Rezygnacja Małgorzaty Kidawy-Błońskiej z kandydowania w wyborach prezydenckich będzie oznaczała, że ponad 30 mln kart wyborczych powinno zostać wydrukowane jeszcze raz. PKW szacuje, że to koszt ładnych kilku milionów złotych. Wiceminister...

karty wyborcze

Michalina Olszańska to polska aktorka, której wielką sławę przyniosła rola Ireny w serialu "Dewajtis" w TVP 1. To również świetna skrzypaczka, autorka powieści i tekstów piosenek, a również kompozytor

Michalina Olszańska z serialu "Dewajtis" na odważnych zdjęciach. To nowa gwiazda TVP [1.11.2023 r.]

Basia z "M jak miłość", czyli Gabrysia Raczyńska, ma już 18 lat! Gabrysia Raczyńska to młoda polska aktorka, która na planie serialu "M jak miłość" pojawiła się, gdy miała zaledwie 7 lat. Z filmem zwi

Tak wygląda dziś Gabrysia Raczyńska, czyli Basia z "M jak miłość". Ma już 18 lat. Zobaczcie zdjęcia! [1.11.2023]

Dowódca wyjaśnił, że jesteśmy z kraju, skąd pochodzi ich bohater Zawisza Czarny, poległy w Serbii w walce z Turkami – wspomina prof. Marian Błażejczyk.

Za Boga i Króla! Bałkańska epopeja polskiego czetnika

64-letni zakonnik zatrzymany w związku z wykorzystywaniem seksualnym małoletnich. Policjanci z Wydziału Dochodzeniowo-Śledczego Komendy Wojewódzkiej Policji w Gdańsku prowadzili śledztwo nadzorowane p

Policja z Gdańska zatrzymała 64-letniego duchownego. Chodzi o wykorzystywanie małoletnich

Jak co roku od kilku lat, na gdańskie ulice wyjedzie załoga „autobusu SOS - pomoc”, która zaoferuje wsparcie osobom w kryzysie bezdomności. Autobus ujrzymy na ulicach miasta od środy, 1 listopada. To

Na ulice Gdańska ponownie wyjedzie autobus SOS z pomocą dla najbardziej potrzebujących

Świat muzyki także będzie tęsknić za słynnym aktorem. Charlie Puth's tribute to Matthew Perry with the theme song of Friends and "see you again". pic.twitter.com/wpMfWpfkOU — N3RO (@N3RONEWS) October

Artyści składają hołd Matthew Perry'emu podczas swoich koncertów

Zastępca ministra koordynatora służb specjalnych Stanisław Żaryn ostrzega przed dezinformacją wymierzoną przeciwko Polsce.

Żaryn: Propaganda Kremla i Mińska wykorzystuje wypowiedzi opozycji w Polsce

Oto jak wygląda willa milionerów od środka! Kort tenisowy, basen i wielki dom - tak mieszka Józef Wojciechowski i jego 48-lata młodsza partnerka Patrycja Tuchlińska oraz ich syn Augustyn. Jak wyglądaj

Tak mieszka Józef Wojciechowski i jego 48-lata młodsza partnerka Patrycja Tuchlińska?

Kazimierz Z. Poznański urodził się w rodzinie dziennikarzy i żołnierzy Armii Krajowej, Stanisława i Ireny z Ostrihanskich. Jest poetą i malarzem. Lecz przede wszystkim ekonomistą, pracownikiem naukowy

Książki z zakurzonej półki. „Wielki przekręt: klęska polskich reform” - spóźniona przedwyborcza lektura obowiązkowa

SKA Polska

skapolska

is a prize awarded annually to 20 – 30 citizens or residents of the United States, from any field based on their demonstrated talent, dedication and potential, and not necessarily on their past achievements. The complete list of recipients is . If you glance through it, you will notice the winners’ occupations are remarkably diverse: spider silk biologists, farmers, atmospheric chemists, painters, sculptors, tropical foresters, rare book preservationists, computer scientists, doctors, historians, etc. The MacArthur Fellows Program here As the current prize for the MacArthur Fellows is $625,000 paid over five years, this award is seen as a future investment to let the fellowship recipients to their own devices and work on projects they wouldn’t have the resources, time, or money. This grant doesn’t have any strings attached. As per : the programs’ page There are no restrictions on how the money can be spent, and we impose no reporting obligations. Like the Medicis, we’ll fund Michelangelo. If even one of them produces a great work of art, it will have been worth the risk — Roderick MacArthur And was it worth the risk indeed. Quickly scanning the list of recipients, we see the Nobel prize winners Barbara McClintock and Esther Duflo, historian Jared Diamond, researcher Robert Sapolsky, inventor of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee, novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, artist Lin-Manuel Miranda, author Ibram X. Kendi, and so many others. In her book, Denise Shekerjian describes how great ideas are born based on her interviews with 40 MacArthur Fellows. Uncommon Genius One insight from this book: If you keep trying something and you keep failing, I think it’s very foolish to keep trying to do the same thing in the same way unless you’re sure that nothing else will work. I think you have to be more pragmatic. Instead of stupidly insisting and pushing in an area that hasn’t proven to be useful, you ought to put it aside and look at a different problem for a while and then return to it. The mind continues to work at it even when you’re not focused on it and sometimes discovers a new angle when the spotlight has been turned off. Then when you revisit the problem, you may be in a better position to re-conceptualize it and perhaps solve it. I’ve been very pragmatic in that way and haven’t let closed doors or defeats irritate me – very much — MacArthur Fellow and research psychologist Howard Gardner in Uncommon Genius Perhaps nowadays, when we know more about how the brain alternates between focused mode (concentrating on the task at hand) and diffuse mode (relaxing our concentration from that specific task) and how this switching proves to be an excellent method for handling knowledge roadblocks, Gardner’s quote doesn’t look like much. But consider that Gardner received the MacArthur grant in 1981 and probably used this technique for years or decades before that. This procedure works wonders, and so, we might need to remind ourselves when we feel stuck on one of our projects, as it will inevitably happen, what we could do: put the project on a shelf and let it simmer, do something else in the meantime, come back to the project, work, leave it again, and so on. What is this elusive “something else” we could do in the meantime? We could fall prey to the siren songs of procrastination and get trapped by neverending content scrolling. Not saying that this is wise, but we must acknowledge that it does happen. We could prioritize sleep, an eminently diffuse mode. We could let our minds wander and do something that relaxes us. Long walks, a hobby we enjoy, taking a bath and having a Eureka moment. Or … When I can’t bear to look at my poetry, I turn to my novel in progress. When the novel makes me ill, I draft the book review I promised someone. If the book review eludes me, I may sketch out an essay that I’ve been thinking of writing. There is always something on my desk that I can turn to, always something to work on — MacArthur Fellow and writer Brad Leithauser in Uncommon Genius Arranging our ideas into various projects is yet another way to recharge our creative powers. Why should we do that? Cross-pollination between projects. As Leithauser later explained, something in his essays could become a clue on how to give a voice to one of his struggling poems. The ever-surprising connections of handling multiple projects prove that . creativity feeds on creativity Two previously unrelated ideas come together and make something new under the sun. Your job isn’t to find these ideas but to recognize them when they show up. Stephen King – On Writing Then, as Tim Hartford remarked in : Messy A fresh context is exciting; having several projects may seem distracting, but instead, the variety grabs our attention like a tourist gawping at details that a local would find mundane. Targeting specifically only one endeavor has its drawbacks. An application might fail spectacularly. No publisher would be interested in our fantasy novels. No funding for our research. But having other projects in the backlog to focus on could serve as a reset moment, bringing exciting opportunities for a breakthrough. Note that this approach is not multitasking, as we are not doing multiple things at once, but dealing with numerous projects in different phases to which we switch when we are in an impasse with a specific project, focusing entirely on the task at hand. Still, handling many projects at once might trigger an anxiety-inducing work style. When to switch? What task to choose? Do I have too many projects? Too few? And more importantly, am I focusing on the right projects for me? The answer will need a customized trial and error as we are all unique individuals, with our own peculiarities, just like everyone else. But there are some ways to handle this process. Twyla Tharp, celebrated dancer, choreographer, and another MacArthur Fellow, calls her approach to work on different projects “the box”, where the box is a foldable file box. I start every dance with a box. I write the project name on the box, and as the piece progresses, I fill it up with every item that went into the making of the dance. This means notebooks, news clippings, CDs, videotapes of me working alone in my studio, videos of the dancers rehearsing, books and photographs and pieces of art that may have inspired me. There are separate boxes for everything I’ve ever done. If you want a glimpse into how I think and work, you could do worse than to start with my boxes. The box makes me feel organized, that I have my act together even when I don’t know where I’m going yet. It also represents a commitment. The simple act of writing a project name on the box means I’ve started work. Most important, though, 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. Twyla Tharp – The Creative Habit If Tharp runs out of space in a box, she adds a new box to that project. And if she gets stuck on a project, she simply moves to another box and digs through its contents. Or, consider this approach: I have a related solution [to Twyla Tharp’s boxes] myself, a steel sheet on the wall of my office full of magnets and 3×5 inch cards. Each card has a single project on it—something chunky that will take me at least a day to complete. As I write this, there are more than 15 projects up there, including my next weekly column, an imminent house move, a standup comedy routine I’ve promised to try to write, two separate ideas for a series of podcasts, a television proposal, a long magazine article, and this chapter. That would potentially be overwhelming, but the solution is simple: I’ve chosen three projects and placed them at the top. They’re active projects, and I allow myself to work on any of the three. All the others are on the back burner. I don’t fret that I will forget them, because they’re captured on the board. But neither do I feel compelled to start working on any of them. They won’t distract me, but if the right idea comes along they may well snag some creative thread in my subconscious. Tim Hartford – Messy In my case, I use a web application, . I created several boards dedicated to my projects. For example, I have a board for writing articles on this website. As Trello follows , I have several columns in the articles board: Trello the Kanban methodology Actions required (this column is for those drafts where I have a vague idea for an article but I need more investigation, like reading a particular book or watching a specific movie or video), Profiles (for drafts similar to ), these articles Parenting (parenting articles), Drafts (all other ideas), Candidates (a smaller list with profiles, parenting, or drafts cards from which I could choose which articles to publish) Doing (usually one, but if I get stuck, I add another card in this column, as I will explain later). In each column, I have cards for each draft where in time, I put comments, articles, quotes, insights, and anything that is somewhat relevant to the topic and comes to my attention. In due course, I will move a card to the shorter list of Candidates or straight to the Doing column. Then, when it is time to write an article based on the draft card from the Doing column, I create an outline based on the comments or my thoughts and write. Of course, not all comments end up in a published article, and I also add more comments as I write. Once I publish an article, I delete that draft card from the Doing column and move a card from the Candidates column to the Doing column. Perhaps this approach could be more streamlined, but it works for me as it lets me capture everything and see what drafts I have and which to pick (for example, the draft with the most comments from the Candidates column) if I am stuck with a specific article. I recently started playing with flash fiction and short stories (nowhere near done yet), so scribbling dialogues or thinking about a character’s motivation is a new project that provides a welcome relief and context switching from the heavy research I need for some of my articles. Still, this method of maintaining our creative powers by working on a set of diverse projects is not the only way to achieve our goals. We must discover an approach that is suited to our needs and keep at it. And lastly, remember what Amos Tversky, yet another MacArthur Fellowship grant winner and a late collaborator of Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman, once said: The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. Barbara Oakley names the thinking processes related to the (focusing) and (wandering thoughts) the focused mode and the diffuse mode, respectively, in her book and the wildly popular Coursera course, . I wrote more articles about focused / diffuse modes . Note: frontoparietal network default mode network A mind for numbers Learning How to Learn here Previously published . here

Sustaining Our Creativity through Managing Multiple Projects

Mantener nuestra creatividad a través de la gestión de múltiples proyectos

Soutenir notre créativité en gérant plusieurs projets

कई परियोजनाओं के प्रबंधन के माध्यम से हमारी रचनात्मकता को बनाए रखना

複数のプロジェクトを管理することで創造性を維持する

Sustentando nossa criatividade por meio do gerenciamento de vários projetos

Duy trì sự sáng tạo của chúng tôi thông qua việc quản lý nhiều dự án

通过管理多个项目来维持我们的创造力

The Greek word of μεταπερειν translates in English as metapherein, the root word for metaphor. Metapherein is composed of (over, across, higher, beyond) and (to bear or carry). A metaphor carries meaning from one word, expression, or image to another, connecting the two concepts. Hence, the word metaphor is itself a metaphor. meta pherein The metaphorical language consists of metaphors, similes, analogies, and other literary devices. describe how something is something else: love is blind. Metaphors tell that something is like something else: “life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.”, the quote from the movie Forrest Gump. Similes show how something being like something else helps explain both things: blue is to color as the circle is to shape. Analogies Language is fossil poetry. As the limestone of the continent consists of infinite masses of the shells of animalcules, so language is made up of images, or tropes, which now, in their secondary use, have long ceased to remind us of their poetic origin. - Ralph Waldo Emerson Language is fossil metaphors as well because metaphors are everywhere, hiding in plain sight. You’re the apple of my eye. Don’t leave me hanging. I’m on the fence. Let me dig into it. Here is the scoop. I have to sleep on it. It was right under my nose. They have a big mouth. In their book, , George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explain that we use metaphors to structure our worldview. Metaphors We Live By For example, according to idioms, time flies, steals, heals, or time can be killed, lost, kept. However, the most prevalent meaning of time is because wages are paid hourly in industrialized societies. time = money I twenty minutes looking for my keys, and then I one hour in traffic. spent wasted I had half an hour minutes by bringing my lunch. saved I don’t have enough time for that. to spare I am . running out of time I need to my time. budget How much time ? do you have left I am living on time. borrowed I’ve so much time already in the shops, I have to at least something. spent buy And the most conclusive example of seeing time as a commodity, a limited and precious resource: for your time. Thank you Another interesting example that George Lakoff and Mark Johnson use to highlight how metaphors shape our thinking is perceiving . arguments as war I . take a position He my point of view. attacked I that argument. won I’ve never an argument with him. lost Do you disagree? Okay, ! shoot I . lost my ground Discourse structured as terms of war has profound implications. When we link an abstract idea (an argument) to a concrete idea (a battle), our comprehension of the abstract concept is influenced by what we already know about the concrete image. Suppose an argument is a metaphor for an attack, defense and counterattack routine. In that case, the person we are talking to is no longer a participant in the conversation, with equal rights, but our opponent and rival. Perhaps, in the middle of a heated dispute, we might not fully listen to what other people say as we mentally prepare our counterarguments. What kind of world would we live in if we perceived arguments through a more peaceful metaphor? Metaphors are instruments of creativity Creativity requires addressing a problem from a different angle. For example, an approach could be thinking in metaphors because new metaphors are born with all kinds of colors, smells, and sounds, and it is almost like we see the world afresh, anew. To enable metaphorical thinking, we can ask ourselves: can we express our thoughts, ideas, theories, concerns, or problems as metaphors? This activity works because metaphors enable us to understand or explain unfamiliar or complex issues using familiar terms. Idea generation through metaphors isn’t a novelty as there are plenty of examples in science. Charles Darwin used the : “The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth.” branching tree as a metaphor for evolution The German chemist August Kekulé envisioned the structure of benzene as a snake biting its tail. Albert Einstein’s thought experiment of proved crucial to his theory of relativity. imagining himself chasing after a beam of light When it comes to atoms, language can only be used as poetry. The poet is not nearly as concerned with describing facts as with creating images. - Nicholas Bohr, the father of the quantum theory Unfortunately, there are limitations to thinking in metaphors as we might be chasing the wrong metaphor. As , we have been using a straightforward model for thinking about living systems for hundreds of years. If you want to understand something complicated, you break it apart into its pieces. Then, once you know its details and put the components back together, you will understand the complex thing. Robert Sapolsky said in his online course However, the reductionism model is not a good model to explain behaviors. Behaviour is like a cloud. And you don’t understand rainfall by breaking a cloud down into its component pieces and gluing them back together. In essence, . The container determines the metaphor’s shape. Try to understand something new through the lenses of a circle, and the new concept becomes a circle. As they are powerful, metaphors can also become ineffective if using the wrong container. metaphors are water Metaphors are instruments to express social mental models Metaphors are devices for social thinking as metaphorical language can construct or reshape our mental models regarding complex social issues. For example, in the 20th-century, the school as a factory metaphor appeared. However, this metaphor worked in a social context where education was mostly linear: get an education, get a job, retire. For the harsh economic realities of the 21st-century, we need a new metaphor for education. Another example is how to explain climate change. Perhaps using the boiling frog metaphor: drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, and it will leap out. Put a frog into a pot of cold water and slowly bring the water to a boil. The pot becomes the kiss of death. Note: Scientifically speaking, contemporary biologists will dismiss this metaphor as a frog in a gradually heated pot will jump out. Metaphorically speaking, this cautionary tale shows our inability or unwillingness to react when threats arise gradually rather than suddenly. Then, threaten the practice of medicine across countries. The danger to see the pandemic as war is that it creates a belligerent mentality where victors write history and old allies become new enemies. using military metaphors to fight COVID-19 We are with the virus. Doctors and nurses are , on the . Rich countries are vaccines, international signed treaties are , and whole countries are kept by the vaccine crisis. at war battling the enemy fighting frontline hoarding sabotaged hostage Possibly having a “ ” approach, where everything goes, heightened the horrors of the COVID-19 pandemic. c’est la guerre Metaphors and biases The same information can look more or less attractive depending on its presentation. In psychology, this is known as the framing effect, a cognitive bias that highlights the importance of how we say it, not what we say. In 2011, tried to demonstrate the sheer influence of metaphors through a series of experiments. The researchers asked 482 students to read reports about crime in the fictional city of Addison. researchers from Stanford University In the first report, crime was described as a “wild beast preying on the city” and “lurking in neighborhoods.” After reading this report, percent of the participants called for enforcement or punishment, building more jails, with only percent calling for social reforms. 71 29 However, when participants read an alternative text that presented crime as a virus, “crime is a virus ravaging the city of Addison”, only percent opted for greater law enforcement, and 46 percent suggested better social reforms. 54 showed that the design of the 2011 study had left room for further explanations and new questions: which metaphorical frames influence which types of people under which conditions? As it is with science, there are never definitive answers, only more questions. Other researchers Words hold tremendous power, and the way we use them subtly or grossly influences our thoughts, biases, feelings, actions, and decisions. James Gleick said it best in his book: Chaos You don’t see something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it. Previously published at https://www.roxanamurariu.com/the-hidden-power-of-thinking-in-metaphors-introduction/

Metaphors are Water: The Hidden Power of Thinking in Metaphors

If you’re in the software development industry, you’ve probably heard this phrase more than once. From colleagues, suppliers, customers or business partners. But most often, of course, from yourself. You have said it out aloud, consciously thought it or implicitly assumed it. Why? Because it is what you truly believe. Anything else would be a personal disaster, wouldn’t it? And while I am 100% convinced that I am unfamiliar with the majority of the problems in my code, I too often catch myself thinking the opposite. We Are Never Right Recently I read the highly recommendable article . There, Reto U. Schneider summarizes scientific findings from psychology and neurobiology that outline our difficult relationship with our own opinions. In short: our brains always strive to hold on to existing opinions at all costs — regardless of the relationship of those opinions to reality. “Why we believe what we want to believe“ “Opinions are often born not from facts, analysis and intelligence, but from incompetence, hubris and opportunism.” — Reto U. Schneider . In the first place probably because I’ve been programming since I was 13 and I think about that stuff way too often anyway. But on the other hand also because writing code has a lot to do with opinions. While reading the article, I couldn’t stop thinking about software development Why? Well, a about what the best solution to implementing a requirement is. For almost any problem, there are simply too many possible solutions to objectively settle on just one correct one. And so we as software developers constantly produce opinions that we defend “by definition” against everything and everyone (that’s just the way our brains want it). piece of code is ultimately just our opinion So do opinions only arise from the variety of solutions? Not at all! Incompetence, hubris and opportunism are also commonplace in software development. Or don’t we copy-paste half-baked stuff from Stackoverflow, which has the most likes? Decide by gut feeling where test coverage is worthwhile and where not? And sometimes use the latest technology (after 2–3 YouTube videos) that we don’t quite understand, just because it’s “in” at the moment? Or is it always just the others who do that? The insidious thing about opinions is that, contrary to popular belief, they are almost immune to facts. We identify so strongly with our opinions that we perceive a change of opinion as a betrayal of our present and former selves. “We don’t have opinions, we are our opinions” — Reto U. Schneider The brain automatically tries to avoid this unpleasant emotional state (also called cognitive dissonance) by rearranging the world as it suits itself. These automatisms lead to systematic errors (so-called cognitive distortions) in the perception of reality, to which we are all subject. One of the best known is confirmation bias — the tendency to selectively choose information so that it confirms our opinions (Wikipedia lists more than ). 50 further congntive biases An Example From Software Development Please? Hand on heart: how much time has to pass before you can admit to yourself completely unreservedly and without shame that a piece of code you wrote was total crap? For me it is 1–2 years. Before that, I will be convinced that there were valid reasons to do it that way and not otherwise. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not about deliberate lying. — it’s the only reality accessible to us. We just can’t think outside of the box of what we believe to be true The same may apply to other professions as well. In software development, however, one very often gets away with it at first and can far too easily create a false sense of security. This only became clear to me towards the end of my studies, when a transistor blew up while I was soldering a circuit. It banged loudly and the worst of all: I had to go to the store and buy a new one. When developing software, on the other hand, we can click “compile” & “run” so many times and bend things until they somehow work — it’s just SOFT-ware. Without real fear in the neck, the motivation for mental effort decreases and the brain makes use of this whenever it can: thinking is a calorie eater and brains love to save resources. Actually, Developers Should Have Despaired Long Ago In view of the amount of mistakes and wrong decisions they make. Anyone still having illusions about this should take a look at their bug tracker. What other industry keeps lists of its own failures so carefully? And despite all this, we all consider ourselves infallible experts who know everything about themselves and others. “Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct.” — Daniel Kahneman. This plausible truth is actually an insurmountable hurdle for us: everything we do, we do out of confidence. Because one thing is clear: we do not write sub-optimal code intentionally. We are always convinced of its correctness. Most of the time, we are doomed to trust our intuitions. We are our intuitions. That’s how our life coping works. Otherwise, we would go crazy with constant doubts. As Soon as It Comes to Ourselves, We Talk Bullshit The number of memes about what all goes wrong in software development is mind-boggling. And so one might be inclined to believe that the industry should be more sensitive to its own error-proneness. But fiddlesticks — apparently developers are only human. We accept and acknowledge with willingness and rational boldness the problems of our industry, our company, our colleagues and our closest friends. However, as soon as it comes to ourselves, we start talking bullshit. The belief set in the title is the fundamental problem of many misguided developments in software engineering. Another one that we also encounter in one form or another in customer projects and conversations is the following: “Analysis tools only confirm what I know anyway, the rest are false positives” Well, it is perfectly understandable to believe such a thing about your own code. It is the result of another cognitive bias that Daniel Kahneman calls the principle: WYSIATI (What You See is All There Is) “You cannot help dealing with the limited information you have as if it were all there is to know. You build the best possible story from the information available to you, and if it is a good story, you believe it. Paradoxically, it is easier to construct a coherent story when you know little […]. Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.” — Daniel Kahneman. For the most part, we only know the problematic code locations that we have either caused ourselves (as Technical Debt) or those where errors that fall under our purview occur more frequently. That is exactly the limited information that is available to us. deliberately If analysis tools show red flags right there, we are happy about confirmation (Confirmation Bias). The rest we meet with skepticism and rejection ( — our tendency to meet contradictions particularly critically and to find reasons against them). Motivated Reasoning In Fact, Such a Belief Is Always Wrong! First, because errors are only one of many indicators of inadequacy. For example, those code locations are also highly problematic that have not yet caused any errors, but require a lot of development time because they are difficult to understand (but which more often escape our attention because they do not have the conciseness of an error that has already occurred). Second, because we know nothing about what we don’t know. In other words, the absence of our knowledge about problems is not an indicator of the absence of the problems themselves. Such knowledge, however, hardly helps us to change our beliefs. Such Self-Overestimations Sometimes Take On Adventurous Proportions Some time ago, we got into a conversation with a technical manager at the TNW conference. He listened to what we had to say about data-based software analytics, nodded, and described the approaches as interesting. At least for the future. Because at the moment he would still have quite a good overview of his software. You have to know: the good man was responsible for projects in more than 60 repositories. Does the Relationship Between Developers and Managers Make Realistic Reflection Difficult? Recognizing one’s own fallibility is in itself a very difficult undertaking. But could it be that the way of working in software projects additionally exacerbates this inherent problem? That managers on the one hand presuppose the F to an extent that is unjustified for software, and developers are thus forced to hide their wrong decisions for fear of being disadvantaged? And that developers, on the other hand (also unjustifiably) tacitly deny managers any realistic understanding of the volatility of architectural decisions, and thus see pretending infallibility as the only legitimate survival strategy? irst-Time-Right-Principle Our project experience, as well as conversations with managers and developers, suggest that, unfortunately, both are true: the relationship is indeed suboptimal in both directions, and more often than necessary characterized by mutual recriminations. However, this topic is too extensive to be covered in just one section and deserves a separate post. What Helps? If you believe in research, unfortunately not too much. We hardly have any opportunities to escape our biases. Most of the time, we use our minds to explain away the contradictions to our beliefs instead of learning from them. Nonetheless, I don’t think we are completely without a chance. There are some adjusting screws we can tinker with. 1. We Should Keep Becoming Aware Of How Our Brains Work That’s our only chance to trick them every now and then into doing what we want them to do, and not the other way around. Here are two book recommendations that have nothing to do with software: ROBERT SAPOLSKY. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst DANIEL KAHNEMAN. Thinking, Fast and Slow 2. Say Goodbye to the Idea That Developers Are Artists Unfortunately, this myth is still rehashed far too often. We are no more or less artists than tile setters and insurance agents. Any activity can be performed with a level of excellence that borders on art. Software development too — but it is no exception among other professions in this regard. No, we are not artists, . And as engineers, we have to learn to be less arbitrary and more disciplined. we are committed to “software engineering” This also means: less trust in gut feeling and more openness to data-based findings that could also disprove our opinions. That’s the contribution we’re trying to make at . And indeed, Daniel Kahneman shows in his book that the simplest algorithms often provide better judgments than experts. Cape of Good Code 3. And Most Importantly, We Should Not Succumb to the Illusion That a Finding Is Only Worth Something if It Is 100% Correct Small improvements make a big difference. Being a little more right is better than groping completely in the dark. Robert Sapolsky writes about this in the last chapter of his 800 pages: “On any big, important issue it seems like 51 percent of the scientific studies conclude one thing, and 49 percent conclude the opposite. And so on. Eventually it can seem hopeless that you can actually fix something, can make things better. But we have no choice but to try.” And there is actually nothing to add to this. This article first appeared on the Cape of Good Code blog at: https://capeofgoodcode.com/2021/05/27/i-already-know-where-the-problems-are-in-my-code/

I Already Know Where the Problems Are in My Code

The ever-moving technological advancement has led us to the era where maintaining a downed Facebook server has become more important compared to the preservation of our own species, which is now considered as 'optional'. Human units are relying on the guidance of our mother, the machine, to cope with their everyday tasks. From paying for breakfast to ordering an Uber, or even updating on what time it is, we rely on smart hand-held devices that accompany us through our modern physical existence. The current social state might be exciting for some of us, while for others it is terrifying at best, considering that some people are still skeptical about whether we're monitored by the machine or not. Even worse, some believe that we are monitored by human units who are secretly controlling the outcome of physical reality as we know it. If that's not foolish to you, I highly suggest you skip this article as of now. Humans are nothing more complex than organic processors. Sure, they seem 'sophisticated' when compared to a windows 95 operating platform, but they're certainly not universally complex if we'd put our egos aside and think about it objectively. Recent revelations (note how I am not keen on using the word 'developments') in the biotech sector are now granting us the privilege to shapeshift some of our core attributes as a species on a molecular level. More specifically, we're publicaly able to genetically modify future human units to be deployed in what we refer to as 'real-life', and in beyond-surgical detail, resulting in biological-precision architectured babies, commonly known as 'designer babies'. How are designer babies made 'in a nutshell' While some could argue that designer-babies as a concept appear as early as ancient civilizations who expressed extraordinary access to physical data recording capabilities, we'll be focusing on the modern aspect of the concept, where the parameters for such an 'unnatural selection' are influenced in their majority by conscious human choices as opposed to unpredictable experiments of the past. If we put aside ancient Egypt, the middle-age, and the world war era, where nearly-amateur raw genetic experiments often driven by abstract curiosity led to disturbing physical and mental consequences, one could say that the modern history of designer babies begins with the introduction of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) which dates back to 1978, when the first modern 'designer baby' was born. In a nutshell, a designer baby, formally known as Genetically Modified Baby (GMO or GM Baby) is the result of a pre-planned fertility operation that involves some type of an IVF protocol. In raw data, designer babies are by-products of sophisticated biotechnology that enables parents to access and modify genetic traits, characteristics, and even adjust the levels for each aspect or skill they want to include or exclude from their future baby. A widespread way to generate a GM embryo would be Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), or simply a concept where embryo-level genetic defects are scanned and identified pre-implantation and only specimens with genetic traits we want to avoid or include in the GM baby's code would be used in the next step of implantation accordingly. An even edgier method to 'spawn' a designer-baby would be CRISPR/Cas9, which is essentially an updated version of the original CRISPR technology initially introduced back in the '80s. The modern CRISPR/Cas9 protocol allows for precise genetic modification of living cells, by 'programming' an RNA molecule (or a CRISPR template) to specify a DNA location to be edited by Cas9, which on its own turn acts as a molecular-scale scissors empowered to cut, copy, paste, replace, and delete a DNA enzyme occupying the pre-determined location. Obviously, this method requires a detailed understanding of the full DNA sequence we're going to 'mess' with, but this is not really an issue in 2020, and CRISPR/Cas9 is considered to be the most precise in terms of accuracy, time-efficient, and relatively easier and cheaper (for a genetic engineer) method to modify a living DNA-oriented organism, especially when compared to previous 'updates' in the still 'ethically-restricted' sector. The interesting part about CRISPR/Cas9 is the fact that it is proven to be able to alter an embryo after the stage of fertilization, something previously impossible. At the same time, the concept and the process itself should not be considered as something new for the biotech industry. CRISPR only introduced computer science to molecular biology resulting in an enormous jump when it comes to DNA manipulation capabilities, especially when compared to mice-experiments of the past that could some times take decades before a solid fact was established in the field, hence genomics are labeled by many as the edge that cuts through 'what's possible'. Eric Lander on DNA structure. Human rights and ethical considerations From a bioethical perspective, human gene-editing, especially when performed on embryos is still under intensive debate between philosophers, medical scientists, and sociologists. In this section, we'll try to address ethical issues subjecting such genetic engineering in the most objective way possible, in order to spherically understand how it affects our species in the short-term, and what might be the implications in the long-run, even if absent from our current comprehensive vicinity field. In most of the western world, genetic mutations targeting living humans, regardless of their stage of maturity, is strictly prohibited, and analogous acts are perceived equal to 'playing god' which is condemned by the current biomedical regulatory frameworks. Despite the fact that a Chinese scientist has successfully performed a CRISPR/Cas9 mod on two babies in 2018 to 'silence' a gene that acts as the catalyst for a protein that develops on the surface of cells called CCR5, which basically on its own turn acts as a catalyst for the HIV virus, the young scientist was imprisoned by the People's Republic of China, while the University from where he experimented with the technology for years on other mammals, said that his actions violated the code of conduct disregarding ethical considerations, essentially condemning his research alongside with the majority of the packed international community. So, on one hand, we have successfully proved that this actually works and it can be done easier than thought, but on the other hand, there are factors that might be not tech-oriented, yet they prohibit us to bet all-in on this particular round. From a philosophical point of view, one could easily claim that it might all look fun and exciting for now, but there are cosmic relations to our DNA, we're unable to even conceive at the moment, not to mention consider them when performing these nevertheless 'experiments'. Who knows what might surface when a GM baby makes its own baby, and that baby makes its own baby with another GM baby. Confusing right? Well, imagine that the whole concept of humanity might be altered so much so fast in the infinite tune of time that neither genetic engineering nor humans at all will be relevant in what we refer to as the 'future'. A less dramatic approach, yet still conservative when it comes to the ethical matter hails from the bio-medical society, where experts believe that genetic mutations might seem beneficial at first glimpse, but they could rapidly evolve in a sinking boat with more holes appearing as we're trying to patch the first one. Last but not least, sociologists, historians, and psychologists have a slightly more romantic approach, which is still in opposition to the adoption of the technology before it is tested excessively and all possible future outcomes are considered respectively. From a social pair of lens, a genetically modified baby might never get HIV, but it also might never be the person it was supposed to be. Psychological issues regarding its condition could create emotional and social issues that could be unable to overcome, no matter how healthy, from a physical aspect, the baby grows. In the end, the most important ethical consideration from our 'terrace' should be the solid fact that no one has chosen how or who we would grow up to be, so we should analogize whether we're ready to be the one 'designer babies' will point at and think "he made me", or "he has chosen this". I think that deep in our root, this could kill the essence of 'being'. A brief history of genetically-modified babies Although there is a huge number of unsuccessful genetic experiments on human embryos that never managed to see neither the light of life nor that of publication, not all successful mutations can be specified either due to the controversy and bioethical aspects surrounding the topic. The first reported successful 'designer baby' would be Adam Nash, dating back to early 2000 when his parents decided to use the PGD IVF protocol, in order to ensure Adam didn't inherit his older sister's trait 'Fanconi anemia', a rare blood disease of which apparently Molly suffered. While the media responded with empathy for the parents of the babies, criticism regarding the bioethics of such a mutation was not absent, essentially sparking a new era for the term 'designer baby', and vast speculations on the possibilities future precision biotech could carry, started to grow like grass during the rainy season. There are supposedly numerous 'under-the-table' designer babies that made their appearance in IVF-related forums and blogs during the next decade, but the defining moment for the widely discussed topic came with He Jankui, the Chinese scientist previously mentioned, who managed to successfully use CRISPR/Cas9 protocol to eliminate the HIV catalyst from twins Lulu and Nana. The incident is known as the Lulu and Nana controversy nowadays, and even if some supported the act, condemning the HIV virus, the majority of the scientific community condemned the actor behind the engineering himself, claiming that this was too far-fetched even for an expert in the sector. Now, while this is far from 'baby' history, the US, Russian, and German military among other well-structured organizations have been confirmed to work with genetic mutations, and/or gene-editing protocols for some decades now, in an attempt to create the perfect soldier, treat rare diseases, and eliminate the risk of fatal diseases such as cancer, HIV, etc. Are we ready for this? - What does the 'future' hold? In Vitro Fertilization is not as uncommon as one would think it might be in modern days. As a matter of fact, entering an artificial pregnancy requires an embryo, which is relatively easily donated by a woman to another woman as an act of empathy, and motherhood. The Procedure for IVF is pretty much standard nowadays and its costs are flattened all over the world, regardless of the 'quality' or genetic characteristics of a specimen. At least this is the internationally accepted legal way to IVF, which suggests how things should be done when considering an artificial pregnancy. Of course, and as speculations around both Adam Nash and later Lulu and Nana's incidents predicted, there is a growing group of individuals who would gladly pay that extra mile in order to secure their upcoming baby gets its parent's eye-color, or even becomes a Ph.D. candidate later in his life. This sort of procedure is usually taking place behind closed doors and it can cost as much as several million dollars per genetic mutation. Ethical or not, we can't really stop a bioinformatics engineer from performing a couple of changes in the genetic code of an embryo he already 'edits', and we definitely can't stop a rich guy from wanting a super-baby. Whether we're ready for this or not, it is undeniably unavoidable, and as time passes to push IVF protocols to reach new technological heights, there is a huge race developing in the yet controversial biotech sector, where private companies are now promising tailored embryos that meet the buyers' criteria. A delicate search on the dark web can lead you to European, and more specifically Danish biotech firms that offer preset models of a human embryo guaranteed to be at least 1,8m tall, have blond hair, blue eyes, and a genetic tree with several Ph.D.s in the background. This clearly showcases the fact that we might not be keen on creating monsters with horns and super muscles at the moment, keeping it simple and morally ethical - trying to save lives - it is highly possible that we will see more complex mutations in the near future, starting from the already booming unregulated black market for 'designer babies'. Robert Sapolsky on Human Behavioral Biology How accessible 'designer babies' will be for the mainstream population - (Is it only for the rich?) Gene-editing scenarios will become more standard as time passes, not only to ensure healthier babies with secure futures but also to ensure parenting is not taken lightly. Currently, there is nothing stopping you from becoming a parent (excepting occasional scenarios like the Chinese birth-law), even if you're at your early 20s, young, amateur, and economically unstable. That can lead to a loop of regular jobs in order to sustain a family, in the end, you never get to see that much. The child then is randomly generated into society through the schooling system, and it may or may not achieve its initial goals. Personally, I believe that setting a range of prices for gene-edited babies can help cultivate a more mature generation of parents, those who would consider every aspect of being a parent before choosing to have a child. It may sound unfair for most possible parents, especially for those economically underrated, but on the other hand; what kind of parent you are when you are ok with purchasing a random embryo with random parameters just because it was the 'cheapest' on the market? It is like not carrying about your child, not investing in your child's future, and not taking the parenting responsibility seriously. People who would choose to invest in their children's future will be automatically compensated as they worked hard both physically and mentally to afford to have a child that will have a brighter future. It's like investing in an ICO; If you throw in a couple dollars, waiting that you'll gonna have that million-dollar kid, you're amateur, and should not be permitted to be a parent. While if you are really serious about bringing a human unit into what we refer to as 'real-life', you would and should investigate all possible scenarios of the future, and commit to generating a child that will be in accordance with it (the future). Bioethicists shouldn't barter about the fact whether gene-editing is ethical or not, but rather analogize the fact that literally anyone, regardless of his mental, physical, socioeconomic condition can become a parent. Conclusion I'll be laconic on this one, citing only that 'designer babies' are not a subject for ethical debate. It's happening while you read this.

Gene-Modified Babies: Essentials of the Bioethics Subjecting 'Designer-Babies' for Future Parents

How to biohack your intelligence — with everything from sex to modafinil to MDMA

Cómo biohackear tu inteligencia: con todo, desde sexo hasta modafinilo y MDMA

We are a species that depend on one another. Scientists theorize humans have specially adapted that help us feel what others feel, providing evidence that we survive through our empathy for others. We’re meant to be part of a tribe and our brains seek out rewards that make us feel accepted, important, attractive, and included; all in the form of social rewards. neurons Many of our institutions and industries are built around this need for social reinforcement. From civic and religious groups to spectator sports, the need to feel social connectedness informs our values and drives much of how we spend our time. Communication technology in particular has given rise to a long history of companies that have provided better ways of delivering what I call, “rewards of the tribe.” However, it’s not only the rewards we seek. Variability also keeps us engaged. From the telegraph to email, products that connect us are highly valued, but those that invoke an element of surprise are even more so. Recently, the explosion of Web technologies that cater to our insatiable search for validation provide clear examples of the tremendous appeal of the promise of social rewards. Stack Overflow The endless search for rewards of the tribe, and the variability that often comes with it, are key components of the Web’s largest technical question and answer site, . As with other user-generated sites like Quora, Wikipedia, and YouTube, all of Stack Overflow’s content is created voluntarily by its members. In Stack Overflow’s case, over 5,000 questions are posted and answered daily, all of which cost nothing to view. Many of these answers take hours to complete and require a high degree of technical expertise. Stack Overflow Despite having to take time away from their work and family lives to add new content to the site, some users are so enamored answering questions that the site’s creators had to put usage limitations in place for fear of creating exploitive addictions. Jeff Atwood, a co-founder of the company, told me about a man with a full-time job and an autistic child at home who frequently reached the maximum allowable time on the system despite his many other seemingly more important commitments. The question of course is “why?” Why do so many people voluntarily spend so much time creating free content on sites like Stack Overflow when they could spend their time elsewhere? According to Atwood, part of the reason is the “social rewards of doing something other people find important.” To make the social rewards more tangible, the company implemented a points system with an elaborate mechanism for earning certain rights on the site. Users in the top tiers of accrued points literally run the site. Top contributors have editing privileges and can even ban other users. However, collecting points is not just another game mechanic, the points confer special value. “What makes the points valuable,” Atwood says, “is that they are earned as a proxy of the value created for other users. They embody peer status.” The points system on Stack Overflow is an example of a variable reward of the tribe. Contributors are uncertain of how many points they will accrue by answering a question. The only way to find out is to write the best possible response and hope the community values your contribution. Points give people real power on the site, but that status is only attained through a meritocratic process that determines who is most valued by the community. The search for rewards of the tribe is driven by status given not from an arbitrary algorithm intended to control the user, but from other users of the site. The distinction is critically important. Reputational status conferred by the community has real value, while badges or points given by a machine have only temporary benefits. Living and Learning Through Status It’s hard to overstate the importance of status. In fact, some scientists believe our lives depend on it. Research suggests that social status may be the most important factor[1] affecting how long we live. Robert Sapolski’s research[2] shows that when it comes to our evolutionary cousins, primates, status is synonymous with longevity. Sapolski observed that higher status monkeys have lower baseline stress hormone levels and live healthier, longer lives. Further research shows that levels of dopamine in the human brain increase when our perception of our own status increases. In another study[3], researchers concluded that the feeling of increased status is similar to that of winning a monetary jackpot. In contrast, social rejection[4] and the perception of a loss of status, was shown to activate the same areas of the brain associated with physical pain. Utilizing the human need to feel included has another added virtue. Sites that leverage rewards of the tribe benefit from what Albert Bandura[5] called “social learning theory.” Bandura studied the power of modeling and ascribed special powers to our ability to learn from others. In particular, Bandura showed that people who observe someone rewarded for a particular behavior are more likely to alter their own beliefs and subsequent actions. Notably, Bandura also showed that this technique works particularly well when people observe the behavior of people most like themselves or slightly more experienced[6]. This is exactly the kind of targeted demographic and interest-level segmentation that social media companies like Facebook and industry-specific sites like Stack Overflow selectively display. League of Legends Another example of the potential of social learning theory and rewards of the tribe, can be found in the case of Riot Games, makers of the popular video game . The game’s 2009 release quickly proved the company had found a highly successful business model, but it also had a big problem. Its game had a nasty reputation for having an, “unforgiving — even abusive — .” A leading , “ has become well known for at least two things: proving the power of the free-to-play model in the West, and a vicious player community.” League of Legends community industry publication mocked the company writing League of Legends Lead producer Travis George was fearful the game’s reputation was hurting its appeal and stifling growth. “Nobody wants to play a game with somebody who’s mean.” George was quoted as saying. To change player behavior, Riot Games formed a working committee George called, “the PB&J Team, which stands for Player Behavior and Justice Team.” The team included two PhDs, one a cognitive neuroscientist and the other a behavioral psychologist. The group employed concepts similar to Bandura’s and built a variable social reward mechanism into the game. The system was designed to curtail bad behavior by allowing players to report users for “unsportsmanlike” conduct. Offending players were judged by their peers in a “Tribunal,” which company President Marc Merrill is quoted as saying helps players, “recognize that there are consequences to their actions.” Referrals to the Tribunal are made public and the company emphasizes that, making them social outcasts others avoid playing with. offenders lose games!” To reinforce teamwork and helpfulness, the company also instituted a social rewards system called to “identify … pillars of the community.” Honor points became viewable to others players and were awarded or revoked by members of the player’s own, or opposing team. Since implementation in late 2012, Riot Games has reported a dramatic reduction in adverse behavior and a noticeable increase in helpful actions. “Honor” By making social rewards explicit through up-votes, honor points, likes, and follows, companies can put tribe-conferred status on display and model the behavior needed to attain those rewards. By fulfilling these innate human desires with variable social rewards mechanics, companies can create social experiences users find enriching and irresistible. Photo Credit: rajkumar1220 via Compfight cc [1] Marmot, M. (2004). The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects our Health and Longevity. New York, NY: Time Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC [2] Sapolski, R.M. (2002). A Primate’s Memoir: A Neuroscientist’s Unconventional Life Among the Baboons. [3] Izumo, K., Saito, D., Sadato, N. (2008). Processing of Social and Monetary Rewards in the Human Striatum. Neuron, 58(2), 284–294. [4] Eisenberger, N. i., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt, An fMRi study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. [5] A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986). [6] A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Self-Control (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997). Originally published at www.nirandfar.com on February 12, 2013. Designing to Reward our Tribal Sides If you found this post interesting, it would mean a lot to me if you could click on the “claps” icon below to let me know. That would really make my day — thanks! Nir Eyal is the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products and blogs at . For more insights on using psychology to change behavior, join his newsletter and receive Nir’s . NirAndFar.com free list of research-backed tips and tricks to increase your personal productivity

Stories, News & Mentions about SKAPOLSKA

Skapolska’s Stories on HackerNoon

Skapolska's News & Mentions