Putting time into perspective

Original post: Aug 31, 2015

At a website called waitbutwhy.com, there is a fascinating infographic that discusses time from a very interesting perspective. It's far too large to replicate in its entirety, but I thought I would show you the part that goes back to Christopher Columbus landing in America. It's something of an arbitrary point, but it does give you some idea of how we perceive historical events. It's interesting to compare that to our perception of the current moment to try to get some mental idea of how long ago some of these events really were.

I was quite amazed to think about how different history might be for someone who is 30 than it is for me. I don't think of someone at that age as that much younger than me, but I think the reality is quite different!

There were a couple of fun facts sprinkled in there:

• A current 90 year-old was born closer to Lincoln's assassination than to our current day!
• The oldest living human today is 116. She was born closer to Washington becoming the first president than to today!

It's not the fan that keeps you cool

Original post:  Aug 26, 2015

If you are in the northern hemisphere, it is likely that you are enduring a hot, sticky summer. It seems that worldwide temperatures are soaring. Fans can often help beat the heat.
How would you answer this question?

Let me add a little more information for you. Did you know that ceiling fans (and all electric motors) generate a fair amount of heat when they run? Here is an infrared picture that illustrates it:

While it might seem that moving air brings blessed relief and cooler temperatures, it isn't really the fan doing the work. It actually is the evaporation that occurs when the wind circulates the air past your skin that cools you.

This article in Wired helps explain the concept. It showed that a fan in an enclosed box simply increased the temperature of the box as it ran because of the heat generated by the motor. It also showed that a paper towel dipped in hot water (warmer than room temperature) actually ended up cooler than room temperature before a fan is turned on and dips significantly once the fan evaporates more of the water!  Why Fans Don't Always Make Things Cooler | WIRED

To answer the question above, here is a hint from the original article:

FixIt:  Fans do not cool a room; they cool the people in the room.

Here is the link to the full answer there:  Ceiling fans on or off when room is empty? | The Seattle Times

A new way to slice the economic pie

Original post:  Aug 25, 2015

In light of recent turmoil in the world markets, we can see how interconnected the global economy really is. Now, more than ever, it's important for us to understand how our products and services fit into the new world economy.

Infographics are new ways to visualize data. This particular graphic divides the global economy by country to give an idea of relative size in Gross Domestic Product (GDP--a common measure of the value of goods and services in an economy). Each slice is then further subdivided to show three different sectors within each country:  agricultural, manufacturing, and services. That view illustrates some interesting dynamics:

I am surprised by how much the US is dominated by services. I also did not realize how services are also dominant in most other countries around the world. Given how much we hear about manufacturing (particularly in China and Germany), it's interesting to note that it is still a minority of the economy in all of these major countries.

I also did not realize that Brazil's economy was larger than India, South Korea, or Russia!

Here is the link to the full article:  This striking diagram will change how you look at the world economy - Vox

A matter of scale

Original post:  Aug 21, 2015

There is a huge disparity in the geographic location of the population in the United States. If you graphed the states based on that population instead of their land mass, the resulting map would look very different.

This article in Vox shows one artist's interpretation of that map:  This is what the United States looks like if you scale states by population - Vox

California might actually be undersized considering the Census Bureau estimates that there are almost 39 million people living there!

I was actually surprised at how large both Massachusetts and New Jersey are, relatively speaking. I've also never seen a map with Hawaii larger than Alaska!

The system is the star

Original post:  Aug 20, 2015

At the Healthcare Transformation Group (HTG) meeting over the past few days, we heard from the CEO of Geisinger Health System (GHS), Dr. David Feinberg. As is his right, he proudly extolled the many virtues of his health system. I found some very interesting pieces that I thought you should hear about, too.

Dr. Feinberg started off humbly. He explained about his first visits to his far-flung clinics in central Pennsylvania. During one visit in the heart of Amish country, the director pointed out a hitch rack. He thought it was some procedural item, and asked what it did. The director calmly explained that this was where the Amish would tie up their horses when they would come in for a visit!

He talked about one of the key measures Geisinger watches carefully. It is the "O to E" ratio. The O stands for "observed" while the E stands for "expected". For any given group of patients, there is an expected mortality rate. That represents the E in the ratio. The O represents how many of the patients Geisinger served actually died. If the observations match the expectations exactly, your ratio is 1.0. If you go above 1.0, that means you are doing worse than average. If you go below, you are doing better than average. 0.7 is considered a good score. In May 2015, the entire Geisinger system had an O to E ratio of 0.5!!

GHS also offers some very interesting twists. They have a program called "Proven Heart". They have refined their work to such a degree that they offer what the NY Times has called a "warranty" on their heart procedures. Here is a link to an article that discusses this program:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/business/17quality.html?_r=0 Here is an excerpt from that article:

The group, Geisinger Health System, has overhauled its approach to surgery. And taking a cue from the makers of television sets, washing machines and consumer products, Geisinger essentially guarantees its workmanship, charging a flat fee that includes 90 days of follow-up treatment.

Even if a patient suffers complications or has to come back to the hospital, Geisinger promises not to send the insurer another bill.

....

In reassessing how they perform bypass surgery, Geisinger doctors identified 40 essential steps. Then they devised procedures to ensure the steps would always be followed, regardless of which surgeon or which one of its three hospitals was involved.

From screening a patient for the risk of a stroke before surgery, to making sure the patient has started on a daily aspirin regimen upon discharge, Geisinger’s 40-step system makes sure every patient gets the recommended treatment.

....

When the system began, Geisinger was performing all 40 steps for bypass surgery only 59 percent of the time. Now, an operation is canceled if any of the pre-operative measures have been forgotten. For the last seven months, Geisinger says, its teams have managed to have a perfect record in following all recommended steps for surgery and follow-up care.

The program has been so successful, Wal-Mart actually will allow employees who require heart surgery to have it done at GHS instead of a local hospital without any co-pay. They will actually pay for the patient and a companion to travel to GHS and have the procedure. Once there, GHS typically finds that about 40% of the patients do not require surgery! This results in enormous savings for everyone.

Dr. Feinberg attributed the ability of GHS to get this type of result to a special culture. In this culture, he notes that the system is the star (not the individual clinician).

GHS is actually considering a full guarantee on all of their services. They are experimenting with a model they call "Proven Experience". I'll try to keep an eye out to see how it goes!

I hope that's not me

Original post:  Aug 19, 2015

No one wants to be "that parent". The one who smothers their kids so completely that they can barely breathe. The one with the impossible expectations (think "The Great Santini").

I read this article about squeezing the love of learning out of kids and my heart sank. Where is the fine line between having high standards and becoming overbearing? Is it something you just have to learn by feel? How much is too much?

Jessica Lahey’s ‘The Gift of Failure’: A Fear of Risk-Taking Has Destroyed Kids’ Love of Learning - The Atlantic

The tale follows a mom who has seemingly done everything right only to hear her daughter announce that she doesn't love learning anymore.

The truth—for this parent and so many others—is this: Her child has sacrificed her natural curiosity and love of learning at the altar of achievement, and it’s our fault. Marianna’s parents, her teachers, society at large—we are all implicated in this crime against learning. From her first day of school, we pointed her toward that altar and trained her to measure her progress by means of points, scores, and awards. We taught Marianna that her potential is tied to her intellect, and that her intellect is more important than her character. We taught her to come home proudly bearing As, championship trophies, and college acceptances, and we inadvertently taught her that we don’t really care how she obtains them. We taught her to protect her academic and extracurricular perfection at all costs and that it’s better to quit when things get challenging rather than risk marring that perfect record. Above all else, we taught her to fear failure. That fear is what has destroyed her love of learning.

This paragraph discusses kids and their fear of failure. How much of it could be applied to our own situations at work?

Marianna is very smart and high-achieving, and her mother reminds her of that on a daily basis. However, Marianna does not get praised for the diligence and effort she puts into sticking with a hard math problem or a convoluted scientific inquiry. If that answer at the end of the page is wrong, or if she arrives at a dead end in her research, she has failed—no matter what she has learned from her struggle. And contrary to what she may believe, in these more difficult situations she is learning. She learns to be creative in her problem-solving. She learns diligence. She learns self-control and perseverance. But because she is scared to death of failing, she has started to take fewer intellectual risks. She has trouble writing rough drafts and she doesn’t like to hypothesize or think out loud in class. She knows that if she tries something challenging or new, and fails, that failure will be hard evidence that she’s not as smart as everyone keeps telling her she is. Better to be safe. Is that what we want? Kids who get straight As but hate learning? Kids who achieve academically, but are too afraid to take leaps into the unknown?

The full article certainly made me think.

Don't underestimate the power

Original post:  Aug 17, 2015

Perhaps you may have admired the creative genius of others from afar. You may have harbored secret wishes to dream up the next iPhone or write that novel or solve that nagging problem. Perhaps you thought that creativity is something that you are born with; that you either have it or you don't. This article argues that isn't true.

In "People Underestimate Their Creative Potential", Melissa Dahl lays out a case for the rest of us. She writes:

But people tend to doubt their own ability to stick to the tedious trial-and-error part of creative work, suggests a large new study from Northwestern University,published recently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Across seven experiments involving more than 1,200 participants, psychologists Brian J. Lucas and Loran F. Nordgren found that people underestimated how many creative solutions they could come up with in a given amount of time, suggesting, the researchers argue, that in a real-life situation, they might give up too easily. And that’s a problem, they say, because their results also showed that the participants’ ideas became more creative as they persisted.

The experiments presented a challenge and asked participants for creative ideas. They then stopped the group and asked how many ideas they might come up with in a second brainstorming session. They found:

And not only did they come up with more ideas than they expected, those ideas got better as they kept working, as judged by an independent team of raters. This is consistent with the findings of previous studies on creativity — for example, one 1970s study of classical composers found a link between higher-quality pieces and the total number of compositions that an individual composer had produced. A huge part of creative work, after all, is failure: the terrible, weird ideas that lead the way to the truly great and original ones. The famed psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyitheorized that this helps explain why "flow" leads to those bursts of insight: When people are absorbed by a task, they "persist ... single-mindedly, disregarding hunger, fatigue, and discomfort." Concentrating deeply in one area for an extended period of time allows you to examine the thing from different angles, understanding the nuances of the problem.

By forcing participants to keep trying, the researchers may have helped them unlock more of their potential!

Here is the link to the full article:  People Underestimate Their Creative Potential -- Science of Us

It's cooler in the shade

Original post:  Aug 14, 2015

California is suffering through a horrible drought. They are experimenting with a variety of innovative new techniques designed to help reduce water consumption. One of the most interesting programs is helping to protect the main reservoir in Los Angeles.

Roughly 96 million "Shade balls" have been dropped into the lake. These 4-inch plastic balls float to the surface of the reservoir and provide a protective layer over the top of the water. This excerpt from an article in National Geographic helps explain why:

The city says the balls will shade and cool the water, reducing evaporation from the reservoir and making it less susceptible to algae, bacterial growth, and chemical reactions that can produce harmful substances.

Not only is this an innovative solution, it also is quite cost-effective:

The balls cost 36 cents each, for a total of $34.5 million. The utility has been testing the concept since 2008, reporting that shade balls reduce evaporation by 85 to 90 percent. That should equate to saving nearly 300 million gallons a year, enough to provide drinking water for 8,100 people, said Los Angeles City Councilmember Mitchell Englander.

The balls also inhibit microorganism growth, reducing the treatment the water must undergo through other means. That could save the city $250 million over time, said Garcetti.

Made of black polyethylene, shade balls are filled with water so they don’t blow away. A coating resists ultraviolet light and degradation. The manufacturers (XavierC, Artisan Screen Process, and Orange Products) say the balls should last about 25 years.

Here is a link to the full article:  Why Did L.A. Drop 96 Million ‘Shade Balls’ Into Its Water?

Here is a brief video that also explains the process:

When a pound is not a pound

Original post:  Aug 13, 2015

If you burn 3,500 calories, you lose one pound, right?

Well, not exactly. Even though this is a widely repeated adage, there is some new information.

"I see dietitians using it all the time, making recommendations based off of it," said Kevin Hall, who is a researcher at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "Unfortunately it's completely wrong."

While the basic math is true, it also ignores the adjustments your body makes to compensate for the increased output. It all started from a misunderstanding in the 1950's:

The adage dates back to the 1950s, when medical researcher Max Wishnofsky measured how much energy a pound of fat tissue represents, and found that it was 3,500 kilocalories, otherwise known as calories. Theoretically, he had calculated how many calories a person had to burn—or forego—in order to lose a pound of fat. But Wishnofsky made a couple spurious assumptions.

....

The much bigger mistake Wishnofsky made was misunderstanding how our bodies react to weight loss. As soon as we start cutting calories from our diet, the number of calories our body expends begins to fall. "It literally starts happening on the first day," said Hall. "And it continues to mount as you lose weight."

The reason Wishnofsky, and so many others since, have botched this biological fact is that it's fairly counterintuitive. The tendency is to assume that as you lose weight, the same calorie cut back should prove even more effective once you are lighter, and, presumably, in need of less food. At the very least, it should continue to produce the same results as it was when you were heavier. So cut 500 calories per day, and drag it out for a week, and you'll be roughly one pound lighter; double the decrease, and you'll drop two pounds; triple it, and do away with three.

Those adjustments mean that the more weight you lose, the harder it is to keep losing weight:

"Over time, the more weight you lose, the more your metabolic rate drops," explained John Peters, a leading researcher at the Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the University of Colorado. "In order to keep losing weight at the rate you started losing weight, you’re going to have to eat even fewer calories. A month in, you might have to eat another hundred fewer; a month after that you might have to drop it another hundred."

Hall has, in many ways, spearheaded the movement to shed the nutrition world of the 3,500 calorie rule. In 2011, he created a model, called the Body Weight Planner, that directly challenged the adage. Drawing from a vast pool of data, the tool approximated metabolic changes in people trying to lose weight, and showed how greatly the 3,500 calorie rule overestimates weight loss.

That basic misunderstanding leads to frustration when our bodies actually fight against our efforts to lose weight. The gap between what we think we should be losing and what actually occurs can often be devastating psychologically. It could be the main reason why most diets end up with the dieter at the same weight (or greater) within a year.

It's not easy to lose weight. Realistic assumptions about the journey may not be encouraging, but they may be more helpful in the long run.

Here is the link to the full article:  Why the most popular rule of weight loss is completely wrong - The Washington Post

"An army marches on its stomach"

Original post:  Aug 12, 2015

Napoleon gave the title quote above. He knew the vital importance of supply lines in military operations. Strong sources of food and materiel are critical to the smooth function of any military.

In the nearby town of Natick, Massachusetts, there is a research lab dedicated to developing new methods of providing meals to front line troops. The Natick Soldier Center has come up with a number of innovations. You may have even tasted one of their creations without knowing it!

If you have ever had one of these (pictured below), it may have started out in that Natick research lab.

This is the McRib sandwich at McDonald's. It is usually released on a limited basis because its popularity can actually cause the price of pork to rise!

Here is a brief history of how this product is likely to have been created:

But the most interesting contender might be the fourth one: John Secrist, a food scientist at the Natick Soldier Center for Research and Development. That's the place where the US Army develops its groundbreaking food for the troops as part of itsCombat Feeding Program (you'll find more info at http://hotchow.natick.army.mil/ — that's right: hot chow). Secrist told Marx de Salcedo that in the '60s, Natick asked him and his team to develop a cheaper version of steaks and chops.

The Army then partnered with a meat flaking company in Ohio in order to break down meat and reassemble it into the meatlike blobs that are familiar today in the form of the McRib. Natick enlisted many meatpackers to do trial runs to see if the technology was viable, and as a result, it made its way to the private sector. "Denny's used our restructured beefsteak in their restaurant," Secrist said, "and McDonald's McRib is as close to our product as you can get."

The Army didn't sit in McDonald's kitchen and tell the chefs how to season their gloriously weird ribs. But Marx de Salcedo argues that they did provide the driving force to make restructured meat a commercial reality. Even Mandigo, the food scientist often credited with the McRib's technology, told Salcedo that "the military allowed us to use the processes they developed."

It may seem weird to have the military involved in food science, but there are practical implications.

"Military-funded food science has a focus on imperishability, durability, affordability, and palatability," Marx de Salcedo says. Concerns like sustainability and long-term health come after the immediate needs of soldiers.

Private companies work alongside the Army through arrangements like Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). The Army gets staff, labs, and help developing new foods, while the private companies hope for innovations, a jump on the rest of the market, and a chance at some intellectual property rights.

That partnership has led to numerous Army-boosted innovations in long-lasting, calorically dense, cheap foods, including lunchmeat and energy bars. As a result of the Army's influence, other food goals have only been secondary concerns.

Here are some useful links:
Natick Soldier Center home page
The McRib industrial complex: how the Army made the world's weirdest meat - Vox

One image explains our strategy

Original post:  Aug 6, 2015

One key strategy for our company is to expand globally. If you ever needed to understand why, this picture may help:

That is a staggering number of people!

Original reference (and larger image) here:  http://i.imgur.com/CK6aONG.jpg

Please remove the salt

Original post:  Aug 4, 2015

It's a bit ironic to be posting this as scattered thunderstorms pass over Mansfield. While the Northeast seems to fluctuate between overly wet and terribly dry spells, on balance we seem to have enough fresh water to go around. The same cannot be said for our fellow citizens out West. In California, persistent drought has forced the governor to declare a state of emergency. Everyone there has been asked to cut their water use up to 25%. There was even a story about famous stars being put on trial for poaching water!

California has easy access to a giant body of water--the Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, no one can survive drinking salt water. There are now significant movements to start or revive efforts to build desalination facilities to provide fresh water.

This is not a new concept. Arid countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Australia already employ industrial-size plants to augment their supplies. According to the International Desalinization Association, up to 300 million people get at least some of their water through desalinization.

This process is still more expensive than what consumers pay now. Desalinization has improved over the years.

Maloni says desalted water is slowly getting cheaper. The polyamide nylon membranes that remove marine salts and minerals last longer now—seven years instead of wearing out after three or four—and it now takes less pressure to push the water through because of technical improvements, including new ceramic pressure exchangers that boost the efficiency of the process.

The developers are building the plant next to a gas-fired power plant in Carlsbad, about 35 miles north of San Diego. That way it can take use some of the power station’s coolant water to dilute the salty brine discharge. After passing through several treatments to remove marine salts and bacteria, the water will go 10 miles inland to an aqueduct, where it’ll join the rest of the San Diego County Water Authority’s system. By 2020, desalted water is supposed to make up 7 percent of the total supply.

Despite the technical improvements to the process, desal water costs twice as much as existing imported water. San Diego ratepayers will fork over an extra $5 to $7 per month for the next 30 years to cover the difference.

Here is a link to the full article:  One Way to Fight California's Drought: Desalt the Ocean | WIRED

Trust, but verify

Original post:  Aug 3, 2015

We all should be skeptical of what we read on the internet. There are all kinds of outlets vying for our attention. At any given moment, you'll be bombarded with some of the most tantalizing headlines that are just begging for you to hit that link to learn more!

By now, we should realize that many of these pieces aren't fully believable. While there are many outright lies on the internet, what is even more troubling are the pieces that have some sprinkling of fact but overall are somewhat less than true. They are designed to be misleading in subtle ways that are difficult to detect.

One example of this is an infographic that popped up all over the place this past weekend. It is titled "What Happens One Hour After Drinking a Can of Coke". Here is a copy of it:

http://therenegadepharmacist.com/what-happens-one-hour-after-drinking-a-can-of-coke/

There are some rather hyperbolic claims about the damage Coca-Cola can do to your body. The actual truth is much less sensational. Many of the "facts" in this infographic are overstated and stretched well beyond what actually happens. Sugary soda is certainly not a health food, but it isn't quite the demon it's made out to be here.

This article from Buzzfeed actually takes apart each of the individual claims and consults with a nutritional biologist to discuss what really happens when you drink a cola. The reality is much more tame. The biologist actually references a scientific study she performed that shows that high levels of sugar don't automatically get converted into fat. Caffeine (especially in the amounts in a can of cola) isn't as bad for your body as heroin. If it were, coffee (which is usually more than twice as strong) would lead to many more ER visits.
Here's What's Wrong With That Viral Coca-Cola Graphic

The bottom line is that soda is not good for you. However, the occasional soft drink isn't going to lead you to perdition.

"These are not the droids you are looking for"

Original post:  Jul 21, 2015

Star Wars fans may remember that phrase as the first demonstration of the Jedi mind trick. While it may seem that mind-reading is still in the realm of science fiction, there is actually a significant amount of research on the topic.

This article from the Telegraph discusses an interesting futuristic product:

A scalextric powered by the mind is the latest product to make use of our brainwaves. Stephen Sigurnjak, senior lecturer in electronics at the University of Central Lancashire, has built a scalextric where the cars are powered by the players’ level of concentration.

“You brain works off electrical activity, a bit like a computer,” he says. “As you concentrate on something, it fires neurons in the brain.”

Here is some video of the actual product in action:

While it may seem like this is merely a toy, there are some demonstrated use cases for the product:

Though the scalextric is fun, there are plan to use mind-control power in far more sophisticated ways. “If you’ve had an accident or are paralysed then your brain could still work even if your body couldn’t. There’s quite a lot of research that goes into that area, and trying to control things just by thinking about them,” says Dr Sigurnjak. “The goal would be that you could think about turning left in a wheelchair and automatically turn left. And in the future you might be able to translate your thoughts. So you could think about what you want to write and a computer would type it out.”

The technology could also be used to measure stress in high-stress jobs so that if a pilot, for example, seemed to be overloaded and at risk of making an error, then someone else could step in to help.

Here is a link to the full article:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11731830/Why-mind-reading-is-a-science-not-a-magic-trick.html

Deferred maintenance

Original post:  Jul 18, 2015

Over the weekend, I found myself with a small block of free time with absolutely no agenda. This luxury usually doesn't happen very often. On most days, I might just plop down in front of the television or a computer screen and while away the time. Today, I decided to do some deferred maintenance on our home.

Leading up to our front door is a stone walkway. Between the stones is fill made of stone chip. Every year, weed seeds float into the area and germinate. I often get too lazy to do much of anything about it. Unfortunately, it really does look terrible. Since I had the time, I forced myself to address it. Here were the main enemies:

About fifteen minutes into the exercise, I started to regret it. After all, the sun was streaming down and it was a humid 90+°. Sweat started dripping into the area I was weeding. My fingers actually started to turn black from a mixture of weed sap, sand, and stone dust. After a bit more than an hour, I was done.

It was certainly gratifying to look at the path after I was done. I felt as if my sacrifice had certainly made my world better in some small way.

I am sure that there are many areas at work that have languished because we've been so caught up in the day to day. The next time you find an odd block of free time at your disposal, I hope that you can also work on similar chores for yourself!

How mosquitoes find you

Original post:  Jul 17, 2015

Summer brings warm weather and opens up many more outdoor activities. Unfortunately, that also brings biting insects.

Full disclosure:  I despise mosquitoes. While I am sure there aren't many people who are fond of them, I myself will go to great lengths to avoid any contact with the bloodthirsty creatures. While some people can tolerate their bites better than others, I find that the welts left behind after their meals will linger and itch for days afterwards. Just being around them is enough to set me on edge.

One of the oddest sensations in recent memory was a trip to Disney World. At the conclusion of the fireworks display at the end of a very long day at the Magic Kingdom, we were unable to take the monorail back to our car because the system was down for maintenance. We had to take the ferries across the lake. On the ten minute ride, there were countless numbers of mosquitoes clustered above us on the ceiling hiding in the shadows. I stood the entire time watching and swatting as they would stealthily swing past me. Let's just say that I was extremely glad when we reached the far shore.

This article from the BBC discusses some new research into how mosquitoes locate their prey. The greater hope is that this new understanding will help to develop better traps in the future.

New research suggests that mosquitoes track down something to bite using a sequence of three cues: smell, then sight, and finally heat.

Biologists recorded the movement of hungry mosquitoes inside a wind tunnel.

The insects were instantly attracted to a plume of CO2, much like a human breath; after sniffing this gas they would also home in on a black spot.

Finally, over much shorter distances, the mosquitoes were also drawn towards warmth.

The findings, published in the journal Current Biology, build on previous evidence that smell is crucial for mosquitoes to pinpoint their next meal.

Body odour, for example, may play a role in how they choose one victim over another.

But mosquitoes are particularly good at sniffing out CO2, which is highly concentrated in the breath of the animals whose blood they feed on - like humans. Mosquitoes can home in on stale, exhaled air from up to 50m away.

It was also known that heat and vision could be important for attracting the blood suckers, but the new study is the first to unpick the distinct role of all three cues.

"We were able to put together a working theory for how all these senses work together in the mosquito, to find a human," said first author Floris van Breugel, from the California Institute of Technology.

In short, this is how it works:

All together, the team developed a three-stage picture of the mosquitoes' hunting strategy:

• From distances of 10-50m they use smell, particularly CO2
• If already aroused by a smell, they will head for something visually interesting - this has a range of 5-15m
• Once within 1m of a potential target, they zero in on body heat

It's also really difficult to avoid these nasty creatures: 

"The unfortunate conclusion is that it's very difficult to escape mosquitoes.

"If you were able to capture all the CO2 that you were breathing out, then it'd be less likely that a mosquito would find you. But then if you were in a group of people, and somebody else wasn't taking those precautions, then a mosquito would follow their CO2 plume. And it may end up finding you before it finds your friend.

"So you'd want to be visually camouflaged [as well]. The more of those sensory cues that you disrupt, the less likely they are to find you and bite you."

Here is the link to the full article:  How mosquitoes zero in on warm bodies - BBC News

Fighting like mothers and daughters

Original post:  June 30, 2015

As the father of two sons, I must say that I can't relate to this article. That said, my wife did confirm that there is a great deal of truth to this article in the Wall Street Journal. Why Mothers and Teenage Daughters Fight - WSJ discusses the shifting dynamics in the relationship between a mother and a daughter. This excerpt describes the phenomenon:

The most consistently fraught relationship among relatives is the mother-teenage daughter bond, therapists and family-dynamic experts say. The crux of the problem: A mother often sees her daughter as an extension of herself, while the teen is trying to develop her own independence and individuality.

A mother sometimes identifies much more closely with a daughter than a son, both physically and emotionally, experts say. She wants to protect her daughter from making the same mistakes she’s made. She wants to give her daughter opportunities she never had. She wants her daughter to like—and to be like—her.

Typically, an adolescent daughter wants none of this. She’s trying to separate from her mom, and she sees the protection as controlling. And she may view her mom’s attempted guidance as criticism or disapproval.

There are times at work when we might have differing perspectives and/or expectations. We might mistakenly believe that our team understands exactly what we are attempting to do--even if we haven't fully communicated it to them!

Here are some of the key recommendations for resolving our differences:

It’s important to reframe the argument. In a typical quarrel, a mother may tell her daughter not to see a certain boy; the girl will feel criticized and become defensive and the quarrel will escalate. Ms. Brateman suggests the mother ask the daughter how she feels instead of telling her what to do.

It can help to talk about patterns of fighting—then agree to do it differently. If an argument is escalating, moms should suggest putting the discussion aside and coming back when emotions are less heated.

While at first glance it may not seem as if there are a lot of similarities between the mother-daughter relationship, perhaps there might be some lessons for us after all!

The mouth is mightier than the pen

Original post:  June 29, 2015

When you really need a favor, what is your preferred method of asking? Would you lean towards an e-mail or a direct conversation?

If you answered a direct conversation, it seems that you would be much more likely to succeed. This article in the NY Times discusses some recent research into the topic.

It seems that even phone conversations are more powerful than letters or e-mails. Professor Nicholas Epley is a co-author of a recent paper "The Sound of Intellect". Here is a summary of some of their research:

In the first of a series of experiments presented in the paper, the researchers recruited 18 M.B.A. candidates from Booth. The students were asked to prepare a brief pitch to a prospective employer — a roughly two-minute proposal that the researchers recorded on video.

Separately, the researchers recruited 162 people who were visiting the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago to evaluate these pitches. Some of these museumgoers watched the video, a second group listened to the audio without watching the video, and a third group read a transcript of the pitch.

What the researchers found was that the evaluators who heard the pitches — whether in the audio or video version — “rated the candidates’ intellect more highly” than those who read the transcript, the paper reported. Those who listened or watched also rated the candidates more likable and, critically, more employable.

Why would the oral presentations be received so well? Here is Epley's theory:

....Rather, he says, the results validate and expand upon previous research showing that the cadence and intonation of voice allows listeners to do a better job of gauging a person’s thoughts than the same information communicated in writing.

Here is a link to the full article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/business/the-mouth-is-mightier-than-the-pen.html?ref=business

Friday Fun: Statues in Motion

Original post:  June 26, 2015

Sometimes it can be fun to sit back and be entertained for two minutes. Enjoy!

Compared to what?

Original post:  June 25, 2015

One of the great controversies in parenting is the continuing debate over screen time for kids. The official line from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is that children under two should have none at all. In their opinion, they suggest limiting older children to an hour a day.

If your children are anything like mine, it's difficult to pry them away from screens. Whether it's the amazing allure of the television or the irresistible pull of the iPad, it's a struggle to keep them from that zombie-like state of complete absorption. At the same time, electronic babysitting also becomes something of a godsend at certain points in the day. How much is too much?

At points, I have to admit that the intense focus my boys can have for the TV is comical. They stare so intently at the TV that you can walk directly in front of them and they hardly notice (unless you stand still in their line of view and they shift to peer around your obstruction). This is even true for the commercials!

I personally have less of an issue with the iPad. Even if they are gaming, it's at least forcing them to have some interaction. I also try to justify their TV watching by forcing them to mix in a variety of quasi-educational shows instead of just a steady diet of cartoons or sports. I must admit that the quality of documentaries has improved tremendously over the years. I've personally learned a few things about such diverse topics as psychology, history, and manufacturing just from watching with them.

This article by Emily Oster at FiveThirtyEight discusses the issue. In her estimation, "'Screen Time' For Kids is Probably Fine." Here is her summary of the main line of attack against the practice:

The AAP statement on media seems opposed to screens per se (quote: “young children learn best when they interact with people, not screens”) without really differentiating among various uses and types of screens. But, not surprisingly, when you look at the research, the screen matters less than what you do with it.

Of all the possibilities for screen time, television watching clearly gets the most negative attention. It’s not hard to see why. Unlike educational games on a tablet, which at least can be argued to have some interactive value, television and movie watching are largely passive. Those who oppose TV for children worry about many downsides, but chief among them are declines in test scores (or other cognitive ability) and increases in obesity.

The article parses the studies that seem to show these correlations. It finds a major flaw in those that seem to tie screen time to negative outcomes:

....In the general population, kids who watch a lot of TV — especially at young ages — tend to be poorer, are more likely to be members of minority groups and are more likely to have parents with less education. All these factors independently correlate with outcomes such as executive function, test scores and obesity, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the effects of television from this research.

The article goes on to show that there doesn't seem to be any real data that link screen time to any major negative outcome. It may be a factor, but it isn't the only one and other factors may have far more impact. The author goes on to explain:

To judge what impact TV has on children, we have to think about tradeoffs — what would kids be doing with their time if they weren’t watching television? There are 24 hours in a day. If your kid watches one less hour of TV, she does one hour more of something else. The AAP guidelines imply that this alternative activity is something more enriching: reading books with dad, running on the track, discussing current events with grandma, etc.

But a lot of kids and families may not use an additional hour in these ways. An hour of TV may be replaced by an hour of sitting around doing nothing, whining about being bored. Or, worse, being yelled at by an overtired parent who is trying to get dinner ready on a tight time frame. If letting your kids watch an hour of TV means you are better able to have a relaxed conversation at the dinner table, this could mean TV isn’t that bad for cognitive development.

In my own opinion, screen time can be a force for intellectual stimulation if used the right way. I'll just have to work harder to moderate the time and keep my kids from turning into couch potatoes. I think I'm going to go home and force them to go outside and play for an hour!

Here is the link to the full article so you can decide for yourself:  ‘Screen Time’ For Kids Is Probably Fine | FiveThirtyEight

No time to be nice at work

Original post:  June 23, 2015

This article from the NY Times Sunday magazine by Christine Porath talks about bad behavior at work. I'm sure we've all witnessed it at one point or another. Heck, I'm sure that I've been guilty of it from time to time. I just hope it isn't too often and that I can gain forgiveness from those I might have offended.

In my own experience, whenever I'm under extreme stress, it usually detracts from my ability to perform well. It also makes me far more prone to lash out at others as a release mechanism. While it might help me feel a little better, it certainly doesn't help those around me. Here is one reason why from the article:

Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford professor and the author of “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers,” argues that when people experience intermittent stressors like incivility for too long or too often, their immune systems pay the price. We also may experience major health problems, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and ulcers.

If you are a supervisor, you have even more of an obligation to hold yourself to a higher standard. Here is another excerpt:

Bosses produce demoralized employees through a string of actions: walking away from a conversation because they lose interest; answering calls in the middle of meetings without leaving the room; openly mocking people by pointing out their flaws or personality quirks in front of others; reminding their subordinates of their “role” in the organization and “title”; taking credit for wins, but pointing the finger at others when problems arise. Employees who are harmed by this behavior, instead of sharing ideas or asking for help, hold back.

According to the article, incivility reduces the effectiveness of employees because they feel less likely to contribute. It can even impact customers. They are much more likely to avoid places which have rude employees or tolerate that type of behavior.

The article goes on to explain that we might be afraid that being nice is interpreted as a sign of weakness. In many ways, it can actually be a sign of strength.

Why is respect — or lack of it — so potent? Charles Horton Cooley’s 1902 notion of the “looking glass self” explains that we use others’ expressions (smiles), behaviors (acknowledging us) and reactions (listening to us or insulting us) to define ourselves. How we believe others see us shapes who we are. We ride a wave of pride or get swallowed in a sea of embarrassment based on brief interactions that signal respect or disrespect. Individuals feel valued and powerful when respected. Civility lifts people. Incivility holds people down. It makes people feel small.

We often don't intend to be rude. This may especially be true if we feel as if we have to answer urgent e-mails in the middle of someone else's meeting. Still, the impact is there even if we don't realize it.

Incivility often grows out of ignorance, not malice. A surgeon told me that until he received some harsh feedback, he was clueless that so many people thought he was a jerk. He was simply treating residents the way he had been trained.

Here is a link to the full article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/is-your-boss-mean.html

Here is an infographic with some common boorish behavior.

Difficult to forget

Original post:  June 22, 2015

He was so close.

Dustin Johnson started the last hole tied for the lead. He was about a third of a mile (610 yards) away from the hole. Two shots later, he would be about twelve feet away with a chance to win the tournament.

Twelve feet is only about four strides. Professional golfers will usually make this putt less than half of the time. Still, it's usually certain that a miss will leave them in position to simply tap it into the cup. Even if he missed the initial putt, it was likely that there would be a full day of golf ahead. For the US Open, ties are broken through an 18-hole playoff which can often be the ultimate test of golfing endurance.

When he missed his first putt, the ball rolled past the hole about three feet. This is the length of a single stride. A yardstick. A virtual layup. On this crazy day, four rounds and 71 holes of excellence were undone by a simple lapse. Dustin Johnson would go on to do this:

That miss cost him a chance at golfing immortality.

Where is the lesson in this? I suppose there is nothing in our workplace which is quite so dramatic. While the stakes in any given situation may be high, we rarely face these types of clear-cut decision points. Still, there is much complexity in what we do. We need to remain vigilant even in little things. Sometimes, the simplest acts can undo long days of work unwittingly. Those lost moments are really difficult to forget.

Here is a link to some further background:  U.S. Open 2015: Watch Dustin Johnson 3-putt to lose year's second major | AL.com

UPDATE:  Here are some calculations of the odds that Mr. Johnson could have made those putts. The odds of him missing both of those putts was 11-1 against!
Link:  Dustin Johnson’s U.S. Open choke was a statistical improbability - The Washington Post

Perspectives lost

Original post:  June 16, 2015

In the headlines today, a ruling came down from the federal courts. Maurice Greenberg, the former head officer at A.I.G., had filed suit against the federal government. Before we get to the decision, a little history is in order.

During the financial crisis, A.I.G. had mad some spectacularly bad bets on worthless mortgage-backed securities. They were now on the hook for billions of dollars that they could not repay. Several pillars of the financial community like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns had already gone bankrupt. The entire US financial market was in disarray. To prevent further damage, the federal government took the unprecedented step of bailing out A.I.G. They extracted a heavy toll by taking over about 80% of the company and charging a hefty 14% interest rate on a loan of about $80 billion. Still, the plan worked. The company never went bankrupt and the shareholders were saved from a total loss.

Mr. Greenberg did not feel that the original action of taking over the company was justified. He sued in federal court for billions more in damages. The ruling yesterday was actually a split decision. The judge did rule that the government overstepped its bounds. At the same time, the judge ruled that there was no financial impairment since the alternative would have been bankruptcy which would likely have resulted in the shareholders getting next to nothing.

There is a quote from Paradise Lost where Lucifer is quoted as saying "Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven."  It seems like Mr. Greenberg spent millions of dollars to prove that he should have been allowed to drive his company into the dust. Unfortunately, had he been allowed to do so I wonder how many other innocent victims would have followed in the panic that would have likely occurred. I, for one, am glad we did not find out.

Here is a link to the full article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/business/dealbook/judge-sides-with-ex-aig-chief-greenberg-against-us-but-awards-no-mon…

Mickey Mouse innovation

Original post:  June 15, 2015

Perhaps the greatest challenge with technology is finding creative ways to merge the fantastical new capabilities with existing applications. There are so many possibilities, but it can be horrifically expensive to retrofit aging platforms. This is especially true if you have significant capital invested in what you already have!

When cutting-edge technology is discussed, you may think of obvious candidates like Google or Apple. You may not associate innovation with Disney. To me, that speaks to how well Disney has integrated their technology. It seems almost like a seamless extension of the existing platform instead of a wholly different experience.

Disney has spent over a billion dollars on technology. Perhaps the most visible example of this is in its smart bands.

This article from Wired helps explain how it works:

The MagicBands look like simple, stylish rubber wristbands offered in cheery shades of grey, blue, green, pink, yellow, orange and red. Inside each is an RFID chip and a radio like those in a 2.4-GHz cordless phone. The wristband has enough battery to last two years. It may look unpretentious, but the band connects you to a vast and powerful system of sensors within the park. And yet, when you visit Disney World, the most remarkable thing about the MagicBands is that they don’t feel remarkable at all. They’re as ubiquitous as sunburns and giant frozen lemonades. Despite their futuristic intentions, they’re already invisible.

Part of the trick lies in the clever way Disney teaches you to use them—and, by extension, how to use the park. It begins when you book your ticket online and pick your favorite rides. Disney’s servers crunch your preferences, then neatly package them into an itinerary calculated to keep the route between stops from being a slog—or a frustrating zig-zag back and forth across the park. Then, in the weeks before your trip, the wristband arrives in the mail, etched with your name—I’m yours, try me on. For kids, the MagicBand is akin to a Christmas present tucked under the tree, perfumed with the spice of anticipation. For parents, it’s a modest kind of superpower that wields access to the park.

....

It’s amazing how much friction Disney has engineered away: There’s no need to rent a car or waste time at the baggage carousel. You don’t need to carry cash, because the MagicBand is linked to your credit card. You don’t need to wait in long lines. You don’t even have to go to the trouble of taking out your wallet when your kid grabs a stuffed Olaf, looks up at you, and promises to be good if you’ll just let them have this one thing, please.

This is just what the experience looks like to you, the visitor. For Disney, the MagicBands, the thousands of sensors they talk with, and the 100 systems linked together to create MyMagicPlus turn the park into a giant computer—streaming real-time data about where guests are, what they’re doing, and what they want. It’s designed to anticipate your desires.

Which makes it exactly the type of thing Apple, Facebook, and Google are trying to build. Except Disney World isn’t just an app or a phone—it’s both, wrapped in an idealized vision of life that’s as safely self-contained as a snow globe. Disney is thus granted permission to explore services that might seem invasive anywhere else. But then, that’s the trick: Every new experience with technology tends to gently nudge our notions of what we’re comfortable with.

There are substantial business benefits as well. The "Fast Pass" system which allows users to skip the lines on rides three times per day also helps Disney.

It also allows Disney to optimize employees. The goal was to create a system that would essentially replace the time spent fiddling with payments and tickets for moments of personal interactions with visitors. The MagicBands and MyMagicPlus allow employees to “move past transactions, into an interactive space, where they can personalize the experience,” Crofton says. What started as a grand technology platform has inevitably changed the texture of the experience.

Here is a link to the complete article:  Disney's $1 Billion Bet on a Magical Wristband | WIRED

Cardiac Cubs

Original post:  June 12, 2015

My boy plays Little League. His team, the Cubs, is a mixed group of 9 - 11 year olds. They played the semifinal last night against the Red Sox and it was a nail-biter.

The lead kept shifting back and forth between the teams. They play six innings and my son was scheduled to pitch the last three. In the top of the fifth with a 8-6 lead, a combination of hits and errors led to three Sox runs and a 9-8 deficit.

In the bottom of the fifth, the Cubs were able to mount a rally. The tying run came across the plate. My son came up to bat with two outs and runners on second and third. I was secretly hoping he could get a hit here so we could take the lead. He took a close pitch on the outside corner for strike two. On the next pitch, he grimaced as it hit in almost the exact same location and he was called out on strikes.

Trying to be the supportive dad, I went up to him and told him he had to have a short memory. He just needed to shut the other team out and his team would have a chance to win in the bottom of the inning.

The leadoff batter for the Sox worked the count full. He hit a hard shot directly to the shortstop. Initially, it looked like an easy play, but the ball took a bad hop. After a quick bobble, the shortstop fired to first but not in time. The lead runner was on. He would go on to take second on a passed ball. To make matters worse, the next batter drew a walk. Another passed ball and they scooted over to second and third with nobody out. Things were looking grim for the Cubs.

My son now became quite deliberate on the mound. He was able to get the first batter with a swinging strike three. After another tough at-bat, he got the second batter on a swinging strike three. Another batter came up and again he was able to get the crucial strikeout. The go-ahead run was stranded on third.

In the bottom of the inning, the Cubs were able to push across the winning run with two outs. It was quite an amazing game.

The Cubs' coach treated the kids to ice cream after the game. I think he's done an incredible job. There are no superstars or physical giants on the team. The boys seem to genuinely like each other and play well together. Of course, winning doesn't hurt. All the same, I know that these are some of those little moments that will live on for a long time to come.

10 secrets to influencing absolutely anyone

Original post:  June 11, 2015

We're often asked to work with other teams or individuals. Many of them will be outside our department or possibly even our organization. Without some way to influence them, it may be difficult or impossible to meet our deadlines and objectives.

This article from Time gives some hints that could help you get what you want--without blackmail.

I've personally used many of the tips discussed in the article. I think it's a solid start. My only comment would be to amend #10 to read "Chat face-to-face (if possible)".
For best results, you'll have to tailor your approach to meet your personality and skill set.

Here is a link to the full article:  10 Secrets to Influencing Absolutely Anyone - TIME

Here are the 10 tips. Please refer to the full article for the complete explanation.

1. Spend lots of time listening
2. Ask lots of questions
3. Make a human-to-human connection
4. Let your own guard down
5. Never miss a chance to say thank you
6. Never miss a chance to give praise
7. Never miss a chance to apologize
8. Strive to give people what they want
9. Let people save face
10. Pick up the phone