at the age of 16, she supported her five remaining siblings by working as a schoolteacher in Memphis, Tennessee. During this time, she began working as a journalist. Writing under the pen name “Iola,” by the early 1890s she gained a reputation as a clear voice against racial injustice and become co-owner and editor of the Memphis Free Speech and Headlight newspaper. She had no shortage of material: in the decades following the Civil War, Southern whites attempted to reassert their power by committing crimes against Black people including suppressing their votes, vandalizing their businesses, and even murdering them. After the murder of her friends, Wells launched an investigation into lynching. She analyzed specific cases through newspaper reports and police records, and interviewed people who had lost friends and family to lynch mobs. She risked her life to get this information. As a Black person investigating racially motivated murders, she enraged many of the same southern white men involved in lynchings. Her bravery paid off. Most whites had claimed and subsequently reported that lynchings were responses to criminal acts by Black people. But that was not usually the case. Through her research, Wells showed that these murders were actually a deliberate, brutal tactic to control or punish black people who competed with whites. Her friends, for example, had been lynched when their grocery store became popular enough to divert business from a white competitor. Wells published her findings in 1892. In response, a white mob destroyed her newspaper presses. She was out of town when they struck, but they threatened to kill her if she ever returned to Memphis. So she traveled to New York, where that same year she re-published her research in a pamphlet titled Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases. In 1895, after settling in Chicago, she built on Southern Horrors in a longer piece called The Red Record. Her careful documentation of the horrors of lynching and impassioned public speeches drew international attention. Wells used her newfound fame to amplify her message. She traveled to Europe, where she rallied European outrage against racial violence in the American South in hopes that the US government and public would follow their example. Back in the US, she didn’t hesitate to confront powerful organizations, fighting the segregationist policies of the YMCA and leading a delegation to the White House to protest discriminatory workplace practices. She did all this while disenfranchised herself. Women didn’t win the right to vote until Wells was in her late 50s. And even then, the vote was primarily extended to white women only. Wells was a key player in the battle for voting inclusion, starting a Black women’s suffrage organization in Chicago. But in spite of her deep commitment to women’s rights, she clashed with white leaders of the movement. During a march for women’s suffrage in Washington D.C., she ignored the organizers’ attempt to placate Southern bigotry by placing Black women in the back, and marched up front alongside the white women. She also chafed with other civil rights leaders, who saw her as a dangerous radical. She insisted on airing, in full detail, the atrocities taking place in the South, while others thought doing so would be counterproductive to negotiations with white politicians. Although she participated in the founding of the NAACP, she was soon sidelined from the organization. Wells’ unwillingness to compromise any aspect of her vision of justice shined a light on the weak points of the various rights movements, and ultimately made them stronger— but also made it difficult for her to find a place within them. She was ahead of her time, waging a tireless struggle for equality and justice decades before many had even begun to imagine it possible. |
Everyday sexism | {0: 'Laura Bates is a writer and activist. In 2012, she founded the Everyday Sexism Project, which began as a website where people could share their experiences of daily, normalized sexism, from street harassment to workplace discrimination to sexual assault and rape.'} | TEDxCoventGardenWomen | About 18 months ago, I had a really bad week. I was on my way home from work one night, and it was one of those hot evenings where the traffic was at a standstill, and as I walked down the road, and the cars crawled next to me, some guys started shouting out of their car windows about my legs, about the things that they'd like to do to me. And I ignored them, and I carried on home, and I got on with it, like you do. Then a few nights later, I was on the way home, on the bus, quite late at night, and I was on the phone to my mom. I thought, at first, that the guy next to me just accidentally brushed my leg with his hand. And I carried on talking to my mom. Then I realized that, actually, he was grabbing and groping my leg and moving his hand up towards my crotch. I stood up to move away, but because I was on the phone, I vocalized it, in a way I don't think I would have done otherwise. I said, "On the bus, this guy's groping me." Everybody on that bus looked out the window, or down at their feet, or at their phone. Certainly nobody stepped in, but more than that, there was a real sense of, "Why make a fuss about this, woman? This is your issue, deal with it; don't make us have to think about it." That immediately made me feel ashamed. It made me feel like I'd done something wrong, or I shouldn't have been out that late, or I shouldn't have been wearing what I was wearing, and all of those thoughts that that reaction triggers. And again, I carried on. I went home, I didn't mention it. I got on with it, like you do. Then a couple days later, I was walking down the street in broad daylight. There was a big truck being unloaded, scaffolding was coming off the back of it, and there were two guys working together. As I walked past, one of them turned to the other and said, "Look at the tits on that." Not "her," "that." They started discussing me as if I wasn't there, even though I was one meter away, and I could really clearly hear them. The thing that really hit me about these three incidents was if they hadn't happened in the same week, I never would have thought twice about any one of them. I started asking myself why that was: Why was this so normal? Why was I so used to them? I started thinking back about hundreds of incidents that had happened over the weeks and months and years that I'd never said anything about to anyone, because it was normal. I started talking to other women and asking - the women I knew, older women, younger women, women I met - saying, "Have you ever experienced anything like this?" And I honestly thought that one or two women would have a story. That one or two people would say, "Yes, a few years ago this happened," or, "I once had a job where this happened." But it wasn't like that. It was every woman I spoke to. And it wasn't a few years ago, this one incident. It was hundreds of things. "It was on my way here, this happened, yesterday this happened, most days this happens." But just like me, until I asked them, they'd never told those stories to anyone. Because they were used to it, because it was normal. I started trying to speak up about this, because I was realizing there was this huge problem, and I started trying to talk about it, and again and again, I got the same response. People said, "Stop making a fuss. Women are equal now, more or less." If women are equal now, then to talk about sexism, to complain about sexism, must be overreacting. Or maybe you don't have a sense of humor, or maybe you need to learn to take a compliment, or maybe you're a bit frigid or uptight and you need to learn to take a joke. I thought, maybe they were right, maybe women are equal now, more or less; perhaps I was overreacting. I thought I'd look into it, I'd interrogate that claim and I did. These are some of the things that I found: Women are equal now, more or less. Except in our Houses of Parliament, where the policies that affect all of us are debated and defined, less than one in four MPs is a woman. Women make up one fifth of the membership of the House of Lords. The UK comes joint 57th in the world for gender equality in Parliament. Then I looked into the law, and I found that just four out of 35 Lord Justices of Appeal, and just 18 out of 108 High Court judges are women. I decided to look at the arts. I found that it was reported in 2010, that out of 2,300 works, one of our most prestigious art institutions, the National Gallery, had paintings by just ten women. I found that at the Royal Opera House, it's been over 13 years since a female choreographer was commissioned to create a piece for the main stage. And that out of 573 listed statues up and down the UK commemorating people of interest, just 15 per cent of them are of women. I found that fewer than one in ten of our engineers is female, less than half the proportion of France or Spain; that our Royal Society, one of our most prestigious scientific institutions, has never had a female president, and just five per cent of the current fellowship are women. And that whilst women make up 50 per cent of chemistry undergraduates, there're only six per cent of professors. I found that women write only one fifth of front page newspaper articles, but 84 per cent of those articles are dominated by male subjects or experts. That women directed just five per cent of the 250 major films of 2011, and that only one in five UK architects is female, yet 63 per cent of them report experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace during the course of their career. And then I looked into the crime statistics. Women are equal now, more or less. Except that in the UK over two women a week are killed by a current or former partner. There's a phone call to the police every minute about domestic violence. Every six or seven minutes, a woman is raped, adding up to over 85,000 rapes and 400,000 sexual assaults every year. In the UK, a woman has a one in four chance of becoming a victim of domestic violence, and has a one in five chance of being a victim of a sexual offense. Worldwide, one in three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime. I decided that that argument that women were equal now and we shouldn't be making a fuss, really didn't stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it seemed to me that it really was time to make a fuss. So I set up a simple website because I realized we couldn't solve a problem if people refused even to acknowledge that it existed, and that what I really wanted people to have was that experience that I'd had of seeing these things kind of rolled out in front of them like a map, and realizing how much there was and how bad it still was. I set up a very simple website called "The Everyday Sexism Project," and I asked women and men to add their experiences of gender imbalance on a daily basis; anything from the tiny niggling normalized things, all the way up the scale. I didn't have any funding or any way of publicizing it, so I thought that maybe 20 or 30 women would add their stories, and I hoped it would build a sense of solidarity, and help to raise awareness. But instead, things took off a little more than I expected. [75,000 Women To Take A Stand Against Sexism] 50,000 women from all over the world added their stories in 18 months. They were women and men from countries everywhere, people of all ages, races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities, religious and non-religious, disabled and non-disabled, employed and unemployed. We heard from a seven-year-old disabled girl in a wheelchair and a 74-year-old women in a mobility scooter who encountered almost identical experiences of screamed abuse about "female drivers." A female Reverend in the Church of England was asked if there was a man available to perform the wedding or funeral service - "Nothing personal." A man was congratulated for babysitting his own children. A woman working in the city was asked if she would sit on her bosses lap if she wanted her Christmas bonus. A woman who worked in a video store found that every time she went up the ladder to the storeroom, her boss would smack her on the bum, and when she came down he looked down her top and say: "You know why I hired you." A waitress was told to make a choice between having an abortion or resigning when she fell pregnant. A 15-year-old girl wrote that she knew that she was clever and funny, and she could do anything she wanted to do, but really it didn't matter if she became a doctor or a lawyer, because she knew from the world around her and from the media, that the only thing that really mattered was whether she was sexy, whether her breasts grew and her waist narrowed, and whether boys found her attractive. A 13-year-old girl wrote to say that she'd been showed a video of sex, at school on a boy's mobile phone, a video of porn, and that now she's scared to have sex, she cries every night, because she didn't realize that what sex was was the woman hurting and crying. A woman in Pakistan talked about hiding abuse for the sake of family honor. A woman in Brazil tried to ignore three men who catcalled her only to find that they tried to drag her into their car. In Mexico a woman was told by her university professor: "Calladita te ves más bonita", "You look prettier when you shut up." This is what happened when I gave a speech about politics - [I think Laura should just get her tits out so we can judge for ourselves.] [I'm not sexist or anything but she may be keeping a nice pair...] This was what I got on a daily basis. But not just once a day, up to 200 times a day, just for speaking out. Ironically these people sending messages because they wanted to shut the project down were showing how vital and needed it was. [fuck you stupid slut] The fact that it was so scary for some people, for somebody just to want to talk about equality, just to want to raise women's voices and give their stories a platform, that they had to tell me exactly how they wanted to disembowel me, and with exactly which weapons and in what order, and not just that I should be raped, but exactly how I should be raped, and in which our orifices, and where and when. Then something else started to happen. After we'd received about ten thousand stories, we started getting some which had a very different tone. We started getting success stories. We started hearing from women like one who said that she was a keen runner, who often experienced harassment, but she thought it was just the way things were. Then after reading the stories on the website, she realized other women were standing up to this, and other people were acknowledging that this shouldn't be normal, and it wasn't okay. The next time she went running, a guy happened to call her over from his car and ask for directions. So she went over and helped him, and then he reached out of the car window and grabbed her breasts really hard, really hurt her. She said she felt all of the experiences, the feelings wash over her that she normally felt in that situation - terror, embarrassment, shame, the urge to run - but she also felt something she hadn't felt before, and it was that feeling of those women behind her standing up, and it gave her the strength, just for a moment, to stop and take down the guy's car number plate, and now he's been charged with assault. We were able to take 2,000 of the stories we collected that specifically described women's experiences of harassment and assault on public transport to the British Transport Police when they decided to look at the way that they police sexual offences. We were able to break them down, to hear from women's own voices why they haven't felt able to report, and then work with the British Transport Police to send out the message to people everywhere that they were taking this seriously and they could report it. So far we know that that project - Project Guardian - has raised reports of harassment and assault on the tube by up to 20 per cent. We were able to start talking to girls at universities about the UK definition of sexual assault, which is very simple. Under UK law, if someone touches you anywhere on your body, and the touching is sexual, and you don't consent, and they don't have reason to believe that you consent, it's a form of sexual assault. Girls came up to me saying, "That can't be sexual assault because it's normal." "That can't be sexual assault because that happens when I go out with my friends." "It can't be sexual assault because I won't be able to call it that, people won't take me seriously, I couldn't go to the police." We were able to start to change that attitude and able to start to get reports of people who'd reported things that previously, they'd had no idea they had the right to object to. We also started hearing people's individual stories of standing up, and that was really fascinating and crucial, because these weren't stories of waving banners or going on marches - as valuable as those are - they were stories of women and men around the world finding that own very unique and individual ways to stand up that worked for them and made a difference in their lives. We heard from a woman who was being sexually harassed in the office, who printed off a copy of her workplace sexual harassment policy and put it on every single person's desk, and the harassment stopped. We heard from a woman who said that she was sick of cold callers ringing. She was a single mom and sick of them ringing and asking to speak to the man of the house. Now she puts them on to her six-year old son, (Laughter) and apparently he sings them, "I'm sexy and I know it." (Laughter) We heard from a guy who was walking past a building site, when two builders screamed at two women across the road, "Get your tits out!" So he lifted up his T-shirt instead. We heard from a woman who said that every time someone screams "Nice tits!" at her in the street, she looks down at them, and screams as if she'd never seen them before. (Laughter) (Applause) We heard from a man who said that he'd never really thought about harassment before, but after reading the stories it gave him new insight into what it actually felt like for women, and the next time he saw another guy in the street harassing two women, he ran after him, tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Sorry, can I just ask you, why did you do that?" And the other guy had no answer, because he'd never been asked that question before, because it was just normal, for him too. He'd grown up in a world where that was just normal and something that men did. That's the really important thing here, because sadly and frustratingly, we can no longer point to one specific policy change or piece of legislation that we need to solve this problem. Particularly in the UK, we have excellent legislation now, a really good example is workplace sexual harassment law, which is fantastic. The single biggest category of entries that we receive is from women being harassed in the workplace, being assaulted in the workplace, being discriminated against in the workplace. What we need is a cultural and a social shift in our attitudes towards women, and towards violence against women. Because it's people in the workplace that laugh along and call it "banter" and just joke around when someone grabs her breasts that make her feel unable to report. In a way that's the exciting thing, because it means that we can all be part of the solution. If the Everyday Sexism Project has shown anything, it's that this is a continuum. All of these things are connected. The same ideas and attitudes about women that underlie those more "minor" incidents of sexism and harassment, that we're often told to brush off and not make a fuss about, are the same ideas and attitudes about women that underlie the more serious incidents of assault and rape. What that means is that by helping to contribute to a cultural shift in the way women are perceived - whether it's in the media, in the professional sphere, in the social or economic sphere - we help to shift the way that they're perceived and treated in the other spheres as well. So that does mean that every one of us can be part of the change. It's not necessarily about targeting perpetrators, and it's certainly not about telling victims that they should be behaving in a certain way or reacting in a certain way. It's about the people in the office that made it difficult for that woman to feel able to speak out; it's about the people on that bus that day that looked out of the window. Be part of the change. Be the cool aunt or uncle who buys a chemistry set for their niece, or a play cooker for their nephew. Be the teenager that tells his friends that actually it's not okay or funny to refer to women as sluts or whores. Be the person that lets somebody who's been groped realize that it will be taken seriously, and they have the right to report it. Be the tabloid editor who commissions an article that isn't illustrated with a picture of a pair of women's tits. Be the person at the bus stop that steps in when they see a woman being harassed. Or be the person on the bus that stands up and says it isn't okay. Because our voices are the loudest when we raise them together. (Applause) |
Why should you read Shakespeare's "The Tempest"? | null | TED-Ed | Claps of thunder and flashes of lightning illuminate a swelling sea, as a ship buckles beneath the waves. This is no ordinary storm, but a violent and vengeful tempest, and it sets the stage for Shakespeare’s most enigmatic play. As the skies clear, we are invited into a world that seems far removed from our own, but is rife with familiar concerns about freedom, power, and control. The Tempest is set on a desert island, exposed to the elements and ruled with magic and might by Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan. Betrayed by his brother Antonio, Prospero has been marooned on the island for twelve years with his daughter Miranda and his beloved books. In this time he’s learned the magic of the island and uses it to harness its elementary spirits. He also rules over the island’s only earthly inhabitant, the dejected and demonized Caliban. But after years of plotting revenge, Prospero’s foe is finally in sight. With the help of the fluttering sprite Ariel, the magician destroys his brother’s ship and washes its sailors ashore. Prospero’s plotting even extends to his daughter’s love life, whom he plans to fall for stranded prince Ferdinand. And as Prospero and Ariel close in on Antonio, Caliban joins forces with some drunken sailors, who hatch a comic plot to take the island. The play strips society down to its basest desires, with each faction in hot pursuit of power- be it over the land, other people, or their own destiny. But Shakespeare knows that power is always a moving target; and as he reveals these characters’ dark histories, we begin to wonder if this vicious cycle will ever end. Although Prospero was wronged by Antonio, he has long inflicted his own abuses on the island, hoarding its magical properties and natural re-sources for himself. Caliban especially resents this takeover. The son of Sycorax, a witch who previously ruled the island, he initially helped the exiles find their footing. But he’s since become their slave, and rants with furious regret: “And then I loved thee,/ And showed thee all the qualities o’ th’ isle/ The fresh springs, brine pits, barren place and fertile./ Cursed be I that did so!” With his thunderous language and seething anger, Caliban constantly reminds Prospero of what came before: this island’s mine by Sycorax my mother, Which thou takest from me. Yet Sycorax also abused the island, and imprisoned Ariel until Prospero released him. Now Ariel spends the play hoping to repay his debt and earn his freedom, while Caliban is enslaved indefinitely, or at least as long as Prospero is in charge. For these reasons and many more, The Tempest has often been read as an exploration of colonialism, and the moral dilemmas that come with en-counters of “brave new world(s)." Questions of agency and justice hang over the play: is Caliban the rightful master of the land? Will Ariel flutter free? And is Prospero the mighty overseer- or is there some deeper magic at work, beyond any one character's grasp? Throughout the play, Ariel constantly reminds Prospero of the freedom he is owed. But the question lingers of whether the invader will be able to relinquish his grip. The question of ending one’s reign is particularly potent given that The Tempest is believed to be Shakespeare’s final play. In many ways Prospero’s actions echo that of the great entertainer him-self, who hatched elaborate plots, maneuvered those around him, and cast a spell over characters and audience alike. But by the end of his grand performance of power and control, Prospero’s final lines see him humbled by his audience - and the power that they hold over his creations. "With the help of your good hands./ Gentle breath of yours my sails/ Must fill or else my project fails,/ Which was to please." This evokes Shakespeare’s own role as the great entertainer who surrenders himself, ultimately, to our applause. |
The uncomplicated truth about women's sexuality | {0: "Sarah Barmak teaches journalism and writes about women's health and sexuality, gender and sexual consent."} | TEDxToronto | In our culture we tend to see sex as something that's more important to men than it is to women. But that's not true. What is true is that women often feel more shame in talking about it. Over half of women quietly suffer from some kind of sexual dysfunction. We've been hearing more about the orgasm gap. It's kind of like the wage gap but stickier ... (Laughter) Straight women tend to reach climax less than 60 percent of the time they have sex. Men reach climax 90 percent of the time they have sex. To address these issues, women have been sold flawed medication, testosterone creams ... even untested genital injections. The thing is, female sexuality can't be fixed with a pill. That's because it's not broken: it's misunderstood. Our culture has had a skewed and medically incorrect picture of female sexuality going back centuries. If over half of women have some kind of sexual problem, maybe our idea of sexuality doesn't work for women. We need a clearer understanding of how women actually work. I'm a journalist, and I recently wrote a book about how our understanding of female sexuality is evolving. So sexuality itself was defined back when men dominated science. Male scientists tended to see the female body through their own skewed lens. They could've just asked women about their experience. Instead they probed the female body like it was a foreign landscape. Even today we debate the existence of female ejaculation and the G-spot like we're talking about aliens or UFOs. "Are they really out there?" (Laughter) All this goes double for LGBTQI women's sexuality, which has been hated and erased in specific ways. Ignorance about the female body goes back centuries. It goes back to the beginning of modern medicine. Cast your mind back to the 16th century, a time of scientific revolution in Europe. Men of ideas were challenging old dogmas. They were building telescopes to gaze up at the stars. We were making progress ... sometimes. You see, the fathers of anatomy — and I say "fathers" because, let's face it, they were all dudes — were poking about between women's legs and trying to classify what they saw. They weren't quite sure what to do with the clitoris. It didn't appear to have anything to do with making babies. The leading anatomist at the time declared that it was probably some kind of abnormal growth — (Laughter) and that any woman who had one was probably a hermaphrodite. It got so bad that parents would sometimes have their daughter's clitoris cut off if it was deemed too large. That's right. Something we think of today as female genital mutilation was practiced in the West as late as the 20th century. You have to wonder: if they were that confused about women's bodies, why didn't they just ask women for a little help? But you must be thinking, "All that was history. It's a different world now. Women have everything. They have the birth control pill, they have sexting and Tinder and vajazzling." (Laughter) Things must be better now. But medical ignorance of the female body continues. How many of you recognize this? It's the full structure of the clitoris. We think of the clitoris as this little pea-sized nub, but actually it extends deep into the body. Most of it lies under the skin. It contains almost as much erectile tissue as the penis. It's beautiful, isn't it? It looks a little like a swan. (Laughter) This sculpture is by an artist named Sophia Wallace as part of her "Cliteracy" project. (Laughter) She believes we need more "cliteracy," and it's true, considering that this structure was only fully 3-D mapped by researchers in 2009. That was after we finished mapping the entire human genome. (Laughter) This ignorance has real-life consequences. In a medical journal in 2005, Dr. Helen O'Connell, a urologist, warned her colleagues that this structure was still nowhere to be found in basic medical journals — textbooks like "Gray's Anatomy." This could have serious consequences for surgery. Take this in. Gentlemen: imagine if you were at risk of losing your penis because doctors weren't totally sure where it was or what it looked like. Unsurprisingly, many women aren't too clear on their own genital anatomy either. You can't really blame them. The clitoris is often missing from many sex-ed diagrams, too. Women can sense that their culture views their bodies with confusion at best, outright disdain and disgust at worst. Many women still view their own genitals as dirty or inadequate. They're increasingly comparing their vulvas with the neat and tiny ones they see in pornography. It's one reason why labiaplasty is becoming a skyrocketing business among women and teen girls. Some people feel that all this is a trivial issue. I was writing my book when I was at a dinner party and someone said, "Isn't sexuality a first-world problem? Aren't women dealing with more important issues all over the world?" Of course they are. But I think the impulse to trivialize sex is part of our problem. We live in a culture that seems obsessed with sex. We use it to sell everything. We tell women that looking sexy is one of the most important things you can do. But what we really do is we belittle sex. We reduce it to a sad shadow of what it truly is. Sex is more than just an act. I spoke with Dr. Lori Brotto, a psychologist who treats sexual issues in women, including survivors of trauma. She says the hundreds of women she sees all tend to repeat the same thing. They say, "I don't feel whole." They feel they've lost a connection with their partners and themselves. So what is sex? We've traditionally defined the act of sex as a linear, goal-oriented process. It's something that starts with lust, continues to heavy petting and finishes with a happy ending. Except many women don't experience it this way. It's less linear for them and more circular. This is a new model of women's arousal and desire developed by Dr. Rosemary Basson. It says many things, including that women can begin an encounter for many different reasons that aren't desire, like curiosity. They can finish with a climax or multiple climaxes, or satisfaction without a climax at all. All options are normal. Some people are starting to champion a richer definition of sexuality. Whether you identify as male, female or neither gender, sex is about our relationship to the senses. It's about slowing down, listening to the body, coming into the present moment. It's about our whole health and well-being. In other words, sex at its true breadth isn't profane, it's sacred. That's one reason why women are redefining their sexuality today. They're asking: What is sex for me? So they're experimenting with practices that are less about the happy ending — more about feeling whole. So they're trying out spiritual sex classes, masturbation workshops — even shooting their own porn that celebrates the diversity of real bodies. For anyone who still feels this is a trivial issue, consider this: understanding your body is crucial to the huge issue of sex education and consent. By deeply, intimately knowing what kind of touch feels right, what pressure, what speed, what context, you can better know what kind of touch feels wrong and have the confidence to say so. This isn't ultimately about women having more or better sex. It's not about making sure women have as many orgasms as men. It's about accepting yourself and your own unique experience. It's about you being the expert on your body. It's about defining pleasure and satisfaction on your terms. And if that means you're happiest having no sex at all, that's perfect, too. If we define sex as part of our whole health and well-being, then empowering women and girls to fully own it is a crucial next step toward equality. And I think it would be a better world not just for women but for everyone. Thank you. (Applause) |
Why working from home is good for business | {0: 'Matt Mullenweg is the co-founder of the open-source blogging platform WordPress, the most popular publishing platform on the web, and the founder and CEO of Automattic.'} | The Way We Work | The basic problem with working in an office is you're just not in control of your work environment. [The Way We Work] Howdy, my name is Matt, and I'm the CEO of Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, Jetpack and WooCommerce. We're coming up on over 800 employees, and they live everywhere, from California to Alabama, Mississippi, to where I live in Texas. They're also in 67 countries. Canada, Mexico, India, New Zealand. Some of them choose not even to have a home base, they're nomads. Whether they are in RVs or traveling through Airbnbs, they are in new places every day, week or month. As long as they can find good Wi-Fi, we don't care where they are. Our focus on distributed work didn't happen accidentally. It was a conscious choice from the very beginning. Notice I don't use the word "remote," because it sets up the expectation, that some people are essential and some aren't. I use the word "distributed" to describe what we do, where everyone is on an equal playing field. I think a distributed workforce is the most effective way to build a company. The key is you have to approach it consciously. When we started WordPress, many of the first 20 hires were people I'd never met in person. But we'd collaborated online, sometimes for years. I wanted to continue that for one simple reason. I believe that talent and intelligence are equally distributed throughout the world. But opportunity is not. In Silicon Valley, the big tech companies fish from essentially the same small pond or bay. A distributed company can fish from the entire ocean. Instead of hiring someone who grew up in Japan but lives in California, you can gain someone who lives, works, wakes up and goes to sleep wherever they are in the world. They bring a different understanding of that culture and a different lived experience. At the base of the decision to go distributed, there's a desire to give people autonomy over how they do their work. Unless you're in a role where specific hours are important, you can make your own schedule. Everyone can have a corner office, their windows, the food they want to eat, you can choose when there's music and when there's silence. You can choose what temperature the room should be. You can save the time you'd spend commuting and put it into things that are important to you. A distributed workforce is ideal for a technology company. But people often ask me, "This works great for y'all, but what about everyone else?" If you have an office, you can do a few things to build distributed capability. First: document everything. In an office, it's easy to make decisions in the moment, in the kitchen, in the hall. But if people work remotely and some members of the team are having those conversations they don't have access to, they'll see these decisions being made without understanding the why. Always leave a trail of where you were and what you were thinking about. This allows others to pick up where you left off. It allows people in different time zones to interact, it's also great to think about as an organization evolves, people leaving and people joining. Try to have as much communication as possible online. When everything's shared and public, it allows new people to catch up quickly. You also need to find the right tools. There are so many apps and services that help with day-to-day communication, video conferencing, project management. The things that changed how you work probably aren't objects anymore. They're things you access through your computer. So experiment with different tools that enable collaboration, see what works. Create productive, face-to-face time. In a traditional office, you're in the same place 48 weeks out of the year and you might have three or four weeks apart. We try to flip that: we come together for short, intense bursts. Once a year we do a grand meet-up where the entire company comes together for a week. It's half-work, half-play. The primary goal is connecting people. We want to make sure everyone's aligned and on the same page, and they have a deeper connection with their colleagues. When they work together the rest of the year, they can bring together that understanding and empathy. And the final practice: give people the flexibility to make their own work environment. Every person at Automattic has a co-working stipend that they can put towards a co-working space or just to buy coffee, so they don't get kicked out of the coffee shop. One group in Seattle decided to pool their stipends together and rented a workspace on a fishing pier. Each person who joins the company gets a home-office stipend. This is money they can invest in getting the right chair, monitor, the right desk setup, so they can have the most productive environment for them. Today, there are just a few companies that are distributed first. In a decade or two, I predict that 90 percent of companies that are going to be changing the course of the world are going to function this way. They will evolve to be distributed first, or they'll be replaced by those that are. As you think about what you're going to build next, consider how you can tap into global talent, give people autonomy to live and work where they feel they should and still participate fully in whatever it is that you're creating together. |
8 lessons on building a company people enjoy working for | {0: 'Patty McCord served as chief talent officer of Netflix for 14 years and helped create the Netflix Culture Deck. Since it was first posted on the web, the Culture Deck has been viewed more than 15 million times, and Sheryl Sandberg has said that it "may be the most important document ever to come out of Silicon Valley."'} | The Way We Work | HR jargon makes me crazy. We have to have all these stupid acronyms that describe things that nobody understands: OKRs and PIPs. I think we can run our businesses by just talking to each other like regular human beings. We might actually get more done. [The Way We Work] I really always wanted to be an HR professional, I wanted to be able to speak the language of management. And you know what I've learned after all this time? I don't think any of it matters. There's all kinds of things that we call "best practices" that aren't best practices at all. How do we know it's best? We don't measure this stuff. In fact, I've learned that "best practices" usually means copying what everybody else does. Our world is changing and evolving all the time. Here are some lessons to help you adapt. Lesson one: Your employees are adults. You know, we've created so many layers and so many processes and so many guidelines to keep those employees in place that we've ended up with systems that treat people like they're children. And they're not. Fully formed adults walk in the door every single day. They have rent payments, they have obligations, they're members of society, they want to create a difference in the world. So if we start with the assumption that everybody comes to work to do an amazing job, you'd be surprised what you get. Lesson two: The job of management isn't to control people, it's to build great teams. When managers build great teams, here's how you know it. They've done amazing stuff. Customers are really happy. Those are the metrics that really matter. Not the metrics of: "Do you come to work on time?" "Did you take your vacation?" "Did you follow the rules?" "Did you ask for permission?" Lesson three: People want to do work that means something. After they do it, they should be free to move on. Careers are journeys. Nobody's going to want to do the same thing for 60 years. So the idea of keeping people for the sake of keeping them really hurts both of us. Instead, what if we created companies that were great places to be from? And everyone who leaves you becomes an ambassador for not only your product, but who you are and how you operate. And when you spread that kind of excitement throughout the world, then we make all of our companies better. Lesson four: Everyone in your company should understand the business. Now, based on the assumption that we've got smart adults here, the most important thing we can teach them is how our business works. When I look at companies that are moving fast, that are really innovative and that are doing amazing things with agility and speed, it's because they're collaborative. The best thing that we can do is constantly teach each other what we do, what matters to us, what we measure, what goodness looks like, so that we can all drive towards achieving the same thing. Lesson five: Everyone in your company should be able to handle the truth. You know why people say giving feedback is so hard? They don't practice. Let's take the annual performance review. What else do you do in your whole life that you're really good at that you only do once a year? Here's what I found: humans can hear anything if it's true. So let's rethink the word "feedback," and think about it as telling people the truth, the honest truth, about what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong, in the moment when they're doing it. That good thing you just did, whoo! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Go do that again. And people will do that again, today, three more times. Lesson six: Your company needs to live out its values. I was talking to a company not long ago, to the CEO. He was having trouble because the company was rocky and things weren't getting done on time, and he felt like things were sloppy. This also was a man who, I observed, never showed up to any meeting on time. Ever. If you're part of a leadership team, the most important thing that you can do to "uphold your values" is to live them. People can't be what they can't see. We say, "Yes, we're here for equality," and then we proudly pound our chest because we'd achieved 30 percent representation of women on an executive team. Well that's not equal, that's 30 percent. Lesson seven: All start-up ideas are stupid. I spend a lot of time with start-ups, and I have a lot of friends that work in larger, more established companies. They are always pooh-poohing the companies that I work with. "That is such a stupid idea." Well, guess what: all start-up ideas are stupid. If they were reasonable, somebody else would have already been doing them. Lesson eight: Every company needs to be excited for change. Beware of the smoke of nostalgia. If you find yourself saying, "Remember the way it used to be?" I want you to shift your thinking to say, "Think about the way it's going to be." If I had a dream company, I would walk in the door and I would say, "Everything's changed, all bets are off. We were running as fast as we can to the right, and now we'll take a hard left." And everybody would go "Yes!" It's a pretty exciting world out there, and it's changing all the time. The more we embrace it and get excited about it, the more fun we're going to have. |
3 psychological tricks to help you save money | {0: 'Wendy De La Rosa is a co-founder of Common Cents Lab, where she focuses on using behavioral science to help people make better financial decisions.'} | The Way We Work | We all know that saving is important and is something that we should be doing. And yet, overall, we're doing less and less of it. [The Way We Work] We know what we need to do. The question is: How do we do it? And that's what I'm here to teach you. Your savings behavior isn't a question of how smart you are or how much willpower you have. The amount we save depends on the environmental cues around us. Let me give you an example. We ran a study in which, in one group, we showed people their income on a monthly basis. In another group, we showed people their income on a weekly basis. And what we found was that people who saw their income on a weekly basis were able to budget better throughout the month. Now, it's important to know that we didn't change how much money people were receiving, we just changed the environment in which they understood their income. And environmental cues like this have an impact. So I'm not going to share tricks with you that you already know. I'm not going to tell you how to open up a savings account or how to start saving for your retirement. What I am going to share with you is how to bridge this gap from your intentions to save and your actions. Are you ready? Here's number one: harness the power of pre-commitment. Fundamentally, we think about ourselves in two different ways: our present self and our future self. In the future, we're perfect. In the future, we're going to save for retirement, we're going to lose weight, we're going to call our parents more. But we oftentimes forget that our future self is exactly the same person as our present self. We know that one of the best times to save is when you get your tax return. So we tried an A/B test. In the first group, we texted people in early February, hopefully before they even filed for their taxes. And we asked them, "If you get a tax refund, what percentage would you like to save?" Now this is a really hard question. They didn't know if they would receive a tax refund or how much. But we asked the question anyway. In the second group, we asked people right after they received their refund, "What percentage would you like to save?" Now, here's what happened. In that second condition, when people just received their tax refund, they wanted to save about 17 percent of their tax refund. But in the condition when we asked people before they even filed their taxes, savings rates increased from 17 percent to 27 percent when we asked in February. Why? Because you're committing for your future self, and of course your future self can save 27 percent. These large changes in savings behavior came from the fact that we changed the decision-making environment. We want you to be able to harness that same power. So take a moment and think about the ways in which you can sign up your future self for something that you know today will be a little bit hard. Sign up for an app that lets you make savings decisions in advance. The trick is, you have to have that binding contract. Number two: use transition moments to your advantage. We did an experiment with a website that helps older adults share their housing. We ran two ads on social media, targeted to the same population of 64-year-olds. In one group, we said, "Hey, you're getting older. Are you ready for retirement? House sharing can help." In the second group, we got a little bit more specific and said, "You're 64 turning 65. Are you ready for retirement? House sharing can help." What we're doing in that second group is highlighting that a transition is happening. All of a sudden, we saw click-through rates, and ultimately sign-up rates, increase when we highlight that. In psychology, we call this the "fresh start effect." Whether it's the start of a new year or even a new season, your motivation to act increases. So right now, put a meeting request on your calendar for the day before your next birthday. Identify the one financial thing you most want to do. And commit yourself to it. The third and final trick: get a handle on small, frequent purchases. We've run a few different studies and found that the number one purchase people say they regret, after bank fees, is eating out. It's a frequent purchase we make almost every day, and it's death by a thousand cuts. A coffee here, a burrito there ... It adds up and decreases our ability to save. Back when I lived in New York City, I looked at my expenses and saw that I spent over 2,000 dollars on ride-sharing apps. It was more than my New York City rent. I vowed to make a change. And the next month, I spent 2,000 dollars again — no change, because the information alone didn't change my behavior. I didn't change my environment. So now that I was 4,000 dollars in the hole, I did two things. The first is that I unlinked my credit card from my car-sharing apps. Instead, I linked a debit card that only had 300 dollars a month. If I needed more, I had to go through the whole process of adding a new card, and we know that every click, every barrier, changes our behavior. We aren't machines. We don't carry around an abacus every day, adding up what we're spending, in comparison to what we wanted. But what our brains are very good at is counting up the number of times we've done something. So I gave myself a limit. I can only use ride-sharing apps three times a week. It forced me to ration my travels. I got a handle on my car-sharing expenses to the benefit of my husband, because of the environmental changes that I did. So get a handle on whatever that purchase is for you, and change your environment to make it harder to do so. Those are my tips for you. But I want you to remember one thing. As human beings, we can be irrational when it comes to saving and spending and budgeting. But luckily, we know this about ourselves, and we can predict how we'll act under certain environments. Let's do that with saving. Let's change our environment to help our future selves. |
Why you should bring your whole self to work | {0: 'By day, Dan Clay is a partner at a brand and innovation consultancy. His more well-known persona is Carrie Dragshaw.'} | The Way We Work | A leader is steady, firm, decisive, unwavering. Never let 'em see you sweat, always have an answer. [The Way We Work] My name is Dan, I'm a partner at a global creative consultancy. But there's another side to me: Carrie Dragshaw, the character I created on Instagram. As I thought about my double life, I couldn't help but wonder ... When your true self is a little nontraditional, how much of it can you really bring to the office? For some of us is authenticity off-limits? For the first 10 years of my career, I thought there was one way to be a leader: decisive and serious. But that's not me. So I'd put on basically office drag to fit the role: I'd talk in a deeper voice, try to hold in my hand motions. I'm someone who gets really excited about things, so I'd temper that. I had this little voice in my head, telling me, "You're too gay, too feminine, too flamboyant." I had one well-intentioned adviser who said, "Everyone knows you're gay. And that's great. But you don't need to beat them over the head with it." Cut to: me in a tutu, for Halloween 2016. I dressed up as my favorite TV show character, Carrie Bradshaw, thinking my friends would get a kick out of it. And then, things got crazy. The post went viral, and at first it was pure fun. I started getting these incredible messages from people about how happy it made them, how it encouraged them to be their authentic selves. And I started to think, maybe this is the time to tell that little voice in my head to just shut up and let myself be me. But then things got a little too big. Carrie Dragshaw was everywhere — In the "New York Post", "US Weekly" — and I got terrified: "What would my bosses think? Would my coworkers still respect me as a leader? What would my clients think?" I thought I was going to have to get a different job. But then, something happened, something small. I got a text from my boss, it wasn't long, it just said, "Wow, Cosmo!" With a link to an article that had just gone up about me. And it let me put that little, scared voice away and just be excited about this whole new world, rather than freaked out. That's the power of one person, sometimes all it takes is one ally to make you feel comfortable. And my coworkers started acting differently. They became more open, more playful with me, it was as if knowing this other side of me gave them permission to be more of themselves as well. I thought that openness and vulnerability would actually decrease my standing with my team. But it's done the opposite. Two years in, I never could have imagined that this part of me would not just be embraced, but could actually help my career. Now, I'm lucky. I work in New York City, in an office where creativity is valued and I was already pretty established in my career when all of this started. Maybe that's you, maybe it isn't. But all of this has taught me so much about just the importance of bringing your whole self to work. And it's really challenged my own misperceptions about what it takes to be successful. There's no one kind of way to be a leader. It's about finding your strengths and finding ways to amplify them. Before, if a meeting was hard, I'd put on my perfect leader mask. Now, I can say, "Gosh, that was frustrating." We can talk about challenges and struggles in an open way, rather than everybody pretending that they're fine until it's too late. Concealing an identity takes work. Think of all the wasted energy spent pretending, wishing you were someone different. What's most interesting to me, though, is that in this big study of covering, 93 percent of those who say they're doing it also believe their organization values inclusion. So clearly, our workplaces and all of our strange inner voices have a long way to go on acceptance. There's a big difference between adapting and disguising. And I think I learned that a little late. Personally, I'm taking all of this as a call to be the ally who, like my boss did for me, lets people know that it's OK to open up. If you're gay, or proud of your ethnic background, or have a disability or are deeply religious, see what it's like being your full self at work. You might be pleasantly surprised. |
7 common questions about workplace romance | {0: 'Amy Nicole Baker is an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Haven.'} | The Way We Work | Workplace romance can be a tricky topic. (Music) [The Way We Work] How do we manage the boundaries between our personal and professional lives? How do we deal with gender imbalances and power dynamics in the workplace? There's a lot of gray area in workplace romance. I'd like to take a few minutes and answer some of your frequently asked questions. So, question one: Should I date my coworker? Uh ... it depends. Do you want to date your coworker for a bit of fun? Do you want to date your coworker to hook up? Because then you're really better off on Tinder. If you want to date your coworker because you really, sincerely think you're falling in love with them or there's a real potential for a long-term, committed relationship, maybe you should date your coworker. Studies show that your coworkers are generally positive about it if they perceive that you're falling in love and genuinely care about each other. It's when your coworkers sense that something else is in play — that can be disruptive. Question two: Should I date my boss? In almost all cases, no, you should not date your boss, because now, you've got a power dynamic. When there's a relationship between a boss and a subordinate, it generates a lot of negative feelings, and the negative feelings tend to fall on the person who's lower on the totem pole. People usually assume some kind of favoritism, some kind of inside knowledge, and there can be resentment stirred up by that. There was a study published last year that suggested dating a superior can even have a negative impact on your career. The researchers asked third-party evaluators online to imagine that they worked at a law firm. They asked them to make recommendations on which employee should get picked for a special training program and which should get promoted to partner. They looked at credentials for imaginary employees, and when it was stated that an employee had been dating or was in a relationship with a superior, the evaluators were less likely to pick that person for the training program or the promotion, even if they had the exact same credentials as someone who wasn't dating their boss. The evaluators were also quick to dismiss their accomplishments. Question three: Can I date someone who reports to me? Still a big no. You may not feel like you're really the boss, right? But you are, and there's a power dynamic there that's simply not there for other couples. If you really believe there is a sincere, honestly felt, personal connection that would be lasting and meaningful, one of you may need to move, and it shouldn't always be the person who's lower in the company pecking order. Question four: I've just started seeing a coworker. How do we handle things? I get this question a lot. "Are they dating? Are they not dating?" Don't keep it a secret. You don't have to make a big deal of it, but secrecy tends to be corrosive. People tend to see workplace couples as a coalition or a unit, so try to make it clear to your coworkers that you're not the same person; you love each other, but you are going to disagree. Question five: Why are coworkers often attracted to each other? Well, the obvious answer is people tend to be attracted to each other the more time they spend together. But there's another ingredient that has to be added: attraction tends to happen when there's work that demands close collaboration. So imagine you have a big group project with a tight deadline and you're working late nights and brainstorming ideas. You look up, and across the table, one of your colleagues throws out a really great idea. You may feel something, and that's natural. We call this task interdependence. It's a ripe ground for attraction. The second reason why people at work are attracted to each other is they may often be similar to each other. There's two old adages: "Birds of a feather flock together." And "Opposites attract." Well, the psychological research suggests ... birds of a feather flock together, and we like people who are like us. Question six: My coworkers are flirting. I'm annoyed. What do I do? Some researchers argue that for people flirting at work, flirting is good and it boosts creativity. But my own research suggests things are different for people who are watching or who are subjected to the flirting. It can be awkward, right? Witnessing flirtation in the workplace creates a sense of not knowing the rules, not knowing what's going on, or maybe seeing something that you shouldn't be seeing. People who frequently witness flirting at work — they actually report feeling less satisfied in their jobs, and they feel less valued by their company. They're more likely to give a negative appraisal of the work environment, and they may even consider leaving. For women, this association can be even stronger. This appears to be the case even when people report not being bothered by the flirting. It's true even when they say they enjoy it. So, a flirtatious environment really could be toxic. Question seven: Do I need a policy on workplace relationships? You certainly need a policy on a sexual harassment, and I think most HR departments recognize that. But for the kind of consensual behavior we've been talking about, it's a little different. As much as people in HR would love to wave a magic wand and say, "Thou shall not fall in love at work," it's just not realistic. Emotional connection and sexuality is who we are. I kind of want you to flip the script a little bit. I encourage HR to really think more broadly about their role in not necessarily stamping out office romance, because I don't think that's realistic, but how do I help create a workplace climate and culture where people feel respected for their individual contributions, not for their appearance or their gender, or their personal relationships? So the larger question is, how do you make sure people are valued and respected? |
How to make applying for jobs less painful | {0: 'Priyanka Jain heads up product for pymetrics, an NYC-based startup that uses neuroscience and AI to make hiring more diverse and effective.'} | The Way We Work | Applying for jobs online is one of the worst digital experiences of our time. And applying for jobs in person really isn't much better. [The Way We Work] Hiring as we know it is broken on many fronts. It's a terrible experience for people. About 75 percent of people who applied to jobs using various methods in the past year said they never heard anything back from the employer. And at the company level it's not much better. 46 percent of people get fired or quit within the first year of starting their jobs. It's pretty mind-blowing. It's also bad for the economy. For the first time in history, we have more open jobs than we have unemployed people, and to me that screams that we have a problem. I believe that at the crux of all of this is a single piece of paper: the résumé. A résumé definitely has some useful pieces in it: what roles people have had, computer skills, what languages they speak, but what it misses is what they have the potential to do that they might not have had the opportunity to do in the past. And with such a quickly changing economy where jobs are coming online that might require skills that nobody has, if we only look at what someone has done in the past, we're not going to be able to match people to the jobs of the future. So this is where I think technology can be really helpful. You've probably seen that algorithms have gotten pretty good at matching people to things, but what if we could use that same technology to actually help us find jobs that we're really well-suited for? But I know what you're thinking. Algorithms picking your next job sounds a little bit scary, but there is one thing that has been shown to be really predictive of someone's future success in a job, and that's what's called a multimeasure test. Multimeasure tests really aren't anything new, but they used to be really expensive and required a PhD sitting across from you and answering lots of questions and writing reports. Multimeasure tests are a way to understand someone's inherent traits — your memory, your attentiveness. What if we could take multimeasure tests and make them scalable and accessible, and provide data to employers about really what the traits are of someone who can make them a good fit for a job? This all sounds abstract. Let's try one of the games together. You're about to see a flashing circle, and your job is going to be to clap when the circle is red and do nothing when it's green. [Ready?] [Begin!] [Green circle] [Green circle] [Red circle] [Green circle] [Red circle] Maybe you're the type of person who claps the millisecond after a red circle appears. Or maybe you're the type of person who takes just a little bit longer to be 100 percent sure. Or maybe you clap on green even though you're not supposed to. The cool thing here is that this isn't like a standardized test where some people are employable and some people aren't. Instead it's about understanding the fit between your characteristics and what would make you good a certain job. We found that if you clap late on red and you never clap on the green, you might be high in attentiveness and high in restraint. People in that quadrant tend to be great students, great test-takers, great at project management or accounting. But if you clap immediately on red and sometimes clap on green, that might mean that you're more impulsive and creative, and we've found that top-performing salespeople often embody these traits. The way we actually use this in hiring is we have top performers in a role go through neuroscience exercises like this one. Then we develop an algorithm that understands what makes those top performers unique. And then when people apply to the job, we're able to surface the candidates who might be best suited for that job. So you might be thinking there's a danger in this. The work world today is not the most diverse and if we're building algorithms based on current top performers, how do we make sure that we're not just perpetuating the biases that already exist? For example, if we were building an algorithm based on top performing CEOs and use the S&P 500 as a training set, you would actually find that you're more likely to hire a white man named John than any woman. And that's the reality of who's in those roles right now. But technology actually poses a really interesting opportunity. We can create algorithms that are more equitable and more fair than human beings have ever been. Every algorithm that we put into production has been pretested to ensure that it doesn't favor any gender or ethnicity. And if there's any population that's being overfavored, we can actually alter the algorithm until that's no longer true. When we focus on the inherent characteristics that can make somebody a good fit for a job, we can transcend racism, classism, sexism, ageism — even good schoolism. Our best technology and algorithms shouldn't just be used for helping us find our next movie binge or new favorite Justin Bieber song. Imagine if we could harness the power of technology to get real guidance on what we should be doing based on who we are at a deeper level. |
This is the side hustle revolution | {0: 'Nicaila Matthews Okome is the creator and host of "Side Hustle Pro," the first and only podcast to spotlight bold, black women entrepreneurs who have scaled from side hustle to profitable business.'} | The Way We Work | I can't think of anyone who just has one interest in life, and that's all they want to do for the rest of their life. [The Way We Work] Around 15 percent of American workers don't have traditional full-time jobs. They're half-time, part-time, contract workers or temps. The term "side hustle" just seems to fit with this ethos where people are putting together a few different things to make a living. The word "side hustle" has its roots in popular African American newspapers. In the 1920s, these papers used the word "hustle" to refer to some kind of scam. By the 1950s, they were using "side hustle" to refer to legitimate work, too. A side hustle is a little different than a second job. A second job is about necessity. While a side hustle can certainly bring in extra income, it's a little more aspirational. Side hustle captures a certain kind of scrappy, entrepreneurial spirit. I've interviewed more than 100 women of color on Side Hustle Pro who started successful side hustles. Nailah Ellis-Brown started Ellis Island Tea out of her trunk. Arsha Jones started her famous Capital City Co Mambo Sauce with one product and a PayPal link. All these women are running side hustles. What exactly does this tell us? First, that people are seeing opportunity within their communities. The goal here isn't necessarily to be the next Coca-Cola or Google. Scale is great, but there's also beauty in a successful business that's built for a specific audience. Second, people are increasingly interested in being their own boss. Being your own boss takes discipline. Self-made millionaires tend to have one big trait in common: they make decisions, hold themselves accountable and push through in the face of challenges. A side hustle is a great way to try out being your own boss and see if you have those skills before fully stepping out on your own. Third, people are multipassionate. I want to stress that not every side hustle is started because someone hates their job. Many are started simply because people are interested in lots of different things. Lisa Price, who started a hair and beauty company, Carol's Daughter, was working in television production when she started side-hustling. She says she actually loved her job. It was the fact that she came home every day feeling good that led her to start experimenting with making fragrances and hair oils in her kitchen. We're always being taught that we're supposed to know what we want to do when we grow up. But when you're multipassionate, you want to dip and dabble in those different things. It doesn't mean that you're not committed to your job, it just means that you have other outlets that bring you joy. And that brings me to the final thing the side hustle revolution shows us: people want to make a bet on themselves. Side hustles are appealing because it's easier to take that chance when you have some kind of income coming in. Even if a side hustle doesn't take off, it's still an investment in yourself. Forty-one percent of millennials who have a side hustle say they've shared this information with their employers. They're not worried about their managers reacting negatively. They recognize all the learning and growth that comes with running a side hustle. Everyone is looking to feel fulfilled. Thirty-eight percent of baby boomers feel some kind of regret about their career. No one wants that. The truth is that there are many different ways to find happiness through what we do. Side hustles are about embracing that hope that we can be the ones making the decisions in how we spend our work lives. |
This is what makes employees happy at work | {0: 'Michael C. Bush is helping to build a better world by helping organizations become great places to work for all.'} | The Way We Work | We survey CEOs, police officers, truck drivers, cooks, engineers. If people are working, we've surveyed them. And what we know, in terms of their happiness: workers all want the same things. [The Way We Work] There's three billion working people in the world. And about 40 percent of them would say they're happy at work. That means about 1.8 billion, or almost two billion people, are not happy at work. What does that do, both to those people and the organizations that they work in? Well, let's talk about money. Organizations that have a lot of happy employees have three times the revenue growth, compared to organizations where that's not true. They outperform the stock market by a factor of three. And if you look at employee turnover, it's half that of organizations that have a lot of unhappy employees. The miracle thing is, you don't have to spend more money to make this happen. It's not about ping-pong tables and massages and pet walking. It's not about the perks. It's all about how they're treated by their leaders and by the people that they work with. So I'd like to share a few ideas that create happy employees. Idea number one: in organizations where employees are happy, what you find is two things are present: trust and respect. Leaders often say, "We trust our employees. We empower our employees." And then when an employee needs a laptop — and this is a true example — 15 people have to approve that laptop. So for the employee, all the words are right, but 15 levels of approval for a $1,500 laptop? You've actually spent more money than the laptop, on the approval. And the employee feels maybe they're really not trusted. So what can an organization do to have a high level of trust? The first organization that comes to mind is Four Seasons. They have magnificent properties all around the world. And their employees are told, "Do whatever you think is right when servicing the customer." To hand that trust to your employees to do whatever they think is right makes the employees feel great. And this is why they're known for delivering some of the best service in the world. Idea number two: fairness. The thing that erodes trust in an organization faster than anything else is when employees feel that they're being treated unfairly. Employees want to be treated the same, regardless of their rank or their tenure or their age or their experience or their job category, compared to anyone else. When I think about great organizations who get fairness right, the first organization that comes to mind is Salesforce. They found that men and women working in the same job with the same level of proficiency were making different amounts of money. So immediately, they calculated the difference, and they invested three million dollars to try and balance things out. Idea number three is listening. So, to be a listener who connects with all types of people, we have to unlearn a few things. We've all been taught about active listening and eye contact — an intense stare and a compassionate look. That's not listening. Repeating what the person says — that's not listening. Being humble and always hunting and searching for the best idea possible — that's what listening is. And employees can feel whether you're doing that or not. They want to know, when they talk to you and share an idea, did you consider it when you made a decision? The one thing that everybody appreciates and wants when they're speaking is to know that what they say matters so much you might actually change your mind. Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation? We all know the things we need to change, the things that we need to do differently. The way you behave, the way you treat others, the way you respond, the way you support, defines the work experience for everyone around you. Changing to be a better person — the world is littered with those failures. But changing because there's something you believe in, some purpose that you have, where you're willing to risk almost everything because it's so important to you — that's the reason to change. If it's not, you should probably find a different place to work. |
Dark matter: The matter we can't see | {0: 'James Gillies is the Head of Communication at CERN. He holds a DPhil in particle physics from the University of Oxford.'} | TED-Ed | The ancient Greeks had a great idea: The universe is simple. In their minds, all you needed to make it were four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. As theories go, it's a beautiful one. It has simplicity and elegance. It says that by combining the four basic elements in different ways, you could produce all the wonderful diversity of the universe. Earth and fire, for example, give you things that are dry. Air and water, things that are wet. But as theories go, it had a problem. It didn't predict anything that could be measured, and measurement is the basis of experimental science. Worse still, the theory was wrong. But the Greeks were great scientists of the mind and in the 5th century B.C., Leucippus of Miletus came up with one of the most enduring scientific ideas ever. Everything we see is made up of tiny, indivisible bits of stuff called atoms. This theory is simple and elegant, and it has the advantage over the earth, air, fire, and water theory of being right. Centuries of scientific thought and experimentation have established that the real elements, things like hydrogen, carbon, and iron, can be broken down into atoms. In Leucippus's theory, the atom is the smallest, indivisible bit of stuff that's still recognizable as hydrogen, carbon, or iron. The only thing wrong with Leucippus's idea is that atoms are, in fact, divisible. Furthermore, his atoms idea turns out to explain just a small part of what the universe is made of. What appears to be the ordinary stuff of the universe is, in fact, quite rare. Leucippus's atoms, and the things they're made of, actually make up only about 5% of what we know to be there. Physicists know the rest of the universe, 95% of it, as the dark universe, made of dark matter and dark energy. How do we know this? Well, we know because we look at things and we see them. That might seem rather simplistic, but it's actually quite profound. All the stuff that's made of atoms is visible. Light bounces off it, and we can see it. When we look out into space, we see stars and galaxies. Some of them, like the one we live in, are beautiful, spiral shapes, spinning gracefully through space. When scientists first measured the motion of groups of galaxies in the 1930's and weighed the amount of matter they contained, they were in for a surprise. They found that there's not enough visible stuff in those groups to hold them together. Later measurements of individual galaxies confirmed this puzzling result. There's simply not enough visible stuff in galaxies to provide enough gravity to hold them together. From what we can see, they ought to fly apart, but they don't. So there must be stuff there that we can't see. We call that stuff dark matter. The best evidence for dark matter today comes from measurements of something called the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang, but that's another story. All of the evidence we have says that dark matter is there and it accounts for much of the stuff in those beautiful spiral galaxies that fill the heavens. So where does that leave us? We've long known that the heavens do not revolve around us and that we're residents of a fairly ordinary planet, orbiting a fairly ordinary star, in the spiral arm of a fairly ordinary galaxy. The discovery of dark matter took us one step further away from the center of things. It told us that the stuff we're made of is only a small fraction of what makes up the universe. But there was more to come. Early this century, scientists studying the outer reaches of the universe confirmed that not only is everything moving apart from everything else, as you would expect in a universe that began in hot, dense big bang, but that the universe's expansion also seems to be accelerating. What's that about? Either there is some kind of energy pushing this acceleration, just like you provide energy to accelerate a car, or gravity does not behave exactly as we think. Most scientists think it's the former, that there's some kind of energy driving the acceleration, and they called it dark energy. Today's best measurements allow us to work out just how much of the universe is dark. It looks as if dark energy makes up about 68% of the universe and dark matter about 27%, leaving just 5% for us and everything else we can actually see. So what's the dark stuff made of? We don't know, but there's one theory, called supersymmetry, that could explain some of it. Supersymmetry, or SUSY for short, predicts a whole range of new particles, some of which could make up the dark matter. If we found evidence for SUSY, we could go from understanding 5% of our universe, the things we can actually see, to around a third. Not bad for a day's work. Dark energy would probably be harder to understand, but there are some speculative theories out there that might point the way. Among them are theories that go back to that first great idea of the ancient Greeks, the idea that we began with several minutes ago, the idea that the universe must be simple. These theories predict that there is just a single element from which all the universe's wonderful diversity stems, a vibrating string. The idea is that all the particles we know today are just different harmonics on the string. Unfortunately, string theories today are, as yet, untestable. But, with so much of the universe waiting to be explored, the stakes are high. Does all of this make you feel small? It shouldn't. Instead, you should marvel in the fact that, as far as we know, you are a member of the only species in the universe able even to begin to grasp its wonders, and you're living at the right time to see our understanding explode. |
How we can help the "forgotten middle" reach their full potential | {0: 'Danielle R. Moss is chief executive officer of Oliver Scholars, helping it prepare high-potential Black and Latinx students from underserved New York City communities for success.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | So, I want to talk to you about the forgotten middle. To me, they are the students, coworkers and plain old regular folks who are often overlooked because they're seen as neither exceptional nor problematic. They're the kids we think we can ignore because their needs for support don't seem particularly urgent. They're the coworkers who actually keep the engines of our organizations running, but who aren't seen as the innovators who drive excellence. In many ways, we overlook the folks in the middle because they don't keep us up awake at night wondering what crazy thing they're going to come up with next. (Laughter) And the truth is that we've come to rely on their complacency and sense of disconnection because it makes our work easier. You see, I know a little bit about the forgotten middle. As a junior high school student, I hung out in the middle. For a long time, I had been a good student. But seventh grade was a game changer. I spent my days gossiping, passing notes, generally goofing off with my friends. I spent my homework time on the phone, reviewing each day's events. And in many ways, although I was a typical 12-year-old girl, my ambivalence about my education led to pretty average grades. Luckily for me, my mother understood something important, and that was that my location was not my destination. As a former research librarian and an educator, my mother knew that I was capable of accomplishing a lot more. But she also understood that because I was a young black woman in America, I might not have opportunities out of the middle if she wasn't intentional about creating them. So she moved me to a different school. She signed me up for leadership activities in my neighborhood. And she began to talk to me more seriously about college and career options I could aspire to. My mother's formula for getting me out of the middle was pretty simple. She started with high expectations. She made it her business to figure out how to set me up for success. She held me accountable and, along the way, she convinced me that I had the power to create my own story. That formula didn't just help me get out of my seventh grade slump — I used it later on in New York City, when I was working with kids who had a lot of potential, but not a lot of opportunities to go to and complete college. You see, high-performing students tend to have access to additional resources, like summer enrichment activities, internships and an expansive curriculum that takes them out of the classroom and into the world in ways that look great on college applications. But we're not providing those kinds of opportunities for everyone. And the result isn't just that some kids miss out. I think we, as a society, miss out too. You see, I've got a crazy theory about the folks in the middle. I think there are some unclaimed winning lottery tickets in the middle. I think the cure for cancer and the path to world peace might very well reside there. Now, as a former middle school teacher, I'm not saying that magically everyone is suddenly going to become an A student. But I also believe that most folks in the middle are capable of a lot more. And I think people stay in the middle because that's where we relegated them to and, sometimes, that's just where they're kind of chilling while they figure things out. All of our journeys are made up of a series of rest stops, accelerations, losses and wins. We have a responsibility to make sure that one's racial, gender, cultural and socioeconomic identity is never the reason you didn't have access out of the middle. So, just as my mother did with me, I began with high expectations with my young people. And I started with a question. I stopped asking kids, "Hey, do you want to go to college?" I started asking them, "What college would you like to attend?" You see, the first question — (Applause) The first question leaves a lot of vague possibilities open. But the second question says something about what I thought my young people were capable of. On a basic level, it assumes that they're going to graduate from high school successfully. It also assumed that they would have the kinds of academic records that could get them college and university admissions. And I'm proud to say that the high expectations worked. While black and Latinx students nationally tend to graduate from college in six years or less, at a percent of 38, we were recognized by the College Board for our ability not to just get kids into college but to get them through college. (Applause) But I also understand that high expectations are great, but it takes a little bit more than that. You wouldn't ask a pastry chef to bake a cake without an oven. And we should not be asking the folks in the middle to make the leap without providing them with the tools, strategies and support they deserve to make progress in their lives. A young woman I had been mentoring for a long time, Nicole, came to my office one day, after her guidance counselor looked at her pretty strong transcript and expressed utter shock and amazement that she was even interested in going to college. What the guidance counselor didn't know was that through her community, Nicole had had access to college prep work, SAT prep and international travel programs. Not only was college in her future, but I'm proud to say that Nicole went on to earn two master's degrees after graduating from Purdue University. (Applause) We also made it our business to hold our young people accountable, but also to instill a sense of accountability in those young people to themselves, to each other, to their families and their communities. We doubled down on asset-based youth development. We went on leadership retreats and did high ropes courses and low ropes courses and tackled life's biggest questions together. The result was that the kids really bought into the notion that they were accountable for achieving these college degrees. It was so gratifying to see the kids calling each other and texting each other to say, "Hey, why are you late for SAT prep?" And, "What are you packing for the college tour tomorrow?" We really worked to kind of make college the thing to do. We began to create programs on college campuses and events that allow young people to really visualize themselves as college students and college graduates. Me and my staff rocked our own college gear and had lots of fun, healthy competition about whose school was better than whose. The kids really bought into it, and they began to see that something more was possible for their lives. Not only that — they could look around at that college-going community and see kids who came from the same backgrounds and the same neighborhoods and who were aspiring to the same things. That sense of belonging was really key, and it showed up in a remarkable, beautiful way one day when we were in the Johannesburg airport, waiting to go through customs on our way to Botswana for a service learning trip. I saw a group of kids kind of huddled in a circle. Usually, with teens, that means something's going on. (Laughter) So I kind of walked up behind the kids to figure out what they were talking about. They were comparing passport stamps. (Laughter) And they were dreaming out loud about all the other countries they planned to visit in the future. And seeing these young people from New York City go on to not just become college students but to participate in study abroad programs and to then take jobs around the world was incredibly gratifying. When I think of my kids and all the doctors, lawyers, teachers, social workers, journalists and artists who came from our little nook in New York City, I hate to think of what would have happened if we hadn't invested in the middle. Just think about all that their communities and the world would have missed out on. This formula for the middle doesn't just work with young people. It can transform our organizations as well. We can be more bold in coming up and articulating a mission that inspires everyone. We can authentically invite our colleagues to the table to come up with a strategy to meet the mission. We can give meaningful feedback to folks along the way, and — and sometimes most importantly — make sure that you're sharing credit for everyone's contributions. What happened when my staff aimed high for themselves is that what they were able to do for young people was pretty transformational. And it's been so wonderful to look back and see all of my former colleagues who've gone on to get doctorates and assume leadership roles in other organizations. We have what it takes to inspire and uplift the folks in the middle. We can extend love to the people in the middle. We can challenge our own biases about who deserves a hand-up, and how. We can structure our organizations, communities and institutions in ways that are inclusive and that uphold principles of equity. Because, in the final analysis, what is often mistaken for a period is really just a comma. Thank you. (Applause) |
Will there ever be a mile-high skyscraper? | {0: 'Architect and urban designer Stefan Al believes that architecture is more than just buildings.'} | TED-Ed | In 1956, architect Frank Lloyd Wright proposed a mile-high skyscraper. It was going to be the world’s tallest building, by a lot — five times as high as the Eiffel Tower. But many critics laughed at the architect, arguing that people would have to wait hours for an elevator, or worse, that the tower would collapse under its own weight. Most engineers agreed, and despite the publicity around the proposal, the titanic tower was never built. But today, bigger and bigger buildings are going up around the world. Firms are even planning skyscrapers more than a kilometer tall, like the Jeddah Tower in Saudi Arabia, three times the size of the Eiffel Tower. Very soon, Wright’s mile-high miracle may be a reality. So what exactly was stopping us from building these megastructures 70 years ago, and how do we build something a mile high today? In any construction project, each story of the structure needs to be able to support the stories on top of it. The higher we build, the higher the gravitational pressure from the upper stories on the lower ones. This principle has long dictated the shape of our buildings, leading ancient architects to favor pyramids with wide foundations that support lighter upper levels. But this solution doesn’t quite translate to a city skyline– a pyramid that tall would be roughly one-and-a-half miles wide, tough to squeeze into a city center. Fortunately, strong materials like concrete can avoid this impractical shape. And modern concrete blends are reinforced with steel-fibers for strength and water-reducing polymers to prevent cracking. The concrete in the world’s tallest tower, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, can withstand about 8,000 tons of pressure per square meter– the weight of over 1,200 African elephants! Of course, even if a building supports itself, it still needs support from the ground. Without a foundation, buildings this heavy would sink, fall, or lean over. To prevent the roughly half a million ton tower from sinking, 192 concrete and steel supports called piles were buried over 50 meters deep. The friction between the piles and the ground keeps this sizable structure standing. Besides defeating gravity, which pushes the building down, a skyscraper also needs to overcome the blowing wind, which pushes from the side. On average days, wind can exert up to 17 pounds of force per square meter on a high-rise building– as heavy as a gust of bowling balls. Designing structures to be aerodynamic, like China’s sleek Shanghai Tower, can reduce that force by up to a quarter. And wind-bearing frames inside or outside the building can absorb the remaining wind force, such as in Seoul’s Lotte Tower. But even after all these measures, you could still find yourself swaying back and forth more than a meter on top floors during a hurricane. To prevent the wind from rocking tower tops, many skyscrapers employ a counterweight weighing hundreds of tons called a “tuned mass damper.” The Taipei 101, for instance, has suspended a giant metal orb above the 87th floor. When wind moves the building, this orb sways into action, absorbing the building’s kinetic energy. As its movements trail the tower’s, hydraulic cylinders between the ball and the building convert that kinetic energy into heat, and stabilize the swaying structure. With all these technologies in place, our mega-structures can stay standing and stable. But quickly traveling through buildings this large is a challenge in itself. In Wright’s age, the fastest elevators moved a mere 22 kilometers per hour. Thankfully, today’s elevators are much faster, traveling over 70 km per hour with future cabins potentially using frictionless magnetic rails for even higher speeds. And traffic management algorithms group riders by destination to get passengers and empty cabins where they need to be. Skyscrapers have come a long way since Wright proposed his mile-high tower. What were once considered impossible ideas have become architectural opportunities. Today it may just be a matter of time until one building goes the extra mile. |
What your breath could reveal about your health | {0: 'Driven by his curiosity, Julian Burschka is combining multiple technical disciplines with strong business acumen to drive innovation and enable new technological advancements.'} | TED@Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany | I have a tendency to assume the worst, and once in a while, this habit plays tricks on me. For example, if I feel unexpected pain in my body that I have not experienced before and that I cannot attribute, then all of a sudden, my mind might turn a tense back into heart disease or calf muscle pain into deep vein thrombosis. But so far, I haven't been diagnosed with any deadly or incurable disease. Sometimes things just hurt for no clear reason. But not everyone is as lucky as me. Every year, more than 50 million people die worldwide. Especially in high-income economies like ours, a large fraction of deaths is caused by slowly progressing diseases: heart disease, chronic lung disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, just to name a few. Now, humanity has made tremendous progress in diagnosing and treating many of these. But we are at a stage where further advancement in health cannot be achieved only by developing new treatments. And this becomes evident when we look at one aspect that many of these diseases have in common: the probability for successful treatment strongly depends on when treatment is started. But a disease is typically only detected once symptoms occur. The problem here is that, in fact, many diseases can remain asymptomatic, hence undetected, for a long period of time. Because of this, there is a persisting need for new ways of detecting disease at early stage, way before any symptoms occur. In health care, this is called screening. And as defined by the World Health Organization, screening is "the presumptive identification of unrecognized disease in an apparently healthy person, by means of tests ... that can be applied rapidly and easily ..." That's a long definition, so let me repeat it: identification of unrecognized disease in an apparently healthy person by means of tests that can be applied both rapidly and easily. And I want to put special emphasis on the words "rapidly" and "easily" because many of the existing screening methods are exactly the opposite. And those of you who have undergone colonoscopy as part of a screening program for colorectal cancer will know what I mean. Obviously, there's a variety of medical tools available to perform screening tests. This ranges from imaging techniques such as radiography or magnetic resonance imaging to the analysis of blood or tissue. We have all had such tests. But there's one medium that for long has been overlooked: a medium that is easily accessible, basically nondepletable, and it holds tremendous promise for medical analysis. And that is our breath. Human breath is essentially composed of five components: nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water and argon. But besides these five, there are hundreds of other components that are present in very low quantity. These are called volatile organic compounds, and we release hundreds, even thousands of them every time we exhale. The analysis of these volatile organic compounds in our breath is called breath analysis. In fact, I believe that many of you have already experienced breath analysis. Imagine: you're driving home late at night, when suddenly, there's a friendly police officer who asks you kindly but firmly to pull over and blow into a device like this one. This is an alcohol breath tester that is used to measure the ethanol concentration in your breath and determine whether driving in your condition is a clever idea. Now, I'd say my driving was pretty good, but let me check. (Beep) 0.0, so nothing to worry about, all fine. (Laughter) Now imagine a device like this one, that does not only measure alcohol levels in your breath, but that detects diseases like the ones I've shown you and potentially many more. The concept of correlating the smell of a person's breath with certain medical conditions, in fact, dates back to Ancient Greece. But only recently, research efforts on breath analysis have skyrocketed, and what once was a dream is now becoming reality. And let me pull up this list again that I showed you earlier. For the majority of diseases listed here, there's substantial scientific evidence suggesting that the disease could be detected by breath analysis. But how does it work, exactly? The essential part is a sensor device that detects the volatile organic compounds in our breath. Simply put: when exposed to a breath sample, the sensor outputs a complex signature that results from the mixture of volatile organic compounds that we exhale. Now, this signature represents a fingerprint of your metabolism, your microbiome and the biochemical processes that occur in your body. If you have a disease, your organism will change, and so will the composition of your exhaled breath. And then the only thing that is left to do is to correlate a certain signature with the presence or absence of certain medical conditions. The technology promises several undeniable benefits. Firstly, the sensor can be miniaturized and integrated into small, handheld devices like this alcohol breath tester. This would allow the test to be used in many different settings and even at home, so that a visit at the doctor's office is not needed each time a test shall be performed. Secondly, breath analysis is noninvasive and can be as simple as blowing into an alcohol breath tester. Such simplicity and ease of use would reduce patient burden and provide an incentive for broad adoption of the technology. And thirdly, the technology is so flexible that the same device could be used to detect a broad range of medical conditions. Breath analysis could be used to screen for multiple diseases at the same time. Nowadays, each disease typically requires a different medical tool to perform a screening test. But this means you can only find what you're looking for. With all of these features, breath analysis is predestined to deliver what many traditional screening tests are lacking. And most importantly, all of these features should eventually provide us with a platform for medical analysis that can operate at attractively low cost per test. On the contrary, existing medical tools often lead to rather high cost per test. Then, in order to keep costs down, the number of tests needs to be restricted, and this means (a) that the tests can only be performed on a narrow part of the population, for example, the high-risk population; and (b) that the number of tests per person needs to be kept at a minimum. But wouldn't it actually be beneficial if the test was performed on a larger group of people, and more often and over a longer period of time for each individual? Especially the latter would give access to something very valuable that is called longitudinal data. Longitudinal data is a data set that tracks the same patient over the course of many months or years. Nowadays, medical decisions are often based on a limited data set, where only a glimpse of a patient's medical history is available for decision-making. In such a case, abnormalities are typically detected by comparing a patient's health profile to the average health profile of a reference population. Longitudinal data would open up a new dimension and allow abnormalities to be detected based on a patient's own medical history. This will pave the way for personalized treatment. Sounds pretty great, right? Now you will certainly have a question that is something like, "If the technology is as great as he says, then why aren't we using it today?" And the only answer I can give you is: not everything is as easy as it sounds. There are technical challenges, for example. There's the need for extremely reliable sensors that can detect mixtures of volatile organic compounds with sufficient reproducibility. And another technical challenge is this: How do you sample a person's breath in a very defined manner so that the sampling process itself does not alter the result of the analysis? And there's the need for data. Breath analysis needs to be validated in clinical trials, and enough data needs to be collected so that individual conditions can be measured against baselines. Breath analysis can only succeed if a large enough data set can be generated and made available for broad use. If breath analysis holds up to its promises, this is a technology that could truly aid us to transform our health care system — transform it from a reactive system where treatment is triggered by symptoms of disease to a proactive system, where disease detection, diagnosis and treatment can happen at early stage, way before any symptoms occur. Now this brings me to my last point, and it's a fundamental one. What exactly is a disease? Imagine that breath analysis can be commercialized as I describe it, and early detection becomes routine. A problem that remains is, in fact, a problem that any screening activity has to face because, for many diseases, it is often impossible to predict with sufficient certainty whether the disease would ever cause any symptoms or put a person's life at risk. This is called overdiagnosis, and it leads to a dilemma. If a disease is identified, you could decide not to treat it because there's a certain probability that you would never suffer from it. But how much would you suffer just from knowing that you have a potentially deadly disease? And wouldn't you actually regret that the disease was detected in the first place? Your second option is to undergo early treatment with the hope for curing it. But often, this would not come without side effects. To be precise: the bigger problem is not overdiagnosis, it's overtreatment, because not every disease has to be treated immediately just because a treatment is available. The increasing adoption of routine screening will raise the question: What do we call a disease that can rationalize treatment, and what is just an abnormality that should not be a source of concern? My hopes are that routine screening using breath analysis can provide enough data and insight so that at some point, we'll be able to break this dilemma and predict with sufficient certainty whether and when to treat at early stage. Our breath and the mixture of volatile organic compounds that we exhale hold tremendous amounts of information on our physiological condition. With what we know today, we have only scratched the surface. As we collect more and more data and breath profiles across the population, including all varieties of gender, age, origin and lifestyle, the power of breath analysis should increase. And eventually, breath analysis should provide us with a powerful tool not only to proactively detect specific diseases but to predict and ultimately prevent them. And this should be enough motivation to embrace the opportunities and challenges that breath analysis can provide, even for people that are not part-time hypochondriacs like me. Thank you. (Applause) |
What happened to antimatter? | {0: 'Rolf Landua, PhD in particle physics and research physicist at CERN, is Head of CERN’s Education Group, presenting particle physics through exhibitions and guided tours to the public and aiming to innovate physics teaching at schools.'} | TED-Ed | Is it possible to create something out of nothing? Or, more precisely, can energy be made into matter? Yes, but only when it comes together with its twin, antimatter. And there's something pretty mysterious about antimatter: there's way less of it out there than there should be. Let's start with the most famous physics formula ever: E equals m c squared. It basically says that mass is concentrated energy, and mass and energy are exchangeable, like two currencies with a huge exchange rate. 90 trillion Joules of energy are equivalent to 1 gram of mass. But how do I actually transform energy into matter? The magic word is energy density. If you concentrate a huge amount of energy in a tiny space, new particles will come into existence. If we look closer, we see that these particles always come in pairs, like twins. That's because particles always have a counterpart, an antiparticle, and these are always produced in exactly equal amounts: 50/50. This might sound like science fiction, but it's the daily life of particle accelerators. In the collisions between two protons at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, billions of particles and antiparticles are produced every second. Consider, for example, the electron. It has a very small mass and negative electric charge. It's antiparticle, the positron, has exactly the same mass, but a positive electric charge. But, apart from the opposite charges, both particles are identical and perfectly stable. And the same is true for their heavy cousins, the proton and the antiproton. Therefore, scientists are convinced that a world made of antimatter would look, feel, and smell just like our world. In this antiworld, we may find antiwater, antigold, and, for example, an antimarble. Now imagine that a marble and an antimarble are brought together. These two apparently solid objects would completely disappear into a big flash of energy, equivalent to an atomic bomb. Because combining matter and antimatter would create so much energy, science fiction is full of ideas about harnessing the energy stored in antimatter, for example, to fuel spaceships like Star Trek. After all, the energy content of antimatter is a billion times higher than conventional fuel. The energy of one gram of antimatter would be enough for driving a car 1,000 times around the Earth, or to bring the space shuttle into orbit. So why don't we use antimatter for energy production? Well, antimatter isn't just sitting around, ready for us to harvest. We have to make antimatter before we can combust antimatter, and it takes a billion times more energy to make antimatter than you get back. But, what if there was some antimatter in outer space and we could dig it out one day from an antiplanet somewhere. A few decades ago, many scientists believed that this could actually be possible. Today, observations have shown that there is no significant amount of antimatter anywhere in the visible universe, which is weird because, like we said before, there should be just as much antimatter as there is matter in the universe. Since antiparticles and particles should exist in equal numbers, this missing antimatter? Now that is a real mystery. To understand what might be happening, we must go back to the Big Bang. In the instant the universe was created, a huge amount of energy was transformed into mass, and our initial universe contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But just a second later, most matter and all of the antimatter had destroyed one another, producing an enormous amount of radiation that can still be observed today. Just about 100 millionths of the original amount of matter stuck around and no antimatter whatsoever. "Now, wait!" you might say, "Why did all the antimatter disappear and only matter was left?" It seems that we were somehow lucky that a tiny asymmetry exists between matter and antimatter. Otherwise, there would be no particles at all anywhere in the universe and also no human beings. But what causes this asymmetry? Experiments at CERN are trying to find out the reason why something exists and why we don't live in a universe filled with radiation only? But, so far, we just don't know the answer. |
Ink made of air pollution | {0: 'Inventor Anirudh Sharma is the founder of Graviky Labs, an MIT Media Labs spinoff.'} | TED@BCG Toronto | Every year, more than four to five million people die due to exposure to outdoor air pollution around the world. This petri dish that you are looking at contains approximately 20 minutes' worth of pollution captured off a pyrolysis plant. This is PM 2.5. These particles — you can see it right now, but when they're out there in the air, you won't see them. These are so tiny that our lungs — our bodies cannot filter them, and they end up in our bodies — give us asthma and lung cancer if not treated in the right time. On a trip back to India, when I was a student in 2012, I took this picture. This picture stuck in my head. On one side, you see this exhaust of a diesel generator, the same generator which is a sign of human progress, which is a sign of rapid industrialization and what we have become as a society in the last 100 years, generating energy. But on the other side, you see this very interesting triangular, black-colored swatch, that is produced by the same residual particulate waste created by the emissions of the generator. Now, this picture gave me an idea and got me thinking about rethinking both pollution and inks, because it was making that black-colored mark. Now, the reality is that most of the black ink that we use conventionally is traditionally produced by conventionally burning fossil fuels in factories. There are factories around the world that are burning fossil fuels to produce carbon black, to make black inks that we use on an everyday basis. But given that millions of liters of fossil fuels are already being burned out there by our cars, our engines and our exhaust out there, what if you could capture that pollution and use it to recycle and make those inks? I decided to give this experiment a shot. I went back to my lab back in Boston and conducted a small experiment. In Boston, I couldn't find much pollution to play with, so I resorted to using a candle. This was an experiment. I burnt a candle, built this contraption that would suck in that candle soot, mixed it with some vegetable oil and vodka, because to a DIY hacker, these were really easily available. (Laughter) And after mixing them, you could churn out a very rudimentary form of ink that would go into a cartridge, and now you could print with it. This was my "Hello, World!" of experimenting with printing with pollution. This is the same pollution that I showed you in the petri dish, which is the result of any fossil fuel that is being burned out there. In 2015, I decided to take this experimentation forward and set up a lab in India to work on the capture and recycling of air pollution. In the good times, the lab used to look something like this. But experimentations were not always controlled, and disasters happened. And while experimentation would happen, the lab would end up looking something like this. Well, we knew where we wanted to go, but we were not sure how exactly to reach there. The passersby who used to go by that lab through that building used to, at times, think, "These guys are making bombs in there," because there was too much fire, wires and smoke in the same vicinity. (Laughter) We decided, let's move to a garage and take experiments forward. We took a garage, and during the early stages, we were driving around Bangalore with contraptions like these. This is an early-stage prototype. Imagine the looks people gave us, "What are these cars driving around doing?" This is an early-stage prototype of our system that would capture pollution that is being released from a conventional diesel-based car. This is an early stage of the technology. We advanced the technology and created this into this version that would capture pollution from static sources of pollution, like a diesel generator. If you see, all the fumes disappear as soon as you turn this machine on. Without affecting the performance of the engine, we are able to capture 95 percent worth of pollution released from the diesel generator. This is the particulate matter that we are talking about that we capture, in this case, within three to four hours of operation of a generator. And while our experiments and our research was advancing, a very big company, a very big brand, approached us and said, "We want to take this idea further with you guys, and take this further in a very big celebrated form." They said, "Let's do a global art campaign with the inks that you are making off this pollution." I'll show you what the ink looks like. So, this pen is made by recycling 40 to 50 minutes of that car pollution that we are talking about, the same pollution that is in the petri dish. And it's a very sharp black that you can write with. So I'm going to write ... PM 2.5, that's incorrect. So this is a very sharp black that is generated by the same pollution. After much work on the lab-level research, we got an offer from a big corporation to do a very big trial of this idea. And it happened to be a brand, and we didn't think twice. We said, "Let's go ahead." Inventing in the lab is one thing and taking ideas and deploying them in the real world is completely another. During early stages, we had to resort to using our own houses and own kitchens as our ink-making factories, and our own bedrooms and living rooms as the first assembly line for making these inks. This is my cofounder Nikhil's own bedroom, that is being used to supply inks to artists all around the world, who would paint with AIR-INK. And that's him, delivering AIR-INKs to the ports so that the artists around the world can use it. Soon, we started seeing that thousands of artists around the world started using AIR-INK, and artworks started emerging like this. Soon, thousands of black-and-white, pollution-made artworks started emerging on a global scale. And believe me, for a group of scientists and engineers and inventors, there was nothing more satisfying than that the product of their work is now being used by some of the finest artists around the world. This is the cover of "Contagious" magazine last year, that was done by using the same ink that we made back in our labs. This is a famous painting by the British artist, Christian Furr, who painted it for the song "Paint It Black" by The Rolling Stones. Now, there's more to this pen and this ink than just the popular and pop-culture artworks. And now our goal is to create a company that can actually make some black money — I mean, just money — (Laughter) and high-quality printing processes and inks that can replace the conventional black inks that have been produced for the last thousands of years around the world. Soon after our growing popularity and artworks around the world, we started facing a very different kind of a problem. We started getting spammed by polluters, who would send us bags full of pollution to our office address, asking us, "What can we do with this pollution?" Our lab back in Bombay right now has pollution samples that have come from London, from India, from China, you name it. And this is just the beginning. This polluter sent us this specific image, asking us that these are all bags filled with PM 2.5, and can we recycle it for him if we paid him some money. Well, what would he have done if we did not take that pollution? He would probably find a nearby river or a landfill and dump it over there. But now, because we had the economics of AIR-INK figured out on the other side, we could incentivize him to give us this pollution and make inks from it, and turn it into even more valuable products. Now, pollution, as we all know, is a global killer. We can't claim that our ink will solve the world's pollution problem. But it does show what can be done if you look at this problem slightly differently. Look at this T-shirt I'm holding right now. This is made from the same AIR-INK I'm talking about. It's made from the same pollution that is inside this petri dish. And the same pollution we are all breathing in when we are walking outdoors. And we are on our way to do better than this. Thank you very much. (Applause) |
What is consciousness? | null | TED-Ed | Here are two images of a house. There’s one obvious difference, but to this patient, P.S., they looked completely identical. P.S. had suffered a stroke that damaged the right side of her brain, leaving her unaware of everything on her left side. But though she could discern no difference between the houses, when researchers asked her which she would prefer to live in, she chose the house that wasn’t burning— not once, but again and again. P.S.’s brain was still processing information from her whole field of vision. She could see both images and tell the difference between them, she just didn’t know it. If someone threw a ball at her left side, she might duck. But she wouldn’t have any awareness of the ball, or any idea why she ducked. P.S.’s condition, known as hemispatial neglect, reveals an important distinction between the brain’s processing of information and our experience of that processing. That experience is what we call consciousness. We are conscious of both the external world and our internal selves— we are aware of an image in much the same way we are aware of ourselves looking at an image, or our inner thoughts and emotions. But where does consciousness come from? Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have been trying to get to the bottom of this question for centuries— without reaching any consensus. One recent theory is that consciousness is the brain’s imperfect picture of its own activity. To understand this theory, it helps to have a clear idea of one important way the brain processes information from our senses. Based on sensory input, it builds models, which are continuously updating, simplified descriptions of objects and events in the world. Everything we know is based on these models. They never capture every detail of the things they describe, just enough for the brain to determine appropriate responses. For instance, one model built deep into the visual system codes white light as brightness without color. In reality, white light includes wavelengths that correspond to all the different colors we can see. Our perception of white light is wrong and oversimplified, but good enough for us to function. Likewise, the brain’s model of the physical body keeps track of the configuration of our limbs, but not of individual cells or even muscles, because that level of information isn’t needed to plan movement. If it didn’t have the model keeping track of the body’s size, shape, and how it is moving at any moment, we would quickly injure ourselves. The brain also needs models of itself. For example, the brain has the ability to pay attention to specific objects and events. It also controls that focus, shifting it from one thing to another, internal and external, according to our needs. Without the ability to direct our focus, we wouldn’t be able to assess threats, finish a meal, or function at all. To control focus effectively, the brain has to construct a model of its own attention. With 86 billion neurons constantly interacting with each other, there’s no way the brain’s model of its own information processing can be perfectly self-descriptive. But like the model of the body, or our conception of white light, it doesn’t have to be. Our certainty that we have a metaphysical, subjective experience may come from one of the brain’s models, a cut-corner description of what it means to process information in a focused and deep manner. Scientists have already begun trying to figure out how the brain creates that self model. MRI studies are a promising avenue for pinpointing the networks involved. These studies compare patterns of neural activation when someone is and isn’t conscious of a sensory stimulus, like an image. The results show that the areas needed for visual processing are activated whether or not the participant is aware of the image, but a whole additional network lights up only when they are conscious of seeing the image. Patients with hemispatial neglect, like P.S., typically have damage to one particular part of this network. More extensive damage to the network can sometimes lead to a vegetative state, with no sign of consciousness. Evidence like this brings us closer to understanding how consciousness is built into the brain, but there’s still much more to learn. For instance, the way neurons in the networks related to consciousness compute specific pieces of information is outside the scope of our current technology. As we approach questions of consciousness with science, we’ll open new lines of inquiry into human identity. |
How women in Pakistan are creating political change | {0: "Shad Begum is a women's rights activist working for the economic and political empowerment of women and youth in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a province in the northwest of Pakistan."} | TEDWomen 2018 | I'm here to tell you how change is happening at a local level in Pakistan, because women are finding their place in the political process. I want to take you all on a journey to the place I was raised, northwest Pakistan, called Dir. Dir was founded in the 17th century. It was a princely state until its merger with Pakistan in 1969. Our prince, Nawab Shah Jahan, reserved the right to wear white, the color of honor, but only for himself. He didn't believe in educating his people. And at the time of my birth in 1979, only five percent of boys and one percent of girls received any schooling at all. I was one among that one percent. Growing up, I was very close to my father. He is a pharmacy doctor, and he sent me to school. Every day, I would go to his clinic when my lessons finished. He's a wonderful man and a well-respected community leader. He was leading a welfare organization, and I would go with him to the social and political gatherings to listen and talk to the local men about our social and economic problems. However, when I was 16, my father asked me to stop coming with him to the public gatherings. Now, I was a young woman, and my place was in the home. I was very upset. But most of my family members, they were happy with this decision. It was very difficult for me to sit back in the home and not be involved. It took two years that finally my family agreed that my father could reconnect me with women and girls, so they could share their problems and together we could resolve them. So, with his blessings, I started to reconnect with women and girls so we could resolve their problems together. When women show up, they bring their realities and views with them. And yet, I have found all too often, women underestimate their own strength, their potential and their self-respect. However, while connecting with these women and girls, it became very clear to me that if there was to be any hope to create a better life for these women and girls and their families, we must stand up for our own rights — and not wait for someone else to come and help us. So I took a huge leap of faith and founded my own organization in '94 to create our very own platform for women empowerment. I engaged many women and girls to work with me. It was hard. Many of the women working with me had to leave once they got married, because their husbands wouldn't let them work. One colleague of mine was given away by her family to make amends for a crime her brother had committed. I couldn't help her. And I felt so helpless at that time. But it made me more determined to continue my struggle. I saw many practices like these, where these women suffered silently, bearing this brutality. But when I see a woman struggling to change her situation instead of giving up, it motivates me. So I ran for a public office as an independent candidate in Lower Dir in the local elections in 2001. Despite all the challenges and hurdles I faced throughout this process, I won. (Applause) And I served in the public office for six years. But unfortunately, we women, elected women, we were not allowed to sit in the council together with all the members and to take part in the proceedings. We had to sit in a separate, ladies-only room, not even aware what was happening in the council. Men told me that, "You women, elected women members, should buy sewing machines for women." When I knew what they needed the most was access to clean drinking water. So I did everything I could do to prioritize the real challenges these women faced. I set up five hand pumps in the two dried up wells in my locality. Well, we got them working again. Before long, we made water accessible for over 5,000 families. We proved that anything the men could do, so could we women. I built alliances with other elected women members, and last year, we women were allowed to sit together with all the members in the council. (Applause) And to take part in the legislation and planning and budgeting, in all the decisions. I saw there is strength in numbers. You know yourselves. Lack of representation means no one is fighting for you. Pakistan is — We're 8,000 miles away from where I'm here with you today. But I hope what I'm about to tell you will resonate with you, though we have this big distance in miles and in our cultures. When women show up, they bring the realities and hopes of half a population with them. In 2007, we saw the rise of the Taliban in Swat, Dir and nearby districts. It was horrifying. The Taliban killed innocent people. Almost every day, people collected the dead bodies of their loved ones from the streets. Most of the social and political leaders struggling and working for the betterment of their communities were threatened and targeted. Even I had to leave, leaving my children behind with my in-laws. I closed my office in Dir and relocated to Peshawar, the capital of my province. I was in trauma, kept thinking what to do next. And most of the family members and friends were suggesting, "Shad, stop working. The threat is very serious." But I persisted. In 2009, we experienced a historic influx of internally displaced persons, from Swat, Dir and other nearby districts. I started visiting the camps almost every day, until the internally displaced persons started to go back to their place of origin. I established four mother-child health care units, especially to take care of over 10,000 women and children nearby the camps. But you know, during all these visits, I observed that there was very little attention towards women's needs. And I was looking for what is the reason behind it. And I found it was because of the underrepresentation of women in both social and political platforms, in our society as a whole. And that was the time when I realized that I need to narrow down my focus on building and strengthening women's political leadership to increase their political representation, so they would have their own voice in their future. So we started training around 300 potential women and youth for the upcoming local elections in 2015. And you know what? Fifty percent of them won. (Applause) And they are now sitting in the councils, taking part actively in the legislation, planning and budgeting. Most of them are now investing their funds on women's health, education, skill development and safe drinking water. All these elected women now share, discuss and resolve their problems together. Let me tell you about two of the women I have been working with: Saira Shams. You can see, this young lady, age 26, she ran for a public office in 2015 in Lower Dir, and she won. She completed two of the community infrastructure schemes. You know, women, community infrastructure schemes ... Some people think this is men's job. But no, this is women's job, too, we can do it. And she also fixed two of the roads leading towards girls schools, knowing that without access to these schools, they are useless to the girls of Dir. And another young woman is Asma Gul. She is a very active member of the young leaders forum we established. She was unable to run for the public office, so she has become the first female journalist of our region. She speaks and writes for women's and girls' issues and their rights. Saira and Asma, they are the living examples of the importance of inclusion and representation. Let me tell you this, too. In the 2013 general elections in Pakistan and the local elections in 2015, there were less than 100 women voters in Dir. But you know what? I'm proud to tell you that this year, during the general elections, there were 93,000 women voters in Dir. (Applause) So our struggle is far from over. But this shift is historic. And a sign that women are standing up, showing up and making it absolutely clear that we all must invest in building women's leadership. In Pakistan and here in the United States, and everywhere in the world, this means women in politics, women in business and women in positions of power making important decisions. It took me 23 years to get here. But I don't want any girl or any woman to take 23 years of her life to make herself heard. I have had some dark days. But I have spent every waking moment of my life working for the right of every woman to live her full potential. Imagine with me a world where thousands of us stand up and they support other young women together, creating opportunities and choices that benefit all. And that, my friends, can change the world. Thank you. (Applause) |
If superpowers were real: Immortality | null | TED-Ed | Immortality. In movies, kings are always searching for the secret to immortality. But is immortality really a good thing? To a ten-year-old boy, one year is the same as 10% of his life. To his forty-year-old mother, one year is merely 2.5% of her life. The same year, 365 days, can feel differently to different people. If we live until we're 82, that's about 30,000 days. If this boy lives for 30,000 years, a year to him could feel like a day. And if this boy's emotions sustain through the potential boredom of living for millions of years, he might become extremely lonely and sad, knowing he has and always will outlive everyone he has ever loved. But what if everyone were immortal? Well, first off, Earth is only so big. So, where would we all live? (Grunts) "Excuse me!" "That's my face!" "Stop it!" "Pardon me." "Tight in here!" Do you remember what you did last year or when you were five? How much of your past have you forgotten? If you have trouble remembering what you did when you were five, how will you remember what happened if you were alive a thousand years ago? A million years ago? We don't remember every single detail of our past because our brains have a limited capacity and we replace useless memories, like middle school locker combinations, with relevant information. If this immortal boy finds a companion to fall in love with once every hundred years, he would have ten thousand girlfriends in a million years. And how many of those ten thousand girls' names will he be able to remember? This changes what a meaningful relationship means, doesn't it? Another tricky thing about immortality: Human beings have not always looked the same. This can be explained by Darwin's theory of evolution. For instance, if women find taller men more attractive, then more tall men would mate and have children, putting more tall genes in the gene pool. That means, in the next generation, more children will have the genes to be taller. Repeat that process for a million years and the average height will be a lot taller than the average height today, assuming there's no natural disaster that wipes out all the tall people. Our ancestors were short, hairy apes. We still have body hair, but we don't look like apes any more. If you're the only person who is immortal, while everyone else keeps evolving, generation after generation, you will eventually look quite different than the people who surround you. "Hi, how you doing?" If one of our ancestors, apes, is still alive today, how many people will make friends with it instead of calling the Museum of Natural History? And one more physical consideration for immortality: Scars. After all, immortality doesn't automatically translate to invincibility, it just means you cannot die. But it doesn't guarantee what condition you'll be alive in. Look at your body and count how many scars you have. If you have made this many permanent scars within your life, imagine how much damage you would have if you were one thousand years old! Now, there are approximately 185,000 amputation-related hospital discharges every year in the U.S. These injuries are due to accidents or illnesses. Certainly the percentage is low comparing to the total population if you only live for a hundred years. However, if you've been alive for over one million years, the odds of still having all your limbs are pretty slim. What about little accessories, like your eyes, your nose, your ears, fingers or toes? What about your teeth? What are the odds of you keeping your dental health for a hundred years? A thousand years? One million years? You might end up looking like a horribly scuffed-up Mr. Potato Head with missing pieces and dentures. So, are you sure you want to live forever? Now, which superpower physics lesson will you explore next? Shifting body size and content, super speed, flight, super strength, immortality, and — invisibility. |
How tsunamis work | null | TED-Ed | In 479 BC, when Persian soldiers besieged the Greek city of Potidaea, the tide retreated much farther than usual, leaving a convenient invasion route. But this wasn't a stroke of luck. Before they had crossed halfway, the water returned in a wave higher than anyone had ever seen, drowning the attackers. The Potiidaeans believed they had been saved by the wrath of Poseidon. But what really saved them was likely the same phenomenon that has destroyed countless others: a tsunami. Although tsunamis are commonly known as tidal waves, they're actually unrelated to the tidal activity caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon. In many ways, tsunamis are just larger versions of regular waves. They have a trough and a crest, and consist not of moving water, but the movement of energy through water. The difference is in where this energy comes from. For normal ocean waves, it comes from wind. Because this only affects the surface, the waves are limited in size and speed. But tsunamis are caused by energy originating underwater, from a volcanic eruption, a submarine landslide, or most commonly, an earthquake on the ocean floor caused when the tectonic plates of the Earth's surface slip, releasing a massive amount of energy into the water. This energy travels up to the surface, displacing water and raising it above the normal sea level, but gravity pulls it back down, which makes the energy ripple outwards horizontally. Thus, the tsunami is born, moving at over 500 miles per hour. When it's far from shore, a tsunami can be barely detectable since it moves through the entire depth of the water. But when it reaches shallow water, something called wave shoaling occurs. Because there is less water to move through, this still massive amount of energy is compressed. The wave's speed slows down, while its height rises to as much as 100 feet. The word tsunami, Japanese for "harbor wave," comes from the fact that it only seems to appear near the coast. If the trough of a tsunami reaches shore first, the water will withdraw farther than normal before the wave hits, which can be misleadingly dangerous. A tsunami will not only drown people near the coast, but level buildings and trees for a mile inland or more, especially in low-lying areas. As if that weren't enough, the water then retreats, dragging with it the newly created debris, and anything, or anyone, unfortunate enough to be caught in its path. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was one of the deadliest natural disasters in history, killing over 200,000 people throughout South Asia. So how can we protect ourselves against this destructive force of nature? People in some areas have attempted to stop tsunamis with sea walls, flood gates, and channels to divert the water. But these are not always effective. In 2011, a tsunami surpassed the flood wall protecting Japan's Fukushima Power Plant, causing a nuclear disaster in addition to claiming over 18,000 lives. Many scientists and policy makers are instead focusing on early detection, monitoring underwater pressure and seismic activity, and establishing global communication networks for quickly distributing alerts. When nature is too powerful to stop, the safest course is to get out of its way. |
Why noise is bad for your health -- and what you can do about it | {0: 'Mathias Basner researches the effects of noise on sleep, health, neurobehavioral and cognitive functions and more.'} | TEDMED 2018 | Do you hear that? Do you know what that is? Silence. The sound of silence. Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song about it. But silence is a pretty rare commodity these days, and we're all paying a price for it in terms of our health — a surprisingly big price, as it turns out. Luckily, there are things we can do right now, both individually and as a society, to better protect our health and give us more of the benefits of the sounds of silence. I assume that most of you know that too much noise is bad for your hearing. Whenever you leave a concert or a bar and you have that ringing in your ears, you can be certain that you have done some damage to your hearing, likely permanent. And that's very important. However, noise affects our health in many different ways beyond hearing. They're less well-known, but they're just as dangerous as the auditory effects. So what do we mean when we talk about noise? Well, noise is defined as unwanted sound, and as such, both has a physical component, the sound, and a psychological component, the circumstances that make the sound unwanted. A very good example is a rock concert. A person attending the rock concert, being exposed to 100 decibels, does not think of the music as noise. This person likes the band, and even paid a hundred dollars for the ticket, so no matter how loud the music, this person doesn't think of it as noise. In contrast, think of a person living three blocks away from the concert hall. That person is trying to read a book, but cannot concentrate because of the music. And although the sound pressure levels are much lower in this situation, this person still thinks of the music as noise, and it may trigger reactions that can, in the long run, have health consequences. So why are quiet spaces so important? Because noise affects our health in so many ways beyond hearing. However, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find quiet spaces in times of constantly increasing traffic, growing urbanization, construction sites, air-conditioning units, leaf blowers, lawnmowers, outdoor concerts and bars, personal music players, and your neighbors partying until 3am. Whew! In 2011, the World Health Organization estimated that 1.6 million healthy life years are lost every year due to exposure to environmental noise in the Western European member states alone. One important effect of noise is that it disturbs communication. You may have to raise your voice to be understood. In extreme cases, you may even have to pause the conversation. It's also more likely to be misunderstood in a noisy environment. These are all likely reasons why studies have found that children who attend schools in noisy areas are more likely to lag behind their peers in academic performance. Another very important health effect of noise is the increased risk for cardiovascular disease in those who are exposed to relevant noise levels for prolonged periods of time. Noise is stress, especially if we have little or no control over it. Our body excretes stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol that lead to changes in the composition of our blood and in the structure of our blood vessels, which have been shown to be stiffer after a single night of noise exposure. Epidemiological studies show associations between the noise exposure and an increased risk for high blood pressure, heart attacks and stroke, and although the overall risk increases are relatively small, this still constitutes a major public health problem because noise is so ubiquitous, and so many people are exposed to relevant noise levels. A recent study found that US society could save 3.9 billion dollars each year by lowering environmental noise exposure by five decibels, just by saving costs for treating cardiovascular disease. There are other diseases like cancer, diabetes and obesity that have been linked to noise exposure, but we do not have enough evidence yet to, in fact, conclude that these diseases are caused by the noise. Yet another important effect of noise is sleep disturbance. Sleep is a very active mechanism that recuperates us and prepares us for the next wake period. A quiet bedroom is a cornerstone of what sleep researchers call "a good sleep hygiene." And our auditory system has a watchman function. It's constantly monitoring our environment for threats, even while we're sleeping. So noise in the bedroom can cause a delay in the time it takes us to fall asleep, it can wake us up during the night, and it can prevent our blood pressure from going down during the night. We have the hypothesis that if these noise-induced sleep disturbances continue for months and years, then an increased risk for cardiovascular disease is likely the consequence. However, we are often not aware of these noise-induced sleep disturbances, because we are unconscious while we're sleeping. In the past, we've done studies on the effects of traffic noise on sleep, and research subjects would often wake up in the morning and say, "Ah, I had a wonderful night, I fell asleep right away, never really woke up." When we would go back to the physiological signals we had recorded during the night, we would often see numerous awakenings and a severely fragmented sleep structure. These awakenings were too brief for the subjects to regain consciousness and to remember them during the next morning, but they may nevertheless have a profound impact on how restful our sleep is. So when is loud too loud? A good sign of too loud is once you start changing your behavior. You may have to raise your voice to be understood, or you increase the volume of your TV. You're avoiding outside areas, or you're closing your window. You're moving your bedroom to the basement of the house, or you even have sound insulation installed. Many people will move away to less noisy areas, but obviously not everybody can afford that. So what can we do right now to improve our sound environment and to better protect our health? Well, first of all, if something's too loud, speak up. For example, many owners of movie theaters seem to think that only people hard of hearing are still going to the movies. If you complain about the noise and nothing happens, demand a refund and leave. That's the language that managers typically do understand. Also, talk to your children about the health effects of noise and that listening to loud music today will have consequences when they're older. You can also move your bedroom to the quiet side of the house, where your own building shields you from road traffic noise. If you're looking to rent or buy a new place, make low noise a priority. Visit the property during different times of the day and talk to the neighbors about noise. You can wear noise-canceling headphones when you're traveling or if your office has high background noise levels. In general, seek out quiet spaces, especially on the weekend or when you're on vacation. Allow your system to wind down. I, very appropriately for this talk, attended a noise conference in Japan four years ago. When I returned to the United States and entered the airport, a wall of sound hit me. This tells you that we don't realize anymore the constant degree of noise pollution we're exposed to and how much we could profit from more quiet spaces. What else can we do about noise? Well, very much like a carbon footprint, we all have a noise footprint, and there are things we can do to make that noise footprint smaller. For example, don't start mowing your lawn at 7am on a Saturday morning. Your neighbors will thank you. Or use a rake instead of a leaf blower. In general, noise reduction at the source makes the most sense, so whenever you're looking to buy a new car, air-conditioning unit, blender, you name it, make low noise a priority. Many manufacturers will list the noise levels their devices generate, and some even advertise with them. Use that information. Many people think that stronger noise regulation and enforcement are good ideas, even obvious solutions, perhaps, but it's not as easy as you may think, because many of the activities that generate noise also generate revenue. Think about an airport and all the business that is associated with it. Our research tells politicians at what noise level they can expect a certain health effect, and that helps inform better noise policy. Robert Koch supposedly once said, "One day, mankind will fight noise as relentlessly as cholera and the pest." I think we're there, and I hope that we will win this fight, and when we do, we can all have a nice, quiet celebration. (Laughter) Thank you. (Applause) |
Notes of a native son: the world according to James Baldwin | null | TED-Ed | Over the course of the 1960s, the FBI amassed almost two thousand documents in an investigation into one of America’s most celebrated minds. The subject of this inquiry was a writer named James Baldwin. At the time, the FBI investigated many artists and thinkers, but most of their files were a fraction the size of Baldwin’s. During the years when the FBI hounded him, he became one of the best-selling black authors in the world. So what made James Baldwin loom so large in the imaginations of both the public and the authorities? Born in Harlem in 1924, he was the oldest of nine children. At age fourteen, he began to work as a preacher. By delivering sermons, he developed his voice as a writer, but also grew conflicted about the Church’s stance on racial inequality and homosexuality. After high school, he began writing novels and essays while taking a series of odd jobs. But the issues that had driven him away from the Church were still inescapable in his daily life. Constantly confronted with racism and homophobia, he was angry and disillusioned, and yearned for a less restricted life. So in 1948, at the age of 24, he moved to Paris on a writing fellowship. From France, he published his first novel, "Go Tell it on the Mountain," in 1953. Set in Harlem, the book explores the Church as a source of both repression and hope. It was popular with both black and white readers. As he earned acclaim for his fiction, Baldwin gathered his thoughts on race, class, culture and exile in his 1955 extended essay, "Notes of a Native Son." Meanwhile, the Civil Rights movement was gaining momentum in America. Black Americans were making incremental gains at registering to vote and voting, but were still denied basic dignities in schools, on buses, in the work force, and in the armed services. Though he lived primarily in France for the rest of his life, Baldwin was deeply invested in the movement, and keenly aware of his country’s unfulfilled promise. He had seen family, friends, and neighbors spiral into addiction, incarceration and suicide. He believed their fates originated from the constraints of a segregated society. In 1963, he published "The Fire Next Time," an arresting portrait of racial strife in which he held white America accountable, but he also went further, arguing that racism hurt white people too. In his view, everyone was inextricably enmeshed in the same social fabric. He had long believed that: “People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” Baldwin’s role in the Civil Rights movement went beyond observing and reporting. He also traveled through the American South attending rallies giving lectures of his own. He debated both white politicians and black activists, including Malcolm X, and served as a liaison between black activists and intellectuals and white establishment leaders like Robert Kennedy. Because of Baldwin’s unique ability to articulate the causes of social turbulence in a way that white audiences were willing to hear, Kennedy and others tended to see him as an ambassador for black Americans — a label Baldwin rejected. And at the same time, his faculty with words led the FBI to view him as a threat. Even within the Civil Rights movement, Baldwin could sometimes feel like an outsider for his choice to live abroad, as well as his sexuality, which he explored openly in his writing at a time when homophobia ran rampant. Throughout his life, Baldwin considered it his role to bear witness. Unlike many of his peers, he lived to see some of the victories of the Civil Rights movement, but the continuing racial inequalities in the United States weighed heavily on him. Though he may have felt trapped in his moment in history, his words have made generations of people feel known, while guiding them toward a more nuanced understanding of society’s most complex issues. |
How one team turned a sprint project into a marathon success | {0: 'Keith Kirkland is the cofounder of WearWorks, a company that builds products and experiences that communicate information through touch.'} | The Way We Work | Keith Kirkland: We believe in making the world a better place, and we're trying to do that through design, but the world for us starts with our company. (Music) Our first product, Wayband, is a wearable haptic navigation device for the blind and visually impaired. We had gotten an article published and it had made its way to this guy, Simon Wheatcroft. He reached out to us and he was like, "If you can have this technology ready by November, I'll run the New York City Marathon with it." We saw it and was kind of like, moonshot, this is probably not going to work, but let's just do it and see how far we can get. (Music) [Dropbox is a collaborative platform whose mission is to design a more enlightened way of working. They are invested in understanding how teams like WearWorks achieve extraordinary outcomes.] Jennifer Brook: In Keith's story, I see a microcosm that reflects a greater macrocosm in terms of an emerging set of values. What we found is that everyone has a set of tensions in their work and life, things like making a living and making a life, or fulfilling the organization's needs and the needs of the individual. We navigate those tensions using our own unique strategies, for example, working remotely, learning new skills, or self care. Navigating these tensions is critical, because a lot is at stake for us when we show up to work, like our sense of purpose or our connection to our families and communities. And for me, in this organization, this is why we should care about designing a more enlightened way of working. KK: We see a company as a vehicle to design life with as opposed to something to conform to. JB: WearWorks is really thinking holistically about navigating their tensions. For example, when it comes to a tension like making a living and making a life, what kinds of cultural practices and policies need to be in place to support a strategy like flexible or remote work? KK: At WearWorks, we have this policy called WhereverWorks, and the basic idea is that we don't really care where people are as long as the work gets done. And by doing so, we make our employees ridiculously happy. And by doing that, we get the best work from people. JB: We're seeing that people everywhere are challenging these inherited, default ways of working. They want access to more choices, more agency, the freedom to decide how they want to work. This supports them to better navigate the tensions in their work and life for the sake of preserving what's at stake for them. KK: We did a six-month sprint, and on November 5, 2017, Simon ran the first 15 miles of the New York City Marathon without any sight assistance. Working with the blind and visually impaired was a wonderful challenge. It's a different feeling when you go to work every day and the thing that you do actually helped the needle of humanity, in some way, move forward. JB: WearWorks embodies what an enlightened way of working means for people out in the world today. (Music) |
How doctors can help low-income patients (and still make a profit) | {0: 'Physician P.J. Parmar founded Ardas Family Medicine, a private practice that serves resettled refugees, and Mango House, a home for refugees with activities and services that include dental care, food and clothing banks, churches, scout troops and afterschool programs.'} | TEDxMileHigh | Colfax Avenue, here in Denver, Colorado, was once called the longest, wickedest street in America. My office is there in the same place — it's a medical desert. There are government clinics and hospitals nearby, but they're not enough to handle the poor who live in the area. By poor, I mean those who are on Medicaid. Not just for the homeless; 20 percent of this country is on Medicaid. If your neighbors have a family of four and make less than $33,000 a year, then they can get Medicaid. But they can't find a doctor to see them. A study by Merritt Hawkins found that only 20 percent of the family doctors in Denver take any Medicaid patients. And of those 20 percent, some have caps, like five Medicaid patients a month. Others make Medicaid patients wait months to be seen, but will see you today, if you have Blue Cross. This form of classist discrimination is legal and is not just a problem in Denver. Almost half the family doctors in the country refuse to see Medicaid patients. Why? Well, because Medicaid pays less than private insurance and because Medicaid patients are seen as more challenging. Some show up late for appointments, some don't speak English and some have trouble following instructions. I thought about this while in medical school. If I could design a practice that caters to low-income folks instead of avoiding them, then I would have guaranteed customers and very little competition. (Laughter) So after residency, I opened up shop, doing underserved medicine. Not as a nonprofit, but as a private practice. A small business seeing only resettled refugees. That was six years ago, and since then, we've served 50,000 refugee medical visits. (Applause) Ninety percent of our patients have Medicaid, and most of the rest, we see for free. Most doctors say you can't make money on Medicaid, but we're doing it just fine. How? Well, if this were real capitalism, then I wouldn't tell you, because you'd become my competition. (Laughter) But I call this "bleeding-heart" capitalism. (Laughter) And we need more people doing this, not less, so here's how. We break down the walls of our medical maze by taking the challenges of Medicaid patients, turning them into opportunities, and pocketing the difference. The nuts and bolts may seem simple, but they add up. For example, we have no appointments. We're walk-in only. Of course, that's how it works at the emergency room, at urgent cares and at Taco Bell. (Laughter) But not usually at family doctor's offices. Why do we do it? Because Nasra can't call for an appointment. She has a phone, but she doesn't have phone minutes. She can't speak English, and she can't navigate a phone tree. And she can't show up on time for an appointment because she doesn't have a car, she takes the bus, and she takes care of three kids plus her disabled father. So we have no appointments; she shows up when she wants, but usually waits less than 15 minutes to be seen. She then spends as much time with us as she needs. Sometimes that's 40 minutes, usually it's less than five. She loves this flexibility. It's how she saw doctors in Somalia. And I love it, because I don't pay staff to do scheduling, and we have a zero no-show rate and a zero late-show rate. (Laughter) (Applause) It makes business sense. Another difference is our office layout. Our exam rooms open right to the waiting room, our medical providers room their own patients, and our providers stay in one room instead of alternating between rooms. Cutting steps cuts costs and increases customer satisfaction. We also hand out free medicines, right from our exam room: over-the-counter ones and some prescription ones, too. If Nasra's baby is sick, we put a bottle of children's Tylenol or amoxicillin right in her hand. She can take that baby straight back home instead of stopping at the pharmacy. I don't know about you, but I get sick just looking at all those choices. Nasra doesn't stand a chance in there. We also text patients. We're open evenings and weekends. We do home visits. We've jumped dead car batteries. (Laughter) With customer satisfaction so high, we've never had to advertise, yet are growing at 25 percent a year. And we've become real good at working with Medicaid, since it's pretty much the only insurance company we deal with. Other doctor's offices chase 10 insurance companies just to make ends meet. That's just draining. A single-payer system is like monogamy: it just works better. (Laughter) (Applause) Of course, Medicaid is funded by tax payers like you, so you might be wondering, "How much does this cost the system?" Well, we're cheaper than the alternatives. Some of our patients might go to the emergency room, which can cost thousands, just for a simple cold. Some may stay home and let their problems get worse. But most would try to make an appointment at a clinic that's part of the system called the Federally Qualified Health Centers. This is a nationwide network of safety-net clinics that receive twice as much government funding per visit than private doctors like me. Not only they get more money, but by law, there can only be one in each area. That means they have a monopoly on special funding for the poor. And like any monopoly, there's a tendency for cost to go up and quality to go down. I'm not a government entity; I'm not a nonprofit. I'm a private practice. I have a capitalist drive to innovate. I have to be fast and friendly. I have to be cost-effective and culturally sensitive. I have to be tall, dark and handsome. (Laughter) (Applause) And if I'm not, I'm going out of business. I can innovate faster than a nonprofit, because I don't need a meeting to move a stapler. (Applause) Really, none of our innovations are new or unique — we just put them together in a unique way to help low-income folks while making money. And then, instead of taking that money home, I put it back into the refugee community as a business expense. This is Mango House. My version of a medical home. In it, we have programs to feed and clothe the poor, an after-school program, English classes, churches, dentist, legal help, mental health and the scout groups. These programs are run by tenant organizations and amazing staff, but all receive some amount of funding form profits from my clinic. Some call this social entrepreneurship. I call it social-service arbitrage. Exploiting inefficiencies in our health care system to serve the poor. We're serving 15,000 refugees a year at less cost than where else they would be going. Of course, there's downsides to doing this as a private business, rather than as a nonprofit or a government entity. There's taxes and legal exposures. There's changing Medicaid rates and specialists who don't take Medicaid. And there's bomb threats. Notice there's no apostrophes, it's like, "We were going to blow up all you refugees!" (Laughter) "We were going to blow up all you refugees, but then we went to your English class, instead." (Laughter) (Applause) Now, you might be thinking, "This guy's a bit different." (Laughter) Uncommon. (Laughter) A communal narcissist? (Laughter) A unicorn, maybe, because if this was so easy, then other doctors would be doing it. Well, based on Medicaid rates, you can do this in most of the country. You can be your own boss, help the poor and make good money doing it. Medical folks, you wrote on your school application essays that you wanted to help those less fortunate. But then you had your idealism beaten out of you in training. Your creativity bred out of you. It doesn't have to be that way. You can choose underserved medicine as a lifestyle specialty. Or you can be a specialist who cuts cost in order to see low-income folks. And for the rest of you, who don't work in health care, what did you write on your applications? Most of us wanted to save the world, to make a difference. Maybe you've been successful in your career but are now looking for that meaning? How can you get there? I don't just mean giving a few dollars or a few hours; I mean how can you use your expertise to innovate new ways of serving others. It might be easier than you think. The only way we're going to bridge the underserved medicine gap is by seeing it as a business opportunity. The only way we're going to bridge the inequality gap is by recognizing our privileges and using them to help others. (Applause) |
Gyotaku: The ancient Japanese art of printing fish | null | TED-Ed | How big was that fish you caught? This big? This big? This big? Without photographic evidence, there's nothing that proves you caught a whopper, and that's been true since the dawn of fishing. In fact, hundreds of years ago, long before photography could capture the moment, Japanese fishermen invented their own way to record trophy catches. They called it Gyotaku. Gyotaku is the ancient art of printing fish that originated in Japan as a way to record trophy catches prior to the modern day camera. Gyo means fish and taku means impression. There are several different stories about how Gyotaku came about, but it basically started with fishermen needing a way to record the species and size of the fish they caught over 100 years ago. Fishermen took paper, ink, and brushes out to sea with them. They told stories of great adventures at sea. Since the Japanese revered certain fish, the fishermen would take a rubbing from these fish and release them. To make the rubbing, they would paint the fish with non-toxic sumi-e ink and print them on rice paper. This way they could be released or cleaned and sold at market. The first prints like this were for records only with no extra details. It wasn't until the mid 1800's that they began painting eye details and other embellishments onto the prints. One famous nobleman, Lord Sakai, was an avid fisherman, and, when he made a large catch, he wanted to preserve the memory of the large, red sea bream. To do so, he commissioned a fisherman to print his catch. After this, many fisherman would bring their Gyotaku prints to Lord Sakai, and if he liked their work, he would hire them to print for him. Many prints hung in the palace during the Edo period. After this period, Gyotaku was not as popular and began to fade away. Today, Gyotaku has become a popular art form, enjoyed by many. And the prints are said to bring good luck to the fishermen. But the art form is quite different than it used to be. Most artists today learn on their own by trial and error. Before the artist begins to print, the fish needs to be prepared for printing. First, the artist places the fish on a hollowed out surface. Then the artist spreads the fins out and pins them down on the board to dry. They then clean the fish with water. When it comes time to print, there are two different methods. The indirect method begins with pasting moist fabric or paper onto the fish using rice paste. Then, the artist uses a tompo, or a cotton ball covered in silk, to put ink on the fabric or paper to produce the print. This method requires more skill and great care needs to be taken when pulling the paper off the fish so the paper doesn't tear. In the direct method, the artist paints directly on the fish, and then gently presses the moist fabric or paper into the fish. With both of these methods, no two prints are exactly alike, but both reveal dramatic images of the fish. For the final touch, the artist uses a chop, or a stamp, and signs their work, and can hold it up to say, "The fish was exactly this big!" |
If superpowers were real: Super speed | null | TED-Ed | Some superheros can move faster than the wind. The men in Apollo 10 reached a record-breaking speed of around 25,000 miles per hour when the shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere in 1969. Wouldn't we save a lot of time to be able to move that fast? But what's the catch? Air is not empty. Elements like oxygen and nitrogen, even countless dust particles, make up the air around us. When we move past these things in the air, we're rubbing against them and creating a lot of friction, which results in heat. Just like rubbing your hands together warms them up or rubbing two sticks together makes fire, the faster objects rub together, the more heat is generated. So, if we're running at 25,000 miles per hour, the heat from friction would burn our faces off. Even if we somehow withstood the heat, the sand and dirt in the air would still scrape us up with millions of tiny cuts all happening at the same time. Ever seen the front bumper or grill of a truck? What do you think all the birds and bugs would do to your open eyes or exposed skin? Okay, so you'll wear a mask to avoid destroying your face. But what about people in buildings between you and your destination? It takes us approximately one-fifth of a second to react to what we see. By the time we see what is ahead of us and react to it - time times velocity equals distance equals one-fifth of a second times 25,000 miles per hour equals 1.4 miles - we would have gone past it or through it by over a mile. We're either going to kill ourselves by crashing into the nearest wall at super speed or, worse, if we're indestructible, we've essentially turned our bodies into missiles that destroy everything in our path. So, long distance travel at 25,000 miles per hour would leave us burning up, covered in bugs, and leaves no time to react. What about short bursts to a location we can see with no obstacles in between? Okay, let's say a bullet is about to hit a beautiful damsel in distress. So, our hero swoops in at super speed, grabs her, and carries her to safety. That sounds very romantic, but, in reality, that girl will probably suffer more damage from the hero than the bullet if he moved her at super speed. Newton's First Law of Motion deals with inertia, which is the resistance to a change in its state of motion. So, an object will continue moving or staying at the same place unless something changes it. Acceleration is the rate the velocity changes over time. When the girl at rest, velocity equals zero miles per hour, begins accelerating to reach the speed within seconds, velocity increases rapidly to 25,000 miles per hour, her brain would crash into the side of her skull. And, when she stops suddenly, velocity decreases rapidly back to zero miles per hour, her brain would crash into the other side of her skull, turning her brain into mush. The brain is too fragile to handle the sudden movement. So is every part of her body, for that matter. Remember, it's not the speed that causes the damage because the astronauts survived Apollo 10, it's the acceleration or sudden stop that causes our internal organs to crash into the front of our bodies the way we move forward in a bus when the driver slams on the brakes. What the hero did to the girl is mathematically the same as running her over with a space shuttle at maximum speed. She probably died instantly at the point of impact. He's going to owe this poor girl's family an apology and a big fat compensation check. Oh, and possibly face jail time. Doctors have to carry liability insurance just in case they make a mistake and hurt their patients. I wonder how much superhero insurance policy would cost. Now, which superpower physics lesson will you explore next? Shifting body size and content, super speed, flight, super strength, immortality, and invisibility. |
Why is yawning contagious? | null | TED-Ed | Oh, excuse me! Have you ever yawned because somebody else yawned? You aren't especially tired, yet suddenly your mouth opens wide and a big yawn comes out. This phenomenon is known as contagious yawning. And while scientists still don't fully understand why it happens, there are many hypotheses currently being researched. Let's take a look at a few of the most prevalent ones, beginning with two physiological hypotheses before moving to a psychological one. Our first physiological hypothesis states that contagious yawning is triggered by a specific stimulus, an initial yawn. This is called fixed action pattern. Think of fixed action pattern like a reflex. Your yawn makes me yawn. Similar to a domino effect, one person's yawn triggers a yawn in a person nearby that has observed the act. Once this reflex is triggered, it must run its course. Have you ever tried to stop a yawn once it has begun? Basically impossible! Another physiological hypothesis is known as non-conscious mimicry, or the chameleon effect. This occurs when you imitate someone's behavior without knowing it, a subtle and unintentional copycat maneuver. People tend to mimic each other's postures. If you are seated across from someone that has their legs crossed, you might cross your own legs. This hypothesis suggests that we yawn when we see someone else yawn because we are unconsciously copying his or her behavior. Scientists believe that this chameleon effect is possible because of a special set of neurons known as mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are a type of brain cell that responds equally when we perform an action as when we see someone else perform the same action. These neurons are important for learning and self-awareness. For example, watching someone do something physical, like knitting or putting on lipstick, can help you do those same actions more accurately. Neuroimaging studies using fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging, show us that when we seem someone yawn or even hear their yawn, a specific area of the brain housing these mirror neurons tends to light up, which, in turn, causes us to respond with the same action: a yawn! Our psychological hypothesis also involves the work of these mirror neurons. We will call it the empathy yawn. Empathy is the ability to understand what someone else is feeling and partake in their emotion, a crucial ability for social animals like us. Recently, neuroscientists have found that a subset of mirror neurons allows us to empathize with others' feelings at a deeper level. (Yawn) Scientists discovered this empathetic response to yawning while testing the first hypothesis we mentioned, fixed action pattern. This study was set up to show that dogs would enact a yawn reflex at the mere sound of a human yawn. While their study showed this to be true, they found something else interesting. Dogs yawned more frequently at familiar yawns, such as from their owners, than at unfamiliar yawns from strangers. Following this research, other studies on humans and primates have also shown that contagious yawning occurs more frequently among friends than strangers. In fact, contagious yawning starts occurring when we are about four or five years old, at the point when children develop the ability to identify others' emotions properly. Still, while newer scientific studies aim to prove that contagious yawning is based on this capacity for empathy, more research is needed to shed light on what exactly is going on. It's possible that the answer lies in another hypothesis altogether. The next time you get caught in a yawn, take a second to think about what just happened. Were you thinking about a yawn? Did someone near you yawn? Was that person a stranger or someone close? And are you yawning right now? (Yawn) (Lip smacking) |
Can you solve the three gods riddle? | null | TED-Ed | Created by logician Raymond Smullyan and popularized by his colleague George Boolos, this riddle has been called the hardest logic puzzle ever. You and your team have crash-landed on an ancient planet. The only way off is to appease its three alien overlords, Tee, Eff, and Arr, by giving them the correct artifacts. Unfortunately, you don't know who is who. From an inscription, you learn that you may ask three yes or no questions, each addressed to any one lord. Tee's answers are always true, Eff's are always false, and Arr's answer is random each time. But there's a problem. You've deciphered the language enough to ask any question, but you don't know which of the two words 'ozo' and 'ulu' means yes and which means no. How can you still figure out which alien is which? Pause here if you want to figure it out for yourself! Answer in: 3 2 1 At first, this puzzle seems not just hard, but downright impossible. What good is asking a question if you can neither understand the answer nor know if it's true? But it can be done. The key is to carefully formulate our questions so that any answer yields useful information. First of all, we can get around to not knowing what 'ozo' and 'ulu' mean by including the words themselves in the questions, and secondly, if we load each question with a hypothetical condition, whether an alien is lying or not won't actually matter. To see how that could work, imagine our question is whether two plus two is four. Instead of posing it directly, we say, "If I asked you whether two plus two is four, would you answer 'ozo'?" If 'ozo' means yes and the overlord is Tee, it truthfully replies, "ozo." But what if we ask Eff? Well, it would answer "ulu," or no to the embedded question, so it lies and replies 'ozo' instead. And if 'ozo' actually means no, then the answer to our embedded question is 'ulu,' and both Tee and Eff still reply 'ozo,' each for their own reasons. If you're confused about why this works, the reason involves logical structure. A double positive and a double negative both result in a positive. Now, we can be sure that asking either Tee or Eff a question put this way will yield 'ozo' if the hypothetical question is true and 'ulu' if it's false regardless of what each word actually means. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us with Arr. But don't worry, we can use our first question to identify one alien lord that definitely isn't Arr. Then we can use the second to find out whether its Tee or Eff. And once we know that, we can ask it to identify one of the others. So let's begin. Ask the alien in the middle, "If I asked you whether the overlord on my left is Arr, would you answer 'ozo'?" If the reply is 'ozo,' there are two possibilities. You could already be talking to Arr, in which case the answer is meaningless. But otherwise, you're talking to either Tee or Eff, and as we know, getting 'ozo' from either one means your hypothetical question was correct, and the left overlord is indeed Arr. Either way, you can be sure the alien on the right is not Arr. Similarly, if the answer is 'ulu,' then you know the alien on the left can't be Arr. Now go to the overlord you've determined isn't Arr and ask, "If I asked 'are you Eff?' would you answer 'ozo'?" Since you don't have to worry about the random possibility, either answer will establish its identity. Now that you know whether its answers are true or false, ask the same alien whether the center overlord is Arr. The process of elimination will identify the remaining one. The satisfied overlords help you repair your ship and you prepare for takeoff. Allowed one final question, you ask Tee if it's a long way to Earth, and he answers "ozo." Too bad you still don't know what that means. |
If superpowers were real: Flight | null | TED-Ed | If humans could fly, without tools and machines, how fast do you think we would go? As of 2012, the world record for fastest short-distance sprint speed is roughly 27 miles per hour. Running speed depends on how much force is exerted by the runner's legs, and according to Newton's Second Law of Motion, force is the product of mass times acceleration. And Newton's Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, that means running requires having a ground to push off from, and the ground pushes back against the runner's foot. So, flying would actually be more similar to swimming. Michael Phelps is currently the fastest human in water and the most decorated Olympian of all time. Guess how fast he swims? The answer may surprise you. His fastest recorded speed is less than 5 miles per hour. A child on the ground can easily outrun Michael Phelps in water, but why is that? Well, let's go back to Newton's Third Law of Motion. When we run, we move forward by pushing against the ground with our feet and the ground pushes back, propelling us forward. The ground is solid. By definition, it means the particles are essentially locked into place and must push back instead of getting out of the way, but water is liquid and flows easily. When we move our limbs to push back against the water, a part of the water molecules can just slide past one another instead of pushing back. Now, let's think about flying. Air has a lot more free space for particles to move past one another, so even more of our energy would be wasted. We would need to push a lot of air backwards in order to move forward. Astronauts move around in shuttles in zero gravity when they're in outer space by pulling on handles installed on the ceiling walls and floors of the shuttle. Now, imagine you were given the ability to float. How would you move around in the middle of the street? Well, you wouldn't get very far by swimming in air, would you? Nah, I don't think so! Now, assuming you were granted the ability to float and the speed to move around efficiently, let's discuss the height of your flight. According to the Ideal Gas Law, P-V N-R-T, pressure and temperature has a positive correlation, meaning they increase and decrease together. This is because the air expands in volume with less pressure, so the molecules have more room to wander around without colliding into each other and creating heat. Since the atmospheric pressure is a lot lower in high altitudes, it would be freezing cold if you were flying above the clouds. You'd need to wrap yourself up to keep your core body temperature above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, otherwise you'd start shivering violently, gradually becoming mentally confused and eventually drop out of the sky due to loss of muscle control from hypothermia! Now, the Ideal Gas Law implies that as the pressure decreases, gas volume increases. So, if you were to fly straight up too quickly, the inert gas in your body would rapidly expand the way soda fizzes up when shaken. The phenomenon is called "the bends," decompression sickness, or "divers disease" since deep sea scuba divers experience this when they come up too quickly. This results in pain, paralysis, or death, depending on how foamy your blood becomes. Okay, well, let's say you want to fly just a few meters above the ground where you can still see the road signs and breath oxygen with ease. You'll still need goggles and a helmet to protect you from birds, insects, street signs, electrical wires, and other flying humans, including flying cops ready to hand you a ticket if you don't follow the flying rules, buddy. Now remember, if you have a collision mid-air that knocks you unconscious, you would experience free fall until you hit the ground. Without society or the laws of physics, flying would be a totally awesome ability to have. But, even if we could all just float around a few feet above the ground and only moving at a snail's pace, I'm telling you, it's still a cool ability that I'd want, wouldn't you? Yeah, I thought so. Now, which superpower physics lesson will you explore next? Shifting body size and content, super speed, flight, super strength, immortality, and invisibility. |
Are Elvish, Klingon, Dothraki and Na'vi real languages? | {0: 'Linguist John McWhorter thinks about language in relation to race, politics and our shared cultural history.'} | TED-Ed | To many, one of the coolest things about "Game of Thrones" is that the inhabitants of the Dothraki Sea have their own real language. And Dothraki came hot on the heels of the real language that the Na'vi speak in "Avatar," which, surely, the Na'vi needed when the Klingons in "Star Trek" have had their own whole language since 1979. And let's not forget the Elvish languages in J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, especially since that was the official grandfather of the fantasy conlangs. "Conlang" is short for "constructed language." They're more than codes like Pig Latin, and they're not just collections of fabricated slang like the Nadsat lingo that the teen hoodlums in "A Clockwork Orange" speak, where "droog" from Russian happens to mean "friend." What makes conlangs real languages isn't the number of words they have. It helps, of course, to have a lot of words. Dothraki has thousands of words. Na'vi started with 1,500 words. Fans on websites have steadily created more. But we can see the difference between vocabulary alone and what makes a real language from a look at how Tolkien put together grand old Elvish, a conlang with several thousands words. After all, you could memorize 5,000 words of Russian and still be barely able to construct a sentence. A four-year-old would talk rings around you. That's because you have to know how to put the words together. That is, a real language has grammar. Elvish does. In English, to make a verb past, you add an "-ed." Wash, washed. In Elvish, "wash" is "allu" and "washed" is "allune." Real languages also change over time. There's no such thing as a language that's the same today as it was a thousand years ago. As people speak, they drift into new habits, shed old ones, make mistakes, and get creative. Today, one says, "Give us today our daily bread." In Old English, they said, "Urne gedaeghwamlican hlaf syle us todaeg." Things change in conlangs, too. Tolkien charted out ancient and newer versions of Elvish. When the first Elves awoke at Cuiviénen, in their new language, the word for "people" was "kwendi," but in the language of one of the groups that moved away, Teleri, over time, "kwendi" became "pendi," with the "k" turning into a "p." And just like real languages, conlangs like Elvish split off into many. When the Romans transplanted Latin across Europe, French, Spanish, and Italian were born. When groups move to different places, over time, their ways of speaking grow apart, just like everything else about them. Thus, Latin's word for hand was "manus," but in French, it became "main," while in Spain it became "mano." Tolkien made sure Elvish did the same kind of thing. While that original word "kwendi" became "pendi" among the Teleri, among the Avari, who spread throughout Middle Earth, it became "kindi" when the "w" dropped out. The Elvish varieties Tolkien fleshed out the most are Quenya and Sindarin, and their words are different in the same way French and Spanish are. Quenya has "suc" for "drink," Sindarin has "sog." And as you know, real languages are messy. That's because they change, and change has a way of working against order, just like in a living room or on a bookshelf. Real languages are never perfectly logical. That's why Tolkien made sure that Elvish had plenty of exceptions. Lots of verbs are conjugated in ways you just have to know. Take even the word "know." In the past, it's "knew," which isn't explained by any of the rules in English. Oh well. In Elvish, "know" is "ista," but "knew" is "sinte." Oh well. The truth is, though, that Elvish is more a sketch for a real language than a whole one. For Tolkien, Elvish was a hobby rather than an attempt to create something people could actually speak. Much of the Elvish the characters in the "Lord of the Rings" movies speak has been made up since Tolkien by dedicated fans of Elvish based on guesses as to what Tolkien would have constructed. That's the best we can do for Elvish because there are no actual Elves around to speak it for us. But the modern conlangs go further. Dothraki, Na'vi, and Klingon are developed enough that you can actually speak them. Here's a translation of "Hamlet" into Klingon, although performing it would mean getting used to pronouncing "k" with your uvula, that weird, cartoony thing hanging in the back of your throat. Believe it or not, you actually do that in plenty of languages around the world, like Eskimo ones. Pronouncing Elvish is much easier, though. So, let's take our leave for now from this introduction to conlangs in Elvish and the other three conlangs discussed with a heartfelt quad-conlangual valedictory: "A Na Marie!" "Hajas!" Na'vi's "Kiyevame!" "Qapla!" and "Goodbye!" |
If superpowers were real: Invisibility | null | TED-Ed | Wouldn't it be great if we could be invisible? Ha, right? I mean, we could spy on people without being noticed and do whatever we want without being held responsible. Now, magicians have figured out how to utilize full-sized mirrors to bend light in order to create disappearing illusions. Scientists have created metamaterials to guide rays of light around tiny, two-dimensional objects. Cameras can also film what is behind you and project the image so you appear invisible from the front. However, none of these options can make an object as large as a person appear invisible for all angles and distances while its moving. But if you are truly invisible, as in from within, here are a few problems you may not have thought about before. To move around undetected by other people, you would have to be totally naked. Even if it's freezing outside! You can't carry anything, including your wallet and keys, otherwise people would just see your wallet and keys floating around. Drivers and people on the street can't see you either, therefore they can and will run into you at some point. Oh, and you better not wear any perfume or make any noise breathing, otherwise they'll know you're there. And, just because you start off invisible, doesn't mean you'll stay that way. What if someone accidentally spills scolding hot coffee on you? And what if it rains? But if you think only liquid can make you visible, you're wrong. Dust consists of dead skin cells from humans, soil particles, and fibers from clothes made from cotton and other materials. Dust sticks to the moisture on our skin when we sweat and the tiny hairs on our skin when we are dry. So, even if you are invisible, dust would still land on every part of you. We usually don't notice the dust on our skin because we can't see a thin layer of dust on top of our skin color. But, if you're invisible, people would see a human-shaped blob of dust walking around with extremely dirty soles. Gross! What do you think the world looks like if you are invisible? Well, the answer is nothing. The reason you can't see in the dark is because there is no light. To see an apple, light has to hit the apple and return it to your eyes. Then, the retinas in your eyes catch the light reflection for your brain to interpret into the image of an apple. If you're invisible, then, by definition, light would travel through you or around you instead of bouncing off you for people to see. But that means that retinas in your eyes are not catching the light, either. Therefore, your brain has nothing to interpret into an image. Can you see your reflection without a mirror to stop the light? No. So, when you can't be seen by others, you also cannot see. Ouch! Now, have you given any thought as of whether the invisibility is permanent? If it is, how can you receive medical treatment from a doctor if you're injured? The doctor wouldn't know where to apply ointments or bandages because they cannot access your injury. For that matter, you can't see it either. I mean, what if you have an illness or an infection? How can the doctor diagnose you without being able to see the color change or inflammation? And what if everyone is permanently invisible? Well, think about how boring the world would be without seeing people on the streets, on TV, or at home on your computer like right now. It's lonely being invisible. Now, which superpower physics lesson will you explore next? Shifting body size and content, super speed, flight, super strength, immortality, and invisibility. |
How did feathers evolve? | null | TED-Ed | Feathers are some of the most remarkable things ever made by an animal. They are gorgeous in their complexity, delicate in their construction, and yet strong enough to hold a bird thousands of feet in the air. Like all things in nature, feathers evolved over millions of years into their modern form. It could be hard to imagine how this could have happened. After all, what did the intermediate forms look like? What good is half a wing, festooned with half-feathers? Thanks to science, we now know that birds are living dinosaurs. You can see the kinship in their skeletons. Certain dinosaurs share some anatomical details with birds found in no other animals, such as wish bones. And in the late 1990s, paleontologists started digging up some compelling support for that idea: dinosaurs with bits of feathers still preserved on their bodies. Since then, scientists have found dozens of species of dinosaurs with remnants of feathers. Some were as small as pigeons, and some were the size of a school bus. If you look at how they are related on a family tree, the evolution of feathers doesn't seem quite so impossible. The most distant feathered relatives of birds had straight feathers that looked like wires. Then these wires split apart, producing simple branches. In many dinosaur lineages, these simple feathers evolved into more intricate ones, including some that we see today on birds. At the same time, the feathers spread across the bodies of dinosaurs, turning from sparse patches of fuzz into dense plumage, which even extended down to their legs. A few fossils even preserved some of the molecules that give feathers color. They reveal a beautiful range of colors: glossy, dark plumage, reminiscent of crows, alternating strips of black and white, or splashes of bright red. Some dinosaurs had high crests on their heads, and others had long, dramatic tail feathers. Now, none of these dinosaurs could use their feathers to fly - their arms were too short and the rest of their bodies were far too heavy. But, birds don't just use feathers to fly. A woodcock uses feathers to blend in perfectly with its forest backdrop. An ostrich stretches its wings over its nest to shade its young. A peacock displays its magnificent tail feathers to attract peahens. Feathers could have served these functions for dinosaurs too. Exactly how feathered dinosaurs took flight is still a bit of a mystery. But if a small-feathered dinosaur flapped its arms as it ran up an incline, its feathers would have provided extra lift to help it run faster. This accident of physics might have led to the evolution of longer dinosaur arms, which would let them run faster and even leap short distances through the air. Eventually, their arms stretched out into wings. Only then, perhaps 50 million years after the first wiry feathers evolved, did feathers lift those dinosaurs into the sky. |
Why do we cry? The three types of tears | null | TED-Ed | Our story is about a girl named Iris. Iris is very sensitive. (Bird cawing) So much that she is always in tears. She cries when she's sad, when she's happy, (Godzilla roars) and even tears up when things just get to her. She has special lacrimal glands to make new tears and special tubes, called lacrimal puncta, to drain old ones away. And she cries so much that she goes through ten ounces of tears per day, thirty gallons a year! In fact, if you look closely, you'll see that she's crying a little bit all the time. The basal tears that Iris constantly produces form a thin coating of three layers that cover her and keep dirt and debris away. Right next to Iris is the mucus layer, which keeps the whole thing fastened to her. On top of it is the aqueous layer, which keeps Iris hydrated, repels invasive bacteria, and protects her skin, or cornea, from damage. And, finally, there is the lipid layer, an oily outer film that keeps the surface smooth for Iris to see through, and prevents the other layers from evaporating. Normally, Iris goes about her day without really noticing the basal tears doing their thing. That's kind of their whole point. But one day, she meets a girl named Onion. Iris is immediately smitten. Onion looks gorgeous in her bright purple jacket, and she smells terrific. So, Iris invites Onion to her house for dinner. But when she comes in and takes off her jacket, something terrible happens. You see, when Onion's jacket is removed, a chemical reaction happens, converting the sulfoxides that make her smell so great into sulfenic acid, which then becomes a nasty substance with a long name: syn-Propanethial S-oxide. The gas stings Iris, and suddenly, she can't help it, she starts weeping uncontrollably. These reflex tears are different from the basal tears that Iris is used to. Because they're designed to wash away harmful substances, or particles, they're released in much larger amounts, and their aqueous layer contains more antibodies to stop any microorganisms that may be trying to get in, as well. Both Iris and Onion are devastated. They know they can't continue their relationship if Iris is going to hurt and cry every time Onion takes off her jacket. So, they decide to break up. As Onion walks out the door, Iris stops crying. And immediately starts again. Only now, she's not crying reflex tears but emotional tears. When someone is either too sad or too happy, it feels like a loss of control, which can be dangerous. So, emotional tears are sent in to stabilize the mood as quickly as possible, along with other physical reactions, such as an increased heart rate and slower breathing. But scientists still aren't sure exactly how or why the tears themselves are helpful. They may be a social mechanism to elicit sympathy or show submission. But some studies have also found that emotional tears contain higher levels of stress hormones, such as ACTH and enkephalin, an endorphin and natural pain killer. In this case, emotional tears are also directly calming Iris down, as well as signaling her emotional state to others. Sorry things didn't work out with Onion, Iris, but don't worry. As long as you have all three kinds of tears working to keep you balanced and healthy, it will get better. You'll see. |
The physics of human sperm vs. the physics of the sperm whale | null | TED-Ed | In 1977, the physicist Edward Purcell calculated that if you push a bacteria and then let go, it will stop in about a millionth of a second. In that time, it will have traveled less than the width of a single atom. The same holds true for a sperm and many other microbes. It all has to do with being really small. Microscopic creatures inhabit a world alien to us, where making it through an inch of water is an incredible endeavor. But why does size matter so much for a swimmer? What makes the world of a sperm so fundamentally different from that of a sperm whale? To find out, we need to dive into the physics of fluids. Here's a way to think about it. Imagine you are swimming in a pool. It's you and a whole bunch of water molecules. Water molecules outnumber you a thousand trillion trillion to one. So, pushing past them with your gigantic body is easy, but if you were really small, say you were about the size of a water molecule, all of a sudden, it's like you're swimming in a pool of people. Rather than simply swishing by all the teeny, tiny molecules, now every single water molecule is like another person you have to push past to get anywhere. In 1883, the physicist Osborne Reynolds figured out that there is one simple number that can predict how a fluid will behave. It's called the Reynolds number, and it depends on simple properties like the size of the swimmer, its speed, the density of the fluid, and the stickiness, or the viscosity, of the fluid. What this means is that creatures of very different sizes inhabit vastly different worlds. For example, because of its huge size, a sperm whale inhabits the large Reynolds number world. If it flaps its tail once, it can coast ahead for an incredible distance. Meanwhile, sperm live in a low Reynolds number world. If a sperm were to stop flapping its tail, it wouldn't even coast past a single atom. To imagine what it would feel like to be a sperm, you need to bring yourself down to its Reynolds number. Picture yourself in a tub of molasses with your arms moving about as slow as the minute hand of a clock, and you'd have a pretty good idea of what a sperm is up against. So, how do microbes manage to get anywhere? Well, many don't bother swimming at all. They just let the food drift to them. This is somewhat like a lazy cow that waits for the grass under its mouth to grow back. But many microbes do swim, and this is where those incredible adaptations come in. One trick they can use is to deform the shape of their paddle. By cleverly flexing their paddle to create more drag on the power stroke than on the recovery stroke, single-celled organisms like paramecia manage to inch their way through the crowd of water molecules. But there's an even more ingenious solution arrived at by bacteria and sperm. Instead of wagging their paddles back and forth, they wind them like a cork screw. Just as a cork screw on a wine bottle converts winding motion into forward motion, these tiny creatures spin their helical tails to push themselves forward in a world where water feels as thick as cork. Other strategies are even stranger. Some bacteria take Batman's approach. They use grappling hooks to pull themselves along. They can even use this grappling hook like a sling shot and fling themselves forward. Others use chemical engineering. H. pylori lives only in the slimy, acidic mucus inside our stomachs. It releases a chemical that thins out the surrounding mucus, allowing it to glide through slime. Maybe it's no surprise that these guys are also responsible for stomach ulcers. So, when you look really closely at our bodies and the world around us, you can see all sorts of tiny creatures finding clever ways to get around in a sticky situation. Without these adaptations, bacteria would never find their hosts, and sperms would never make it to their eggs, which means you would never get stomach ulcers, but you would also never be born in the first place. (Pop) |
How to organize, add and multiply matrices | null | TED-Ed | By now, I'm sure you know that in just about anything you do in life, you need numbers. In particular, though, some fields don't just need a few numbers, they need lots of them. How do you keep track of all those numbers? Well, mathematicians dating back as early as ancient China came up with a way to represent arrays of many numbers at once. Nowadays we call such an array a "matrix," and many of them hanging out together, "matrices". Matrices are everywhere. They are all around us, even now in this very room. Sorry, let's get back on track. Matrices really are everywhere, though. They are used in business, economics, cryptography, physics, electronics, and computer graphics. One reason matrices are so cool is that we can pack so much information into them and then turn a huge series of different problems into one single problem. So, to use matrices, we need to learn how they work. It turns out, you can treat matrices just like regular numbers. You can add them, subtract them, even multiply them. You can't divide them, but that's a rabbit hole of its own. Adding matrices is pretty simple. All you have to do is add the corresponding entries in the order they come. So the first entries get added together, the second entries, the third, all the way down. Of course, your matrices have to be the same size, but that's pretty intuitive anyway. You can also multiply the whole matrix by a number, called a scalar. Just multiply every entry by that number. But wait, there's more! You can actually multiply one matrix by another matrix. It's not like adding them, though, where you do it entry by entry. It's more unique and pretty cool once you get the hang of it. Here's how it works. Let's say you have two matrices. Let's make them both two by two, meaning two rows by two columns. Write the first matrix to the left and the second matrix goes next to it and translated up a bit, kind of like we are making a table. The product we get when we multiply the matrices together will go right between them. We'll also draw some gridlines to help us along. Now, look at the first row of the first matrix and the first column of the second matrix. See how there's two numbers in each? Multiply the first number in the row by the first number in the column: 1 times 2 is 2. Now do the next ones: 3 times 3 is 9. Now add them up: 2 plus 9 is 11. Let's put that number in the top-left position so that it matches up with the rows and columns we used to get it. See how that works? You can do the same thing to get the other entries. -4 plus 0 is -4. 4 plus -3 is 1. -8 plus 0 is -8. So, here's your answer. Not all that bad, is it? There's one catch, though. Just like with addition, your matrices have to be the right size. Look at these two matrices. 2 times 8 is 16. 3 times 4 is 12. 3 times wait a minute, there are no more rows in the second matrix. We ran out of room. So, these matrices can't be multiplied. The number of columns in the first matrix has to be the same as the number of rows in the second matrix. As long as you're careful to match up your dimensions right, though, it's pretty easy. Understanding matrix multiplication is just the beginning, by the way. There's so much you can do with them. For example, let's say you want to encrypt a secret message. Let's say it's "Math rules". Though, why anybody would want to keep this a secret is beyond me. Letting numbers stand for letters, you can put the numbers in a matrix and then an encryption key in another. Multiply them together and you've got a new encoded matrix. The only way to decode the new matrix and read the message is to have the key, that second matrix. There's even a branch of mathematics that uses matrices constantly, called Linear Algebra. If you ever get a chance to study Linear Algebra, do it, it's pretty awesome. But just remember, once you know how to use matrices, you can do pretty much anything. |
What's an algorithm? | null | TED-Ed | What's an algorithm? In computer science, an algorithm is a set of instructions for solving some problem, step-by-step. Typically, algorithms are executed by computers, but we humans have algorithms as well. For instance, how would you go about counting the number of people in a room? Well, if you're like me, you probably point at each person, one at a time, and count up from 0: 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth. Well, that's an algorithm. In fact, let's try to express it a bit more formally in pseudocode, English-like syntax that resembles a programming language. Let n equal 0. For each person in room, set n = n + 1. How to interpret this pseudocode? Well, line 1 declares, so to speak, a variable called n and initializes its value to zero. This just means that at the beginning of our algorithm, the thing with which we're counting has a value of zero. After all, before we start counting, we haven't counted anything yet. Calling this variable n is just a convention. I could have called it almost anything. Now, line 2 demarks the start of loop, a sequence of steps that will repeat some number of times. So, in our example, the step we're taking is counting people in the room. Beneath line 2 is line 3, which describes exactly how we'll go about counting. The indentation implies that it's line 3 that will repeat. So, what the pseudocode is saying is that after starting at zero, for each person in the room, we'll increase n by 1. Now, is this algorithm correct? Well, let's bang on it a bit. Does it work if there are 2 people in the room? Let's see. In line 1, we initialize n to zero. For each of these two people, we then increment n by 1. So, in the first trip through the loop, we update n from zero to 1, on the second trip through that same loop, we update n from 1 to 2. And so, by this algorithm's end, n is 2, which indeed matches the number of people in the room. So far, so good. How about a corner case, though? Suppose that there are zero people in the room, besides me, who's doing the counting. In line 1, we again initialize n to zero. This time, though, line 3 doesn't execute at all since there isn't a person in the room, and so, n remains zero, which indeed matches the number of people in the room. Pretty simple, right? But counting people one a time is pretty inefficient, too, no? Surely, we can do better! Why not count two people at a time? Instead of counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and so forth, why not count 2, 4, 6, 8, and so on? It even sounds faster, and it surely is. Let's express this optimization in pseudocode. Let n equal zero. For each pair of people in room, set n = n + 2. Pretty simple change, right? Rather than count people one at a time, we instead count them two at a time. This algorithm's thus twice as fast as the last. But is it correct? Let's see. Does it work if there are 2 people in the room? In line 1, we initialize n to zero. For that one pair of people, we then increment n by 2. And so, by this algorithm's end, n is 2, which indeed matches the number of people in the room. Suppose next that there are zero people in the room. In line 1, we initialize n to zero. As before, line 3 doesn't execute at all since there aren't any pairs of people in the room, and so, n remains zero, which indeed matches the number of people in the room. But what if there are 3 people in the room? How does this algorithm fair? Let's see. In line 1, we initialize n to zero. For a pair of those people, we then increment n by 2, but then what? There isn't another full pair of people in the room, so line 2 no longer applies. And so, by this algorithm's end, n is still 2, which isn't correct. Indeed this algorithm is said to be buggy because it has a mistake. Let's redress with some new pseudocode. Let n equal zero. For each pair of people in room, set n = n + 2. If 1 person remains unpaired, set n = n + 1. To solve this particular problem, we've introduced in line 4 a condition, otherwise known as a branch, that only executes if there is one person we could not pair with another. So now, whether there's 1 or 3 or any odd number of people in the room, this algorithm will now count them. Can we do even better? Well, we could count in 3's or 4's or even 5's and 10's, but beyond that it's going to get a little bit difficult to point. At the end of the day, whether executed by computers or humans, algorithms are just a set of instructions with which to solve problems. These were just three. What problem would you solve with an algorithm? |
If superpowers were real: Body mass | null | TED-Ed | Some superheroes can grow to the size of a building at will. That's very intimidating! But a scientist must ask where the extra material is coming from. The Law of Conservation of Mass implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, which means that our hero's mass will not change just because his size changes. For instance, when we bake a fluffy sponge cake, even though the resulting delicious treat is much bigger in size than the cake batter that went into the oven, the weight of the cake batter should still equal the weight of the cake plus the moisture that has evaporated. In a chemical equation, molecules rearrange to make new compounds, but all the components should still be accounted for. When our hero expands from 6 feet tall to 18 feet tall, his height triples. Galileo's Square Cube Law says his weight will be 27 - 3 times 3 times 3 equals 27 - times his regular weight since he has to expand in all three dimensions. So, when our superhero transforms into a giant, we are dealing with two possibilities. Our hero towering at 18 feet still only weighs 200 pounds, the original weight in this human form. Now, option two, our hero weighs 5,400 pounds - 200 pounds times 27 equals 5,400 pounds - when he is 18 feet tall, which means he also weighs 5,400 pounds when he is 6 feet tall. Nobody can get in the same elevator with him without the alarm going off. Now, option two seems a little more scientifically plausible, but it begs the question, how does he ever walk through the park without sinking into the ground since the pressure he is exerting on the soil is calculated by his mass divided by the area of the bottom of his feet? And what kind of super socks and super shoes is he putting on his feet to withstand all the friction that results from dragging his 5,400 pound body against the road when he runs? And can he even run? And I won't even ask how he finds pants flexible enough to withstand the expansion. Now, let's explore the density of the two options mentioned above. Density is defined as mass divided by volume. The human body is made out of bones and flesh, which has a relatively set density. In option one, if the hero weighs 200 pounds all the time, then he would be bones and flesh at normal size. When he expands to a bigger size while still weighing 200 pounds, he essentially turns himself into a giant, fluffy teddy bear. In option two, if the hero weighs 5,400 pounds all the time, then he would be bones and flesh at 18 feet with 5,400 pounds of weight supported by two legs. The weight would be exerted on the leg bones at different angles as he moves. Bones, while hard, are not malleable, meaning they do not bend, so they break easily. The tendons would also be at risk of tearing. Tall buildings stay standing because they have steel frames and do not run and jump around in the jungle. Our hero, on the other hand, one landing at a bad angle and he's down. Assuming his bodily function is the same as any mammal's, his heart would need to pump a large amount of blood throughout his body to provide enough oxygen for him to move 5,400 pounds of body weight around. This would take tremendous energy, which he would need to provide by consuming 27 times 3,000 calories of food every day. Now, that is roughly 150 Big Macs. 27 times 3,000 calculated equals 81,000 calculated slash 550 calories equals 147. He wouldn't have time to fight crime because he would be eating all the time and working a 9-to-5 job in order to afford all the food he eats. And what about superheroes who can turn their bodies into rocks or sand? Well, everything on Earth is made out of elements. And what defines each element is the number of protons in the nucleus. That is how our periodic table is organized. Hydrogen has one proton, helium, two protons, lithium, three protons, and so on. The primary component of the most common form of sand is silicon dioxide. Meanwhile, the human body consists of 65% oxygen, 18% carbon, 10% hydrogen, and 7% of various other elements including 0.002% of silicon. In a chemical reaction, the elements recombine to make new compounds. So, where is he getting all this silicon necessary to make the sand? Sure, we can alter elements by nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. However, nuclear fusion requires so much heat, the only natural occurrence of this process is in stars. In order to utilize fusion in a short amount of time, the temperature of the area needs to be hotter than the Sun. Every innocent bystander will be burned to a crisp. Rapid nuclear fission is not any better since it often results in many radioactive particles. Our hero would become a walking, talking nuclear power plant, ultimately harming every person he tries to save. And do you really want the heat of the Sun or a radioactive nuclear plant inside of your body? Now, which superpower physics lesson will you explore next? Shifting body size and content, super speed, flight, super strength, immortality, and invisibility. |
Euclid's puzzling parallel postulate | null | TED-Ed | As any current or past geometry student knows, the father of geometry was Euclid, a Greek mathematician who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, around 300 B.C.E. Euclid is known as the author of a singularly influential work known as "Elements." You think your math book is long? Euclid's "Elements" is 13 volumes full of just geometry. In "Elements," Euclid structured and supplemented the work of many mathematicians that came before him, such as Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Hippocrates and others. Euclid laid it all out as a logical system of proof built up from a set of definitions, common notions, and his five famous postulates. Four of these postulates are very simple and straightforward, two points determine a line, for example. The fifth one, however, is the seed that grows our story. This fifth mysterious postulate is known simply as the parallel postulate. You see, unlike the first four, the fifth postulate is worded in a very convoluted way. Euclid's version states that, "If a line falls on two other lines so that the measure of the two interior angles on the same side of the transversal add up to less than two right angles, then the lines eventually intersect on that side, and therefore are not parallel." Wow, that is a mouthful! Here's the simpler, more familiar version: "In a plane, through any point not on a given line, only one new line can be drawn that's parallel to the original one." Many mathematicians over the centuries tried to prove the parallel postulate from the other four, but weren't able to do so. In the process, they began looking at what would happen logically if the fifth postulate were actually not true. Some of the greatest minds in the history of mathematics ask this question, people like Ibn al-Haytham, Omar Khayyam, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Giovanni Saccheri, János Bolyai, Carl Gauss, and Nikolai Lobachevsky. They all experimented with negating the parallel postulate, only to discover that this gave rise to entire alternative geometries. These geometries became collectively known as non-Euclidean geometries. We'll leave the details of these different geometries for another lesson. The main difference depends on the curvature of the surface upon which the lines are constructed. Turns out Euclid did not tell us the entire story in "Elements," and merely described one possible way to look at the universe. It all depends on the context of what you're looking at. Flat surfaces behave one way, while positively and negatively curved surfaces display very different characteristics. At first these alternative geometries seemed strange, but were soon found to be equally adept at describing the world around us. Navigating our planet requires elliptical geometry while the much of the art of M.C. Escher displays hyperbolic geometry. Albert Einstein used non-Euclidean geometry as well to describe how space-time becomes warped in the presence of matter, as part of his general theory of relativity. The big mystery is whether Euclid had any inkling of the existence of these different geometries when he wrote his postulate. We may never know, but it's hard to believe he had no idea whatsoever of their nature, being the great intellect that he was and understanding the field as thoroughly as he did. Maybe he did know and he wrote the postulate in such a way as to leave curious minds after him to flush out the details. If so, he's probably pleased. These discoveries could never have been made without gifted, progressive thinkers able to suspend their preconceived notions and think outside of what they've been taught. We, too, must be willing at times to put aside our preconceived notions and physical experiences and look at the larger picture, or we risk not seeing the rest of the story. |
What cameras see that our eyes don't | null | TED-Ed | The human eye is one of the most powerful machines on the planet. It's like a 500 megapixel camera that can run in bright light, in near darkness, and even under water, though not real well. It communicates to our brains so much about the world. Our eyes are how we find partners, how we understand the people around us, how we read, and how we watch game shows on TV where people get knocked into cold water by padded wrecking balls. Yup, the human eye is pretty neat, and we're lucky enough to have two of them. But, there are things that, despite looking really hard, we still can't quite see. For example, you can watch a horse galloping, but your eyes can't keep up with its fast-moving hooves enough to figure out whether all four feet are ever off the ground simultaneously. For these types of questions, we need cameras. About 150 years ago, the photographer Eadweard Muybridge used one to solve the galloping horse mystery. Using careful photography, Muybridge proved that at certain points as it gallops, a horse really is flying. "Look, ma! No hooves!" Since then, photography has found its way into all aspects of math and science. It enhances our understanding of a world we thought we could already see, but it's one which we really need help to see a little better. It's not always a matter of the world moving by too quickly for our eyes to process. Sometimes cameras can help us see matter or movements that are too small for the naked eye. Botanists use multiple photographs to show the life cycle of plants and how flowers turn over the course of a few hours to follow the sun in what is called phototropism, growing towards the light. Mathematicians have used photos to look at where in the twists and turns of a whip the crack sound comes when the whip is breaking the sound barrier. Meteorologists and environmental scientists show the growth of major hurricanes and the recession over the years of many of the world's glaciers. Slow-motion film or high-speed photography have shown us the beating of a hummingbird's wings and the course of a bullet through its target. In one project, cadavers, that's dead bodies, were frozen and sliced into thousands of wafer-thin discs. The discs were photographed to produced animated movies that allow a viewer to travel up and down the skeleton, and into the flesh, and through the bones, and the veins, and, perhaps I should have suggested you don't watch this during dinner, my bad. In classrooms today, the camera, now present in just about every phone and computer, allows the youngest scientists to observe the world around them, to document it, and to share their findings online. Whether it's the change of seasons or the growth of the germinating seed, cameras are allowing us to see a beautiful world through new eyes. |
What is Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox? | null | TED-Ed | This is Zeno of Elea, an ancient Greek philosopher famous for inventing a number of paradoxes, arguments that seem logical, but whose conclusion is absurd or contradictory. For more than 2,000 years, Zeno's mind-bending riddles have inspired mathematicians and philosophers to better understand the nature of infinity. One of the best known of Zeno's problems is called the dichotomy paradox, which means, "the paradox of cutting in two" in ancient Greek. It goes something like this: After a long day of sitting around, thinking, Zeno decides to walk from his house to the park. The fresh air clears his mind and help him think better. In order to get to the park, he first has to get half way to the park. This portion of his journey takes some finite amount of time. Once he gets to the halfway point, he needs to walk half the remaining distance. Again, this takes a finite amount of time. Once he gets there, he still needs to walk half the distance that's left, which takes another finite amount of time. This happens again and again and again. You can see that we can keep going like this forever, dividing whatever distance is left into smaller and smaller pieces, each of which takes some finite time to traverse. So, how long does it take Zeno to get to the park? Well, to find out, you need to add the times of each of the pieces of the journey. The problem is, there are infinitely many of these finite-sized pieces. So, shouldn't the total time be infinity? This argument, by the way, is completely general. It says that traveling from any location to any other location should take an infinite amount of time. In other words, it says that all motion is impossible. This conclusion is clearly absurd, but where is the flaw in the logic? To resolve the paradox, it helps to turn the story into a math problem. Let's supposed that Zeno's house is one mile from the park and that Zeno walks at one mile per hour. Common sense tells us that the time for the journey should be one hour. But, let's look at things from Zeno's point of view and divide up the journey into pieces. The first half of the journey takes half an hour, the next part takes quarter of an hour, the third part takes an eighth of an hour, and so on. Summing up all these times, we get a series that looks like this. "Now", Zeno might say, "since there are infinitely many of terms on the right side of the equation, and each individual term is finite, the sum should equal infinity, right?" This is the problem with Zeno's argument. As mathematicians have since realized, it is possible to add up infinitely many finite-sized terms and still get a finite answer. "How?" you ask. Well, let's think of it this way. Let's start with a square that has area of one meter. Now let's chop the square in half, and then chop the remaining half in half, and so on. While we're doing this, let's keep track of the areas of the pieces. The first slice makes two parts, each with an area of one-half The next slice divides one of those halves in half, and so on. But, no matter how many times we slice up the boxes, the total area is still the sum of the areas of all the pieces. Now you can see why we choose this particular way of cutting up the square. We've obtained the same infinite series as we had for the time of Zeno's journey. As we construct more and more blue pieces, to use the math jargon, as we take the limit as n tends to infinity, the entire square becomes covered with blue. But the area of the square is just one unit, and so the infinite sum must equal one. Going back to Zeno's journey, we can now see how how the paradox is resolved. Not only does the infinite series sum to a finite answer, but that finite answer is the same one that common sense tells us is true. Zeno's journey takes one hour. |
Why do we see illusions? | null | TED-Ed | Why do we see illusions? I'm going to tell you about some of my research, where I provided evidence for a different kind of hypothesis than the one that might be in the book on your coffee stand. Alright, so let's look at one of the illusions here. And this is a stand-in for many, many kinds of illusions that are explained by this hypothesis. I'm just going to walk through it for this particular one. As usual in these things, these two lines are, in fact, parallel, but you perceive them to bow outwards at their centers. At the center where those radial lines are, it's wider in your visual field than the parts above and below. And this is remarkable, because it's a remarkably simple stimulus. It's just a bunch of straight lines. Why should one of the most complicated objects in the universe be unable to render this incredibly simple image? When you want to answer questions like this, you need to ask, well, what might this mean to your brain? And what your brain is going to think this is, is not some lines on a page. Your brain has evolved to handle the kinds of natural stimuli that it encounters in real life. So when does the brain encounter stimuli like this? Well, it seems a bit odd, but in fact, you've been encountering this stimulus all day long. Whenever you move, whenever you move forward, in particular. When you move forward, you get optic flow, flowing outwards in your visual field, like when the Enterprise goes into warp. All of these objects flow outwards and they leave trails, or blur lines, on your retina. They're activating mini-neurons all in a row. So, this is a version of what happens in real life and this another version of what happens in real life all the time. In fact, cartoonists know about this. They put these blur lines in their cartoons and it means to your brain: motion. Now, it's not that in real life you see blur lines. The point is that it's the stimulus at the back of your eye that has these optic blurs in them, and that's what tells your brain that you're moving. When you move forward, your eyes fixate like cameras, like snapshot cameras, it fixates, it fixates, little (Snapshot sound) camera shots, and each time it fixates when you're moving forward, you get all this flowing outwards. So when you take a fixation, you end up with this weird optic blur stuff, and it tells you the direction you're moving. Alright, that's half the story. That's what this stimulus means. It means that your brain thinks, when it's looking at the first image, that you're actually on your way, moving towards the center. It still doesn't explain why you should perceive these straight lines as bowed outwards. To understand the rest of the story, you have to understand that our brains are slow. What you would like is that when light hits your eye, then — ping! — immediately you have a perception of what the world is like. But it doesn't work that way. It takes about a tenth of a second for your perception to be created. And a tenth of a second doesn't sound very long, but it's a long time in normal behaviors. If you're moving just at one meter per second, which is fairly slow, then in a tenth of second, you've moved 10 centimeters. So if you didn't correct for this delay, then anything that you perceived to be within 10 centimeters of you, by the time you perceived it, you would have bumped into it or just passed it. And of course, this is going to be much worse — (Laughter) it's going to be much worse in a situation like this. Your perception is behind. What you want is that your perception should look like this. You want your perceptions at any time T to be of the world at time T. But the only way your brain can do that, is that it has to, instead of generating a perception of the way the world was when light hit your retina, it has to do something fancier. It can't passively respond and create a best guess, it has to create a best guess about the next moment. What will the world look like in a tenth of a second? Build a perception of that, because by the time your perception of the near future occurs in your brain, the near future will have arrived and you'll have a perception of the present, which is what you want. In my research, I provided a lot of evidence — and there's other research areas that have provided evidence — that the brain is filled with mechanisms that try to compensate for its slowness. And I've shown that huge swaths of illusions are explained by this, this just being one example. But let me finish by saying, how exactly does this explain this particular example? So, the question, really, we have to ask is: how do those two vertical lines in that first stimulus, how do they change in the next moment were I moving towards the center, that all those optical lines are suggesting that I'm moving. What happens to them? Well, let's imagine. Imagine you've got a doorway. You've got a doorway. Imagine it's a cathedral doorway, to make it more concrete — it'll be helpful in a second. When you're very far away from it, the sides are perfectly parallel. But now imagine what happens when you get closer. It all flows outwards in your visual field, flowing outwards. But when you're really close — imagine the sides of the doorway are here and here, but if you look up at this cathedral doorway and do your fingers like this, the sides of the doorway are going up, like railroad tracks in the sky. What started off as two parallel lines, in fact, bows outwards at eye level, and doesn't go outwards nearly as much above. So in the next moment, you have a shape that's more like this next picture. The projective geometry — that is, the way the things project, in fact, change in this way in the next moment. So when you have a stimulus like this, well, your brain has no problem, there's just two vertical lines and no cues that there'll be a change in the next moment, so just render it as it is. But if you add cues — and this is just one of many kinds of cues that can lead to these kinds of illusions, this very strong optic blur cue — then you're going to perceive instead exactly how it will appear in the next moment. All of our perceptions are always trying to be about the present, but you have to perceive the future to, in fact, perceive the present. And these illusions are failed perceptions of the future, because they're just static images on the page, they're not changing like in real life. And let me just end by showing one illusion here. If I can, I'll quickly show two. This one's fun. If you just fixate at the middle there, and make stabbing motions with your head, looming towards it like this. Everybody do that. Make short, stabbing motions. Because I've added blur to these optic flow lines, your brain says, "They're probably already moving, that's why they're blurry." When you do it, they should be bursting out in your visual field faster than they should. They shouldn't be moving that much. And a final one I'll just leave in the background is this. Here are the cues of motion, the kinds of cues that you get on your retina when things are moving. You don't have to do anything — just look at it. Raise your hand if things are moving when they shouldn't be. It's weird, right? But what you have now are the cues that, from your brain's point of view, you have the stimulus on your eyes, like, "Oh, these things are moving." Render a perception of what they'll do in the next moment — they should be moving and they should have shifted. Alright, thank you very much. (Applause) |
3 ways to practice civility | {0: 'Journalist Steven Petrow writes about manners and civility.'} | TED Salon Doha Debates | I want to start by telling you two things about myself before I get into the full talk. And the first is that I've been writing about manners and civility for more than 20 years, as a book author and as a magazine columnist. The second is, my friends know to be very wary of inviting me over for dinner because any faux pas that happens at the table is likely to wind up in print. (Laughter) So, I'm watching, I can see back there and I can see through the portals, too. (Laughter) So, speaking of dinner parties, I want to take you back to 2015 and a dinner party that I went to. To place this in time, this was when Caitlyn Jenner was first coming out, shedding her identity as a Kardashian and moving into her life as a transgender activist. I wrote a column in People magazine at the time, talking about the importance of names and how names are our identity. And that to misuse them or not to use them erases us in a certain way. And especially with Caitlyn Jenner, I talked about Caitlyn, but also the use of her pronouns. Her pronouns. So I'm at this dinner — delicious, wonderful, fun — when my host goes on a rant about Caitlyn Jenner. And she is saying that it is disrespectful for Caitlyn Jenner to force her to use a new name and to use these new pronouns. She's not buying it, and I'm listening, and because I do meditation, I took my sacred pause before I responded. (Laughter) And I reminded her that when she got married, she changed her name, and that she took the name of her husband. And that's the name all of us now use. We don't use it just because it's her legal name, but we use it because it's respectful. Ditto for Miss Jenner. She didn't buy it and we didn't speak for years. (Laughter) So ... I am known as the Civilist. And it's probably a word that you're not that familiar with. It's not in common parlance and it comes from the Latin and the French, and it means an individual who tries to live by a moral code, who is striving to be a good citizen. The word "civility" is derived from that, and the original definition of civility is citizens willing to give of themselves for the good of the city, for the good of the commonwealth, for the larger good. So, in this talk, you're going to learn three new ways to be civil, I hope, and it will be according to the original definition of civility. My first problem is: civility is an obsolete word. My second problem is: civility has become a dirty word in this country. And that is whether you lean right or whether you lean left. And in part, that's because modern usage equates civility with decorum, with formal politeness, formal behavior. We've gotten away from the idea of citizenship. So, let me start by talking a little bit about my friends on the right, who have conflated civility with what they call political correctness. And to them, callouts for civility are really very much like what George Orwell wrote in "1984" — he called it "newspeak." And this was an attempt to change the way we talk by forcibly changing the language that we use. To change our ideas by changing the meaning of words. And I think my dinner host might have had some of that rattling around there. And I first personally understood, though, the right's problem with civility when I wrote a column about then-candidate Donald Trump. And he had just said he did not have time for total political correctness, and he did not believe the country did either. And I took that to heart, it was very — The audience was very engaged about that online, as you can imagine. There was a thousand responses, and this one stood out to me because it was representative: "Political correctness is a pathological system that lets liberals dominate a conversation, label, demonize and shout down the opposition." So I think, to the right, civility translates into censure. So that's the right. Now, my friends on the left also have a problem with it. And for example, there have been those who have harassed Trump administration officials who support the President's border wall. They've been called out as rude, they've been called out as nasty, they've been called out as worse. And after one such incident last year, even the Washington Post — you know, left-leaning Washington Post — wrote an editorial and sided with decorum. And they argued that officials should be allowed to dine in peace. Hm. "You know, the wall is the real incivility here. The tear-gassing of kids, the separation of families." That's what the protestors say. And imagine if we had sided, in this country, with decorum and courtesy throughout our history. You know, I think about the suffragettes. They marched, they picketed. They were chastised, they were arrested for pursuing the vote for women in the 1920s. You know, I also think about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., the father of American nonviolent civil disobedience. He was labeled as uncivil in his attempt to promote racial and economic justice. So I think you get a sense of why civility has become a problem, a dirty word, here. Now, does this mean we can't disagree, that we can't speak our minds? Absolutely not. I recently spoke with Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer. She's kind of the guru of civility in this country, and the executive director of a body called the National Institute for Civil Discourse. And she told me, "Civility does not mean appeasement or avoiding important differences. It means listening and talking about those differences with respect." In a healthy democracy, we need to do that. And I call that respectful engagement. But civil discourse also needs rules, it needs boundaries. For instance, there's a difference between language that is simply rude or demeaning, and speech that invokes hatred and intolerance. And specifically of groups. And I'm thinking of racial and ethnic groups, I'm thinking of the LGBTQ community, I'm thinking of the disabled. We snowflakes call this speech "hate speech." And hate speech can lead to violence. So, to that point, in the fall of 2018, I wrote a column about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. You may remember her, she was one of the women who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. And among the responses, I received this message, a personal message, which you can see here on the slide. It's been largely redacted. (Laughter) This message was 50 words long. 10 of them were the f-bomb. And the Democrats were called out, President Obama was called out, and I was referred to in a pretty darn vulgar and coarse way. There was an explicit threat in that message, and that is why my editors at The Post sent it to authorities. This came shortly before the pipe bombs were sent to other media outlets, so everybody was really kind of on guard there. And the larger context was, only a few months before, five staffers had been killed at a Maryland newspaper. They had been shot dead by a reader with a grudge. "Shut up or else." And it was around that same time that a different reader of mine started stalking me online. And at first, it was ... I'll call it light and fluffy. It was around this time last year and I still had my Christmas decorations up and he sent me a message saying, "You should take your Christmas decorations down." And then he noticed that my dog was off leash one day, and then he commented that I had gone to the market. And then he wrote me one that said, "If anyone were to shoot and kill you, it would not be a loss at all." I wish that were the end of the story. Because then, a few months later, he came to my door, my front door, in a rage and tried to break the door down. I now own mace, a security system and a Louisville Slugger baseball bat. (Sighs) "Shut up or else." So, what's to be done to forestall civility from turning ugly, from turning violent? My first rule is to deescalate language. And I've stopped using trigger words in print. And by trigger words, I mean "homophobe," I mean "racist," I mean "xenophobe," I mean "sexist." All of those words. They set people off. They're incendiary and they do not allow us to find common ground. They do not allow us to find a common heart. And so to this point, when John McCain died in 2018, his supporters noted that he never made personal attacks. But his opponents agreed as well, and I though that was what was really noteworthy. He challenged people's policies, he challenged their positions, but he never made it personal. And so that's the second rule. So the problem of civility is not only an American one. In the Netherlands, there are calls for a civility offensive right now, and as one Dutch philosopher has put it, the country has fallen under a spell of "verhuftering." Now, this is not a word that I knew before and I did quite a bit of research. It loosely means bullying and the disappearance of good manners. It actually means much worse than that, but that's what I'm saying here. When you have a specific word, though, to describe a problem like that, you know you really have a problem. And in the United Kingdom, the [2016] Brexit vote ... you know, has divided a nation even more so. And one critic of the breakup called those who favor it — I just love this phrase — "the frightened parochial lizard brain of Britain." The frightened parochial lizard brain of Britain. That's personal. And it makes me miss "Downton Abbey" and its patina of civility. But therein lies the third rule: don't mistake decorum for civility. Even if you have a dowager countess as fabulous as Dame Maggie Smith. (Laughter) [Don't be defeatist. It's so middle class.] So let me end with one last story. Not that long ago, I was at a bakery, and they make these amazing scones. So, long line — there are a lot of scones. And one by one, the scones were disappearing until there was one woman in between me and that last scone. (Laughter) Praise the Lord, she said, "I'll have a croissant." (Laughter) So when it became my turn, I said, "I'll take that scone." The guy behind me — I'd never turned around, never seen him — he shouted, "That's my scone! I've been waiting in line 20 minutes." And I was like, "Who are you? I've been waiting in line 20 minutes, and you're behind me." So, I grew up here in New York, and went to high school not that far from here. And I may seem, you know, very civil here and so on, but I can hip check anybody for a taxicab in this room, on these streets. So I was surprised when I said to this guy ... "Would you like half?" "Would you like half?" I didn't think about it, it just came out. And then, he was very puzzled, and I could see his face change and he said to me, "Well, how about if I buy another pastry and we'll share both of them?" And he did, and we did. And we sat and talked. We had nothing in common. (Laughter) We had nothing in common: nationality, sexual orientation, occupation. But through this moment of kindness, through this moment of connection, we developed a friendship, we have stayed in touch. (Laughter) Although he was appalled to learn that I'm called the Civilist after that. (Laughter) But I call this the joy of civility. The joy of civility. And it led me to wonder, what is the good we forgo, not just the trouble we avoid, when we choose to be uncivil. And by good, I mean friendship, I mean connection. I mean sharing 1000 calories. But I also mean it in a larger way. You know, as communities and as a country and as a world. What are we missing out on? So, today, we are engaged in a great civil war of ideas and identity. And we have no rules for them. You know, there are rules for war. Think about the Geneva Conventions. They ensure that every soldier is treated humanely, on and off the battlefield. So, frankly, I think we need a Geneva Convention of civility, to set the rules for discourse for the parameters of that. To help us become better citizens of our communities and of our countries. And if I have anything to say about it, I would base those rules on the original definition of civility, from the Latin and from the French. Civility: citizens willing to give of themselves for the greater good. For the good of the city. So I think civility, with that understanding, is not a dirty word. And I hope the civilist will not become, or will not stay, obsolete. Thank you. (Applause) |
A love story about the power of art as organizing | {0: 'Aja Monet is a Caribbean American poet, performer and educator born in Brooklyn, New York. ', 1: 'The cofounder of Smoke Signals Studio, phillip agnew is a nationally recognized educator, strategist, trainer, speaker and cultural critic.'} | TEDWomen 2018 | Aja Monet: Our story begins like all great, young love stories. Phillip Agnew: She slid in my DMs ... AM: He liked about 50 of my photos, back-to-back, in the middle of the night — PA: What I saw was an artist committed to truth and justice — and she's beautiful, but I digress. AM: Our story actually begins across many worlds, over maqluba and red wine in Palestine. But how did we get there? PA: Well, I was born in Chicago, the son of a preacher and a teacher. My ears first rung with church songs sung by my mother on Saturday mornings. My father's South Side sermons summoned me. My first words were more notes than quotes. It was music that molded me. Later on, it was Florida A&M University that first introduced me to organizing. In 2012, a young black male named Trayvon Martin was murdered, and it changed my life and millions of others'. We were a ragtag group of college kids and not-quite adults who had decided enough was enough. Art and organizing became our answer to anger and anxiety. We built a movement and it traveled around the world and to Palestine, in 2015. AM: I was born to a single mother in the Pink House projects of Brooklyn, New York. Maddened by survival, I gravitated inwards towards books, poems and my brother's hand-me-down Walkman. I saw train-station theater, subwoofing streets and hood murals. In high school, I found a community of metaphor magicians and truth-telling poets in an organization called Urban Word NYC. Adopted by the Black Arts movement, I won the legendary Nuyorican Poets Cafe Grand Slam title. (Applause and cheers) At Sarah Lawrence College, I worked with artists to respond to Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake; I discovered the impact of poetry and the ability to not just articulate our feelings, but to get us to work towards changing things and doing something about it, when a friend, Maytha Alhassen, invited me to Palestine ... PA: We were a delegation of artists and organizers, and we immersed ourselves in Palestinian culture, music, their stories. Late into the night, we would have discussions about the role of art in politics and the role of politics in art. Aja and I disagree. AM: Oh, we disagree. PA: But we quite quickly and unsurprisingly fell in love. Exhibit A: me working my magic. (Laughter) AM: Obvious, isn't it? Four months later, this artist — PA: and this organizer — AM: moved into a little home with a big backyard, in Miami. PA: (Sighs) Listen, five months before this ever happened, I predicted it all. I'm going to tell you — a friend sat me down and said, "You've done so much for organizing, when are you going to settle down?" I looked him straight in the face and I said, "The only way that it would ever happen is if it is a collision. This woman would have to knock me completely off course." I didn't know how right I was. (Laughter) Our first few months were like any between young lovers: filled with hot, passionate, all-night ... AM: nonstop ... PA: discussions. (Laughter) PA: Aja challenged everything I knew and understood about the world. She forced me — AM: lovingly — PA: to see our organizing work with new eyes. She helped me see the unseen things and how artists illuminate our interior worlds. AM: There were many days I did not want to get up out of bed and face the exterior world. I was discouraged. There was so much loss and death and artists were being used to numb, lull and exploit. While winning awards, accolades and grants soothed so many egos, people were still dying and I was seeking community. Meeting Phillip brought so much joy, love, truth into my life, and it pulled me out of isolation. He showed me that community and relationships wasn't just about building great movements. It was integral in creating powerful, meaningful art, and neither could be done in solitude. PA: Yeah, we realized many of our artist and organizer friends were also lost in these cycles of sadness, and we were in movements that often found themselves at funerals. We asked ourselves what becomes of a generation all too familiar with the untimely ends of lives streamed daily on our Timelines? It was during one of our late-night discussions that we saw beyond art and organizing and began to see that art was organizing. AM: The idea was set: art was an anchor, not an accessory to movement. Our home was a home of radical imagination; an instrument of our nurturing hearts; a place of risk where were dared to laugh, love, cry, debate. Art, books, records and all this stuff decorated our walls, and there was lizards — walls of palm trees that guided our guests into our backyard, where our neighbors would come and feel right at home. The wind — the wind was an affirmation for the people who walked into the space. And we learned that in a world — a bewildering world of so much distraction — we were able to cultivate a space where people could come and be present, and artists and organizers could find refuge. PA: This became Smoke Signals Studio. AM: As we struggle to clothe, house, feed and educate our communities; our spirits hunger for connection, joy and purpose; and as our bodies are out on the front lines, our souls still need to be fed, or else we succumb to despair and depression. Our art possesses rhythmic communication, coded emotional cues, improvised feelings of critical thought. Our social movements should be like jazz: encouraging active participation, listening, spontaneity and freedom. What people see as a party ... PA: is actually a movement meeting. See, we aren't all protest and pain. Here's a place to be loved, to be felt, to be heard, and where we prepare for the most pressing political issues in our neighborhoods. See, laws never change culture, but culture always changes laws. Art — (Applause) Art as organizing is even changing and opening doors in places seen as the opposite of freedom. Our weekly poetry series is transforming the lives of men incarcerated at Dade Correctional, and we're so excited to bring you all the published work of one of those men, Echo Martinez. In the intro, he says ... AM: "Poetry for the people is a sick pen's penicillin. It's a cuff key to a prisoner's dreams. The Molotov in the ink. It is knowledge, it is overstanding, it is tasting ingredients in everything you've been force-fed, but most of all, it's a reminder that we all have voices, we all can be heard even if we have to scream." In 2018, we created our first annual Maroon Poetry Festival at the TACOLCY Center in Liberty City. There, the Last Poets, Sonia Sanchez, Emory Douglas and the late, great Ntozake Shange, performed and met with local artists and organizers. We were able to honor them for their commitment to radical truth-telling. And in addition to that, we transformed a public park into the physical manifestation of the world we are organizing for. Everything that we put into poetry, we put into the art, into the creativity, into the curated kids' games and into the stunning stage design. PA: Our work is in a long line of cultural organizers that understood to use art to animate a radical future. Artists like June Jordan, Emory Douglas and Nina Simone. They understood what many of us are just now realizing — that to get people to build the ship, you've got to get them to long for the sea; that data rarely moves people, but great art always does. This understanding — (Applause) This understanding informed the thinking behind the Dream Defenders' "Freedom Papers," a radical political vision for the future of Florida that talked about people over profits. Now, we could have done a policy paper. Instead, artists and organizers came together in their poetry to create incredible murals and did the video that we see behind us. We joined the political precision of the Black Panther Party and the beautiful poetry of Puerto Rican poet Martín Espada to bring our political vision to life. AM: Now thousands of Floridians across age, race, gender and class see the "Freedom Papers" as a vision for the future of their lives. For decades, our artists and our art has been used to exploit, lull, numb, sell things to us and to displace our communities, but we believe that the personal is political and the heart is measured by what is done, not what one feels. And so art as organizing is not just concerned with artists' intentions, but their actual impact. Great art is not a monologue. Great art is a dialogue between the artist and the people. PA: Four years ago, this artist ... AM: and this organizer ... PA: found that we were not just a match. AM: We were a mirror. PA: Our worlds truly did collide, and in many ways ... AM: they combined. PA: We learned so much about movement, about love and about art at its most impactful: when it articulates the impossible and when it erodes individualism, when it plays into the gray places of our black and white worlds, when it does what our democracy does not, when it reminds us that we are not islands, when it adorns every street but Wall Street and Madison Avenue, when it reminds us that we are not islands and refuses to succumb to the numbness, when it indicts empire and inspires each and every one of us to love, tell the truth and make revolution irresistible. AM: For the wizards — (Applause) AM: For the wizards and ways of our defiance, love-riot visions of our rising, risen, raised selves. The overcoming grace — fires, bitter tongues, wise as rickety rocking chairs, suffering salt and sand skies. Memories unshackled and shining stitches on a stretch-marked heart. For the flowers that bloom in midnight scars. How we suffered and sought a North Star. When there was no light, we glowed. We sparked this rejoice, this righteous delight. We have a cause to take joy in. How we weathered and persisted, tenacious, no stone unturned. How we witnessed the horror of mankind and did not become that which horrified us. PA: Thank you. AM: Thank you. (Applause) |
The sexual deception of orchids | null | TED-Ed | The world’s largest orchid grows several meters tall. The tiniest is practically invisible. Some bloom high up in trees, while others live underground. All in, there are around 28,000 species of orchid on earth – about as many as all the bird, mammal and reptile species combined. They grow all over the world, bearing every imaginable colour, shape, and pattern. And there’s a cunning purpose behind these elaborate displays: many orchids trick insects, sometimes even into having sex with them. Like other flowers, most orchids need to attract insects to gather their pollen and carry it between plants. But unlike most flowers, which attract a range of pollinators with sweet nectar, these masters of deception deploy other tactics– like pretending to be an insect’s mate, letting off alluring scents, and mimicking the appearance of other species. One of their most intriguing methods is sexual deception. Through a combination of sexy shapes and pheromones, orchids convince insects to mate with them. Take the bee orchid, whose petals look almost exactly like the velvety body of a bee. This disguise is so convincing that male bees land on the orchid and try to have sex with it, picking up pollen as they go. Other orchids have evolved contrasting colours and ultraviolet spots– invisible to humans but irresistible to insects. Still others have tactile ‘love-handles’ that ensure insects are positioned precisely for pollination. When a male wasp lands on the hammer orchid, for example, his enthusiastic mating motion flips a hinge in the flower, forcing his body into the pollen. At the next flower he visits, that same hinge pushes his pollen-covered body onto the stigma, fertilizing it. Some orchids make such convincing mates that insects even ejaculate on them, wasting valuable sperm. But the most vital component of sexual deception is scent: orchids mimic the precise scent of a single insect species. This is possible because many insects and flowers produce simple organic compounds called hydrocarbons, which form a layer that protects their bodies from drying out. The precise blend of compounds in this layer is species-specific. Its scent can double as a way for insects to attract potential mates, known as a sex pheromone. Over the course of many thousands of years, random compound combinations have given some orchid species precisely the same signature scent as particular insect species. This matching scent allows them to attract male pollinators who fall over and over again for the flowers masquerading as females of their own species. Sexual deception isn’t the only trick orchids have up their sleeves. Their oldest scam is mimicking the shapes and colours of other nectar-producing flowers— but without the sweet nectar. Some orchids also masquerade as places where insects lay their eggs. One species not only has the colour and appearance of rotting meat; it emits a scent of decay as well– drawing in flies who deposit their eggs on the flower and unwittingly pollinate the plant. Other orchids look and smell just like the fungi on which certain insects lay their eggs. Where do all these bizarre adaptations come from? Random genetic mutations in orchids may result in a trait– like a scent or a shape– that, by chance, matches the needs of a single insect species. The huge diversity within the insect world also increases the likelihood that an orchid will find a unique audience. Able to make more seeds and offspring with the help of its dedicated pollinators, the orchid successfully reproduces in isolation, and becomes a new species. But because of their dependence on sometimes just one pollinator species, orchids are also vulnerable, and many quickly go extinct. Over time, though, more orchid species have formed than died out, and orchids are some of the most diverse flowering plants. They have such exuberant and otherworldly shapes that they occasionally deceive human senses, too: In their petals we see what appear to be tiny, dancing people, monkey’s faces, spiders, and even birds in flight. |
What is déjà vu? What is déjà vu? | null | TED-Ed | Have you experienced déjà vu? It's that shadowy feeling you get when a situation seems familiar. A scene in a restaurant plays out exactly as you remember. The world moves like a ballet you've choreographed, but the sequence can't be based on a past experience because you've never eaten here before. This is the first time you've had clams, so what's going on? Unfortunately, there isn't one single explanation for déjà vu. The experience is brief and occurs without notice, making it nearly impossible for scientists to record and study it. Scientists can't simply sit around and wait for it to happen to them — this could take years. It has no physical manifestations and in studies, it's described by the subject as a sensation or feeling. Because of this lack of hard evidence, there's been a surplus of speculation over the years. Since Emile Boirac introduced déjà vu as a French term meaning "already seen," more than 40 theories attempt to explain this phenomenon. Still, recent advancements in neuroimaging and cognitive psychology narrow down the field of prospects. Let's walk through three of today's more prevalent theories, using the same restaurant setting for each. First up is dual processing. We'll need an action. Let's go with a waiter dropping a tray of dishes. As the scene unfolds, your brain's hemispheres process a flurry of information: the waiter's flailing arms, his cry for help, the smell of pasta. Within milliseconds, this information zips through pathways and is processed into a single moment. Most of the time, everything is recorded in-sync. However, this theory asserts that déjà vu occurs when there's a slight delay in information from one of these pathways. The difference in arrival times causes the brain to interpret the late information as a separate event. When it plays over the already-recorded moment, it feels as if it's happened before because, in a sense, it has. Our next theory deals with a confusion of the past rather than a mistake in the present. This is the hologram theory, and we'll use that tablecloth to examine it. As you scan its squares, a distant memory swims up from deep within your brain. According to the theory, this is because memories are stored in the form of holograms, and in holograms, you only need one fragment to see the whole picture. Your brain has identified the tablecloth with one from the past, maybe from your grandmother's house. However, instead of remembering that you've seen it at your grandmother's, your brain has summoned up the old memory without identifying it. This leaves you stuck with familiarity, but no recollection. Although you've never been in this restaurant, you've seen that tablecloth but are just failing to identify it. Now, look at this fork. Are you paying attention? Our last theory is divided attention, and it states that déjà vu occurs when our brain subliminally takes in an environment while we're distracted by one particular object. When our attention returns, we feel as if we've been here before. For example, just now you focused on the fork and didn't observe the tablecloth or the falling waiter. Although your brain has been recording everything in your peripheral vision, it's been doing so below conscious awareness. When you finally pull yourself away from the fork, you think you've been here before because you have, you just weren't paying attention. While all three of these theories share the common features of déjà vu, none of them propose to be the conclusive source of the phenomenon. Still, while we wait for researchers and inventers to come up with new ways to capture this fleeting moment, we can study the moment ourselves. After all, most studies of déjà vu are based on first-hand accounts, so why can't one be yours? The next time you get déjà vu, take a moment to think about it. Have you been distracted? Is there a familiar object somewhere? Is your brain just acting slow? Or is it something else? |
How do dogs "see" with their noses? | null | TED-Ed | "Hi, Bob." "Morning, Kelly. The tulips looks great." Have you ever wondered how your dog experiences the world? Here's what she sees. Not terribly interesting. But what she smells, that's a totally different story. And it begins at her wonderfully developed nose. As your dog catches the first hints of fresh air, her nose's moist, spongy outside helps capture any scents the breeze carries. The ability to smell separately with each nostril, smelling in stereo, helps to determine the direction of the smell's source so that within the first few moments of sniffing, the dog starts to become aware of not just what kind of things are out there but also where they're located. As air enters the nose, a small fold of tissue divides it into two separate folds, one for breathing and one just for smelling. This second airflow enters a region filled with highly specialized olfactory receptor cells, several hundred millions of them, compaired to our five million. And unlike our clumsy way of breathing in and out through the same passage, dogs exhale through slits at the side of their nose, creating swirls of air that help draw in new odor molecules and allow odor concentration to build up over mulitple sniffs. But all that impressive nasal architecture wouldn't be much help without something to process the loads of information the nose scoops up. And it turns out that the olfactory system dedicated to proessing smells takes up many times more relative brain area in dogs than in humans. All of this allows dogs to distinguish and remember a staggering variety of specific scents at concentrations up to 100 million times less than what our noses can detect. If you can smell a spritz of perfume in a small room, a dog would have no trouble smelling it in an enclosed stadium and distinguishing its ingredients, to boot. And everything in the street, every passing person or car, any contents of the neighbor's trash, each type of tree, and all the birds and insects in it has a distinct odor profile telling your dog what it is, where it is, and which direction it's moving in. Besides being much more powerful than ours, a dog's sense of smell can pick up things that can't even be seen at all. A whole separate olfactory system, called the vomeronasal organ, above the roof of the mouth, detects the hormones all animals, Including humans, naturally release. It lets dogs identify potential mates, or distinguish between friendly and hostile animals. It alerts them to our various emotional states, and it can even tell them when someone is pregnant or sick. Because olfaction is more primal than other senses, bypassing the thalamus to connect directly to the brain structures involving emotion and instinct, we might even say a dog's perception is more immediate and visceral than ours. But the most amazing thing about your dog's nose is that it can traverse time. The past appears in tracks left by passersby, and by the warmth of a recently parked car where the residue of where you've been and what you've done recently. Landmarks like fire hydrants and trees are aromatic bulletin boards carrying messages of who's been by, what they've been eating, and how they're feeling. And the future is in the breeze, alerting them to something or someone approaching long before you see them. Where we see and hear something at a single moment, a dog smells an entire story from start to finish. In some of the best examples of canine-human collaboration, dogs help us by sharing and reacting to those stories. They can respond with kindness to people in distress, or with aggression to threats because stress and anger manifest as a cloud of hormones recognizable to the dog's nose. With the proper training, they can even alert us to invisible threats ranging from bombs to cancer. As it turns out, humanity's best friend is not one who experiences the same things we do, but one whose incredible nose reveals a whole other world beyond our eyes. |
Why sitting is bad for you | null | TED-Ed | Right now, you're probably sitting down to watch this video and staying seated for a few minutes to view it is probably okay. But the longer you stay put, the more agitated your body becomes. It sits there counting down the moments until you stand up again and take it for a walk. That may sound ridiculous. Our bodies love to sit, right? Not really. Sure, sitting for brief periods can help us recover from stress or recuperate from exercise. But nowadays, our lifestyles make us sit much more than we move around, and our bodies simply aren't built for such a sedentary existence. In fact, just the opposite is true. The human body is built to move, and you can see evidence of that in the way it's structured. Inside us are over 360 joints, and about 700 skeletal muscles that enable easy, fluid motion. The body's unique physical structure gives us the ability to stand up straight against the pull of gravity. Our blood depends on us moving around to be able to circulate properly. Our nerve cells benefit from movement, and our skin is elastic, meaning it molds to our motions. So if every inch of the body is ready and waiting for you to move, what happens when you just don't? Let's start with the backbone of the problem, literally. Your spine is a long structure made of bones and the cartilage discs that sit between them. Joints, muscles and ligaments that are attached to the bones hold it all together. A common way of sitting is with a curved back and slumped shoulders, a position that puts uneven pressure on your spine. Over time, this causes wear and tear in your spinal discs, overworks certain ligaments and joints, and puts strain on muscles that stretch to accommodate your back's curved position. This hunched shape also shrinks your chest cavity while you sit, meaning your lungs have less space to expand into when you breath. That's a problem because it temporarily limits the amount of oxygen that fills your lungs and filters into your blood. Around the skeleton are the muscles, nerves, arteries and veins that form the body's soft tissue layers. The very act of sitting squashes, pressurizes and compresses, and these more delicate tissues really feel the brunt. Have you ever experienced numbness and swelling in your limbs when you sit? In areas that are the most compressed, your nerves, arteries and veins can become blocked, which limits nerve signaling, causing the numbness, and reduces blood flow in your limbs, causing them to swell. Sitting for long periods also temporarily deactivates lipoprotein lipase, a special enzyme in the walls of blood capillaries that breaks down fats in the blood, so when you sit, you're not burning fat nearly as well as when you move around. What effect does all of this stasis have on the brain? Most of the time, you probably sit down to use your brain, but ironically, lengthy periods of sitting actually run counter to this goal. Being stationary reduces blood flow and the amount of oxygen entering your blood stream through your lungs. Your brain requires both of those things to remain alert, so your concentration levels will most likely dip as your brain activity slows. Unfortunately, the ill effects of being seated don't only exist in the short term. Recent studies have found that sitting for long periods is linked with some types of cancers and heart disease and can contribute to diabetes, kidney and liver problems. In fact, researchers have worked out that, worldwide, inactivity causes about 9% of premature deaths a year. That's over 5 million people. So what seems like such a harmless habit actually has the power to change our health. But luckily, the solutions to this mounting threat are simple and intuitive. When you have no choice but to sit, try switching the slouch for a straighter spine, and when you don't have to be bound to your seat, aim to move around much more, perhaps by setting a reminder to yourself to get up every half hour. But mostly, just appreciate that bodies are built for motion, not for stillness. In fact, since the video's almost over, why not stand up and stretch right now? Treat your body to a walk. It'll thank you later. |
The science of spiciness | null | TED-Ed | Why does your mouth feel like it's on fire when you eat a spicy pepper? And how do you soothe the burn? Why does wasabi make your eyes water? And how spicy is the spiciest spice? Let's back up a bit. First, what is spiciness? Even though we often say that something tastes spicy, it's not actually a taste, like sweet or salty or sour. Instead, what's really happening is that certain compounds in spicy foods activate the type of sensory neurons called polymodal nociceptors. You have these all over your body, including your mouth and nose, and they're the same receptors that are activated by extreme heat. So, when you eat a chili pepper, your mouth feels like it's burning because your brain actually thinks it's burning. The opposite happens when you eat something with menthol in it. The cool, minty compound is activating your cold receptors. When these heat-sensitive receptors are activated, your body thinks it's in contact with a dangerous heat source and reacts accordingly. This is why you start to sweat, and your heart starts beating faster. The peppers have elicited the same fight-or-flight response with which your body reacts to most threats. But you may have noticed that not all spicy foods are spicy in the same way. And the difference lies in the types of compounds involved. The capsaicin and piperine, found in black pepper and chili peppers, are made up of larger, heavier molecules called alkylamides, and those mostly stay in your mouth. Mustard, horseradish, and wasabi are made up of smaller molecules, called isothiocyanates, that easily float up into your sinuses. This is why chili peppers burn your mouth, and wasabi burns your nose. The standard measure of a food's spiciness is its rating on the Scoville scale, which measures how much its capsaicin content can be diluted before the heat is no longer detectable to humans. A sweet bell pepper gets 0 Scoville heat units, while Tabasco sauce clocks in between 1,200-2,400 units. The race to create the hottest pepper is a constant battle, but two peppers generally come out on top: The Trinidad Moruga Scorpion and the Carolina Reaper. These peppers measure between 1.5 and 2 million Scoville heat units, which is about half the units found in pepper spray. So, why would anyone want to eat something that causes such high levels of pain? Nobody really knows when or why humans started eating hot peppers. Archaeologists have found spices like mustard along with human artifacts dating as far back as 23,000 years ago. But they don't know whether the spices were used for food or medication or just decoration. More recently, a 6,000 year old crockpot, lined with charred fish and meat, also contained mustard. One theory says that humans starting adding spices to food to kill off bacteria. And some studies show that spice developed mostly in warmer climates where microbes also happen to be more prevalent. But why we continue to subject ourselves to spicy food today is still a bit of a mystery. For some people, eating spicy food is like riding rollercoasters; they enjoy the ensuing thrill, even if the immediate sensation is unpleasant. Some studies have even shown that those who like to eat hot stuff are more likely to enjoy other adrenaline-rich activities, like gambling. The taste for spicy food may even be genetic. And if you're thinking about training a bit, to up your tolerance for spice, know this: According to some studies, the pain doesn't get any better. You just get tougher. In fact, researchers have found that people who like to eat spicy foods don't rate the burn any less painful than those who don't. They just seem to like the pain more. So, torment your heat receptors all you want, but remember, when it comes to spicy food, you're going to get burned. |
Subsets and Splits