Summary of “Harvard Business Review”

How do you know it’s ripe for a breakthrough question? It’s probably a good candidate if it “Makes your heart beat fast,” as Intuit’s chairman and CEO, Brad Smith, put it to me.
The question burst methodology, by design, reverses many of those destructive dynamics by prompting people to depart from their usual habits of social interaction.
Not All Questions Are Created Equal Often, as I’m outlining the rules for a question burst, people ask what kinds of questions they should contribute-or how they can be confident that a question is a good one for further pursuit.
The more surprising and provocative the questions are, the better.
Is there some magic about precisely four minutes and 15 questions? No, but the time pressure helps participants stick to the “Questions only” rule.
After poring over survey data from more than 1,500 global leaders, I’m convinced that part of the power of the question burst lies in its ability to alter a person’s view of the challenge, by dislodging-for most-that feeling of being stuck.
Of course, many business leaders, recognizing the imperative for constant innovation, do try to encourage questions.
In a recent interview he said: “When you’re a student, you’re judged by how well you answer questions. Somebody else asks the questions, and if you give good answers, you’ll get a good grade. But in life, you’re judged by how good your questions are.” As he mentors people, he explicitly focuses their attention on making this all-important transition, knowing “They’ll become great professors, great entrepreneurs-great something-if they ask good questions.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to stop overthinking your decisions”

Morin dedicates an entire chapter of her book to the problem of overthinking, and although she says women tend to overthink decisions more than men do, ruminating on a decision has the same negative impacts on both genders.
To avoid over-ruminating about a decision, give yourself a time frame to think about it.
One of the problems overthinkers often face is thinking about their problems all day long, or at inopportune times, such as during an important meeting.
If thoughts about the issue creep into your brain before your scheduled thinking time, telling yourself “No, I’m going to think about that after dinner, not during this meeting” can help you to push those thoughts away, knowing you’ll come back to it later.
While for most of us, overthinking stems from a fear of the consequences of taking action A or B, Morin says those who are chronic overthinkers often believe that they can solve a problem by continuing to pound away, thinking about it.
While dwelling on a problem, thinking “This is horrible, I can’t handle this” or rehashing things that happened in the past are an unproductive use of your time, thinking about what steps you can take to improve the situation or actively thinking of a solution to the problem are helpful toward moving forward.
Becoming aware of when your thinking is unhelpful and when it’s actively problem solving can help you to ensure your time spent thinking isn’t just adding to your stress.
You know the expression “Sleeping on a problem,” well, that’s because sometimes we’re better at solving a problem when we’re not thinking about it.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Case for Professors of Stupidity”

In 1933, dismayed at the Nazification of Germany, the philosopher wrote “The Triumph of Stupidity,” attributing the rise of Adolf Hitler to the organized fervor of stupid and brutal people-two qualities, he noted, that “Usually go together.” He went on to make one of his most famous observations, that the “Fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
Stupidity is not simply the opposite of intelligence.
They obtained similar results, they write, “In a parallel study with representative samples from the United States, France and Germany, and in a study testing attitudes about a medical application of genetic engineering technology.”
What exactly is stupidity? David Krakauer, the President of the Santa Fe Institute, told interviewer Steve Paulson, for Nautilus, stupidity is not simply the opposite of intelligence.
“Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right,” Krakauer said.
“In fact, it makes it more likely you’ll get it wrong.” Intelligence, on the other hand, is using a rule that allows you to solve complex problems with simple, elegant solutions.
“Stupidity is a very interesting class of phenomena in human history, and it has to do with rule systems that have made it harder for us to arrive at the truth,” he said.
“It’s an interesting fact that, whilst there are numerous individuals who study intelligence-there are whole departments that are interested in it-if you were to ask yourself what’s the greatest problem facing the world today, I would say it would be stupidity. So we should have professors of stupidity-it would just be embarrassing to be called the stupid professor.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “Is Matter Conscious?”

Like the hard problem of consciousness, the hard problem of matter cannot be solved by experiment and observation or by gathering more physical detail.
Might the hard problem of consciousness and the hard problem of matter be connected? There is already a tradition for connecting problems in physics with the problem of consciousness, namely in the area of quantum theories of consciousness.
The idea of a connection between the hard problem of consciousness and the hard problem of matter could be criticized on the same grounds.
There is no longer any question of how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter, because all matter is intrinsically conscious.
There is no longer a question of how consciousness depends on matter, because it is matter that depends on consciousness-as relations depend on relata, structure depends on realizer, or software on hardware.
According to the hard problem of consciousness, any purely physical description of a conscious system such as the brain at least appears to leave something out: It could never fully capture what it is like to be that system.
Moderate versions take the intrinsic aspect of matter to consist of so-called protoconscious or “Neutral” properties: properties that are unknown to science, but also different from consciousness.
In some ways, it is easier to see how to get one form of conscious matter from another form of conscious matter than how to get conscious matter from non-conscious matter.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How To Stop Overthinking Everything, According To Therapists”

“The word is derived from how cows digest their food. Cows chew, swallow, regurgitate, then chew again. This works well for cows but what humans chew over is our distressing thoughts. Ruminating therefore means to brood over upsetting thoughts by replaying them in our mind.”
While many problems are resolved by giving them careful thought and deliberation, Weherenberg explains that “Rumination is repetitive thinking – going over and over the same thought or problem without any resolution. A problem does not get solved: it intensifies by ruminating on it. It is simply repeating thoughts without mentally moving to a new perspective.”
As Winch describes it, “Ruminative thoughts are, by definition, intrusive. They pop into our minds unbidden and they tend to linger, especially when the thought is about something really upsetting or distressing.”
“Replaying distressing thoughts is like picking at emotional scabs because it brings up the distress each time we have the thought, and floods our body with stress hormones as a result,” says Winch.
“We can easily spend hours and days stewing in upsetting thoughts and by doing so putting ourselves in a state of physical stress and emotional distress. As a result, habitual rumination significantly increases our risk of developing clinical depression, impaired problem solving, eating disorders, substance abuse, and even cardiovascular disease.”
“Rumination becomes a habit of thought. It is a challenge to shift to another thought. A person who believes, ‘If I just think about it long enough I will figure it out,’ is making a mistake. The more habitual the thought, the harder it is to break it.”
Journal to get the thoughts out of your head. It might seem strange to give these thoughts more time in the spotlight, but I often tell ruminating clients to journal their thoughts.
Weherenberg recommends reclaiming order by making a blanket rule to interrupt your unneeded thoughts whenever they come up, and plan ahead for a positive thought to switch to.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Is Deep Learning Already Hitting its Limitations?”

If you want to learn more about neural networks, I posted my video below.
Neural networks are “Deep” in that they technically have several layers of nodes, not because it develops deep understanding about the problem.
Most importantly, neural networks are experiencing diminishing return when they venture out into other problem spaces, such as the Traveling Salesman Problem.
Why in the world would I solve the Traveling Salesman Problem with a neural network when a search algorithm will be much more straightforward, effective, scalable, and economical?
Of course, there are folks looking to generalize more problem spaces into neural networks, and while that is interesting it rarely seems to outperform any specialized algorithms.
Why in the world would I solve the Traveling Salesman Problem with a neural network when a search algorithm will be much more effective, scalable, and economical?It is for these reasons I think another AI Winter is coming.
Companies are still sparing little expense in getting the best “Deep learning” and “AI” talent, but I think it is a matter of time before many companies realize deep learning is not what they need.
So What’s Next?Of course, not every company using “Machine learning” or “AI” is actually using “Deep learning.” A good data scientist may have been hired to build a neural network, but when she actually studies the problem she more appropriately builds a Naive Bayes classifier instead. For the companies that are successfully using image recognition and language processing, they will continue to do so happily.

The orginal article.

Summary of “6 Toxic Relationship Habits Most People Think Are Normal”

Part of the problem is that many unhealthy relationship habits are baked into our culture.
Some of these principles actually go against what is traditionally considered “Romantic” or normal in a relationship.
Below are six of the most common tendencies in relationships that many couples think are healthy and normal, but are actually toxic and destroying everything you hold dear.
If both people in the relationship do this it devolves into what I call “The relationship scorecard,” where it becomes a battle to see who has screwed up the most over the months or years, and therefore who owes the other one more.
Why It’s Toxic: The relationship scorecard develops over time because one or both people in a relationship use past wrongdoings in order to try and justify current righteousness.
It’s crucial for both people in a relationship to know that negative thoughts and feelings can be communicated safely to one another without it threatening the relationship itself.
As soon as both people in a relationship become culpable for each other’s moods and downswings, it gives them both incentives to hide their true feelings and manipulate one another.
Buying the Solutions to Relationship ProblemsWhat It Is: Any time a major conflict or issue comes up in the relationship, instead of solving it, one covers it up with the excitement and good feelings that come with buying something nice or going on a trip somewhere.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body”

The Greeks were obsessed with the mathematically perfect body.
Problem: As Latimer says, “You take the most complex joint in the body and put it between two huge levers-the femur and the tibia-and you’re looking for trouble.” The upshot is your knee only rotates in two directions: forward and back.
Problem: A man’s life-giving organs hang vulnerably outside the body.
Keep the sperm at body temperature and make the vagina hotter.
Problem: Humans typically have three molars on each side of the upper and lower jaws near the back of the mouth.
Problem: Blood flows into each of your arms and legs via one main artery, which enters the limb on the front side of the body, by the biceps or hip flexors.
To supply blood to tissues at a limb’s back side, such as the triceps and hamstrings, the artery branches out, taking circuitous routes around bones and bundling itself with nerves.
The Fix: Feed a second artery into the back side of each arm and leg, by the shoulder blades or buttock, says Rui Diogo, an assistant professor of anatomy at Howard University, in Washington, DC, who studies the evolution of primate muscles.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?”

In theory, everything else you think you know about the world could be an elaborate illusion cooked up to deceive you – at this point, present-day writers invariably invoke The Matrix – but your consciousness itself can’t be illusory.
Few people doubted that the brain and mind were very closely linked: if you question this, try stabbing your brain repeatedly with a kitchen knife, and see what happens to your consciousness.
As Chalmers explained: “I’m talking to you now, and I can see how you’re behaving; I could do a brain scan, and find out exactly what’s going on in your brain – yet it seems it could be consistent with all that evidence that you have no consciousness at all.” If you were approached by me and my doppelgänger, not knowing which was which, not even the most powerful brain scanner in existence could tell us apart.
One interpretation is that DB was a semi-zombie, with a brain like any other brain, but partially lacking the magical add-on of consciousness.
Daniel Dennett, the high-profile atheist and professor at Tufts University outside Boston, argues that consciousness, as we think of it, is an illusion: there just isn’t anything in addition to the spongy stuff of the brain, and that spongy stuff doesn’t actually give rise to something called consciousness.
It’s like asserting that cancer doesn’t exist, then claiming you’ve cured cancer; more than one critic of Dennett’s most famous book, Consciousness Explained, has joked that its title ought to be Consciousness Explained Away.
Since we don’t know how the brains of mammals create consciousness, we have no grounds for assuming it’s only the brains of mammals that do so – or even that consciousness requires a brain at all.
The human brain certainly fits the bill; so do the brains of cats and dogs, though their consciousness probably doesn’t resemble ours.

The orginal article.

Summary of “A Single Cell Hints at a Solution to the Biggest Problem in Computer Science”

One of the oldest problems in computer science was just solved by a single cell.
A group of researchers from Tokyo’s Keio University set out to use an amoeba to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, a famous problem in computer science.
The problem works like this: imagine you’re a traveling salesman flying from city to city selling your wares.
This makes the traveling salesman problem one of a broad class of problems computer scientists call ‘NP hard.
‘ These are problems that get exponentially difficult very quickly, which also includes problems related to hacking encrypted systems and cryptocurrency mining.
The Keio University researchers used this efficiency to build a device to solve the traveling salesman problem.
This might seem like a roundabout way of calculating the solution to the traveling salesman problem, but the advantage is that the amoeba doesn’t have to calculate every individual path like most computer algorithms do.
So the amoeba can solve an NP-hard problem faster than any of our computer algorithms.

The orginal article.