I was watching the mosh pit and thinking about two things. First, that mosh pits act like particle interactions. Bodies bounce off one another, and occasionally off innocent bystanders. Second, that pits tend to tire out as the night moves on, and fade out as more as the music gets more interesting.
To my surprise, a group at Cornell already ran with the first idea (why am I always late to the game?). They took an agent based approach, and modelled the mosh pit as particles that move and bounce off one another and are constrained by non-moshers around them. They even went to the trouble of creating a simulator!
Of course, I find out now that the national news even featured their work (so I admit, my observation may have been influenced by an article I don’t consciously remember reading in the past few weeks).
I like their model and it may have agreed well with mosh pits in reality, but it fails when crowds are small. Moshers in the simulator are allowed to leave the boundaries of the floor, where in reality they are constrained to the space they occupy. The model here assumes that there are sufficient non-moshers to constrain the mosher movements. Often, this is not true. Importantly, it appears to model the particles as having random movement (though there is a limited “flock” feature), when mosh pits are anything but random. Moshers tend to be attracted to other moshers.
As for the second, point, that moshers tend to run out of steam early and take frequent breaks, I’ll leave that to debate. I would like to consider how musical complexity and “interestingness” influence mosh pits. Moshers tend to care little for whatever they mosh to (could be Justing Bieber in the end), though better music might command more attention.
For the record, I’m too old to mosh.
I had one of those odd old man moments today where I’m watching a squirrel run up a tree. It goes half way up the tree in a split second, stops, then decides there’s nothing to run from after all. It then spends the next 10 seconds trying to get down. In short, the squirrel can climb a tree in a tenth the time it takes to get down. I realize this is a pretty silly observation.
Humans, too, are really good at running up hills, but terrible at getting down them. I remember climbing Mt. Mulanje in Malawi once. Going up was no problem at all. Getting down was dangerous as hell.
We pull better than we push, see right in front of ourselves better than beside ourselves, and have an easier time thinking of the concerns of a few proximal people, than a vast numbers of people who live far away. The latter, obviously, has important implications for global policy.
All of these things, though, are remnants of our evolutionary past and make complete sense when put in the context of our humble, though dangerous, beginnings. Arising in the savannahs of Kenya, humans would have been easy prey for all sorts of predators. When faced with a lion or hyena, a reasonable strategy is to run up the nearest tree and wait for the threat to pass. Thus, getting up the tree is critical for survival, particularly for children. Importantly, if they are eaten before they reproduce, the survival of the species is in question. Better climbers are survivors who are able to pass their climbing abilities on to their own children.
Getting down from the tree, of course, is not critical to survival. Thus, we can take our sweet time clumsily trying to get down, live and be able to pass our clumsy genes on to our children. So threats create effective adaptations and the lack of threat creates useless ones. The same is true for eyesight. Humans, as predatory omnivores, benefit from being able to focus on their prey while hunting, especially when they have the unique ability to run long distances while they wait for their prey (which likely has a serious head start) to tire out.
The Kericho region of Kenya is famous for producing long distance runners. I wonder if they maintained a particular hunting strategy that the Europeans or Asians no longer required.
Of interest to me is why humans might be so clan centric. It has been shown that humans are able to feel empathy for individuals close to them, but have a hard time imagining the sufferings of millions of unfamiliar people. This limitation, of course, allows us to wage wars far from home, and maintain indifference toward the millions living in poverty around the world.
Again, there are evolutionary roots here. Humans, being pack animals are adapted to be concerned about their immediately family and pack members, particularly children. This is important to survival. When any member of the group is threatened, all must be ready to ward off the threat, and protect children, who pass on similar traits to their children. A group of people indifferent to those aorund them would die out quickly. We are poor fighters on our own.
We have lived only in small groups until very recently. Thus, we never formed a need to be concerned with anyone else besides those closest to us. This state of having to care about the welfare of millions (or billions) is entirely new. We haven’t yet adjusted to it, though we make noble attempts. It is possible that we may never fully develop the ability to feel the pain of billions, unless something comes along and starts wiping out those who don’t. If that happened, we’d probably all be dead, though.
I had never thought of the problems of global policy in terms of evolutionary behavior. I guess, I have the squirrel to thank.
I was just checking out an article by Mark Buchanan on Bloomberg about the need to abandon the idea of economic markets as being inherently stable.
For several decades, academics have assumed that the economy is in a stable equilibrium. Distilled into a few elegant lines of mathematics by the economists Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu back in the 1950s, the assumption has driven most thinking about business cycles and financial markets ever since. It informs the idea, still prevalent on Wall Street, that markets are efficient — that the greedy efforts of millions of individuals will inevitably push prices toward some true fundamental value.
Problem is, all efforts to show that a realistic economy might actually reach something like the Arrow-Debreu equilibrium have met with failure. Theorists haven’t been able to prove that even trivial, childlike models of economies with only a few commodities have stable equilibria. There is no reason to think that the equilibrium so prized by economists is anything more than a curiosity.
It’s as if mathematical meteorologists found beautiful equations for a glorious atmospheric state with no clouds or winds, no annoying rain or fog, just peaceful sunshine everywhere. In principle, such an atmospheric state might exist, but it tells us nothing about the reality we care about: our own weather.
This is true. Markets are inherently unstable beasts,as was proven by the crashes of 2000 and 2007/8. Personally, I am an advocate of free markets. The trouble is that no one can agree on what a free market is.
I recently watched a compelling lecture by development economist Ha Joon Chang, where he pointed out (rightly) that “free markets” are truly in the eye of the beholder, pointing out that even the most ardent of free market supporters in 2013 wouldn’t support the free marketers and libertarians who complained of the implementation of child labor laws in the early 20th century.
I should say, then, that I’m an advocate of the “freeest markets within reason” or “the freest markets as will support the moral ideals I hold to be important.” That is, the freeest markets as will support the protection of individual rights to freedom of expression and political thought, the preservation of equal opportunity through education and health, access to capital and social mobility.
Mr. Buchanan points put that where other sciences have accepted that there is no such thing as stability in the rest of the universe, desperate economists and their politically backward fans stick to the idea that, despite evidence of the irrationality of humans in every other space, markets are “self stabilizing.” That humans are rational (they are not) and customers can democratically select optimal prices vs. availability (untrue).
First, I am drawn to the incredible volatility of prices in areas that have the least power to influence them (developing countries).
If there were ever an example of the undemocratic nature of unbridled markets, food in developing countries would be it. Buyers and sellers are legion, yet bodies across the sea set prices with little regard to the demands of the many. In Sub Saharan Africa, stability is a fantastical dream.
Second, I am thinking of the work being done on complex systems in finance, specifically that coming out of Princeton at the moment.
SOME people aren’t waiting around with their heads in the sand, but rather are working to describe the phenomena of finance volatility, noting the increased complexity of financial markets in 2013. It would seem that deeper linkages between financial systems, though necessary, induce the very real problem of volatility. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
Blaming government regulation and calling for a return to 19th century finance doesn’t work well either.
But that’s enough….
A search for all articles with “malaria” in the text yields an amazing 33,800 results. Browsing through the headlines is like reading a brief history of the disease as seen through an American lens.
The oldest article is from 1889, a report on a malaria outbreak on the upper Hudson in New York: “An epidemic of a malarial nature is reported from towns along the upper Hudson, one physician in Newburg reporting more than seventy cases under his care. Newburg is famous for its breakneck streets.”
The article is notable because in 1889, very little was known about the disease. Of course, in 2012, we know much, much more, but the challenges (problems in diagnosis, complex and often contradictory observations on ecological factors and socio-economic infection gradients) are the same now as they were then.
“30 INSANE PARETICS CURED BY MALARIA; Long Island College Hospital Reports Marked Success With New Treatment. Thirty patients regarded as hopelessly insane are back at work and leading normal lives after being artificially inoculated with malaria, allowed to suffer chills and fever for two weeks or so and then treated with drugs, according to an announcement yesterday by the Long Island College Hospital.”
I don’t think that anyone really knew what the “paretics” were suffering from, but it was likely syphilis. Malaria was used briefly to treat a variety of neurological disorders caused by infectious agents, with varying degrees of success and failure.
Vaccines have long been “just around the corner,” only to die in sad failure. The most overly optimistic claim came in 1984 from then head of USAID, M. Peter McPherson (who later became President of Michigan State University):
M. Peter McPherson, administrator of the Agency for International Development, said he expected that a vaccine would be ready for trial in humans within 12 to 18 months and widely available throughout the world within five years. ”We think this is a practical schedule,” he told a news conference at the State Department today.
A classic case of overstatement, I’m sure that he regrets this event to this day. No wonder scientists have to be wishy washy with their predictions. Statement like this live in sad perpetuity. We still don’t have a vaccine, and the outlook for having one any time soon hasn’t gotten much better now than in 1984.
1889 North River Malaria
1925 30 INSANE PARETICS CURED BY MALARIA
1925 WAR ON MALARIA BEGUN BY LEAGUE
1938 MALARIA SCOURGE FOUGHT BY THE TYA
1943 Malaria Problem; Our Knowledge Is Still in an Unsatisfactory State
1944 us HEALTH SERVICE COMBATS MALARIA
1945 New Drugs to Combat Malaria Are Tested in Prisons for Army
1946 CURE FOR MALARIA BARED BY CHEMISTS
1948 NEW DRUGS TO END MALARIA SCOURGE
1951 Army Tests Drug as Malaria Cure; Doses Given Troops
1952 un GAINS GROUND AGAINST MALARIA
1957 World-Wide Battle On Malaria Mapped
1961 New Malaria Threat Is Studied At Infectious Diseases Center
1965 A ‘NEW’ MALARIA RAGES IN VIETNAM
1966 Leprosy Drug Reduces Malaria Among gi’s
1970 Malaria Up Sharply in Nation; Most Cases Traced to Vietnam
1971 Drug Users Spur Malaria Revival
1974 Prison Official in Illinois Halts Malaria Research on Inmates
1977 Malaria Spreading in Central America as Resistance to Sprays Grows
1984 MALARIA VACCINE IS NEAR, U.S. HEALTH OFFICIALS SAY
1987 Drug Combinations Offer New Hope in Fighting Malaria
1988 Scientists Report Advances In Vaccine Against Malaria
1991 Outwitted by Malaria, Desperate Doctors Seek New Remedies
1991 Hope of Human Malaria Vaccine Is Offered
1993 Mefloquine Is Found Best Against Malaria
1994 Vaccine Cuts Malaria Cases In Africa Test
1995 Vaccine for Malaria Failed in New Test
1996 Tests of Malaria Drug From China Bring Hope and Cautionary Tales
Dario Maestripieri is a Professor at University of Chicago who studies “neuroendocrine, ecological and evolutionary aspects of social behavior in human and nonhuman primates” and was apparently well respected in his field until recently.
Returning from a scientific meeting for neuroscientists, Maestripieri had the following to say on his personal Facebook page:
“My impression of the Conference of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans. There are thousands of people at the conference and an unusually high concentration of unattractive women. The super model types are completely absent. What is going on? Are unattractive women particularly attracted to neuroscience? Are beautiful women particularly uninterested in the brain? No offense to anyone..”
Granted, it’s a boneheaded thing to say and normally, had it been restricted to the hotel bar, would have gone completely unnoticed. However, a reader took a screenshot, sent it to friends who sent it to other friends and the fires began.
Now, there is no doubt that sexism exists in science, though, I would venture, the situation is quickly improving as the number of female scientists quickly increases. My department, for example, is mostly women and this is quickly becoming the case in departments everywhere. In fact, as of 2009, more women are earning PhD’s than men. I can’t speak for the lab sciences, but public health, statistics and math are quickly becoming majority female. I think this is a good thing.
Of course, numbers can be deceiving particularly when the power structure is still held by men. We can more very capable female researchers, but if none of them get positions of power, it’s for nothing.
All that said, the very hostile reaction to Maetripieri is quite interesting. What, on the surface, is merely the thick headed musings of a lone guy, has brought out deeper issues of how women feel they are treated in science, speculation as to what men think of female scientists and the future role of women in the world of research.
Honestly, I don’t find Maestripieri’s comments to be offensive at all but I’ve lived in the world outside academia, where people say things that are far, far worse. This is pretty tame. However, in the context of science, where crass sexism is very real, and the costs of marginalization huge, even small comments like these create huge waves.
What happens to Maestripieri is unknown. People are hurling racial slurs at him (like that’s constructive), calling for his funding to be cut and, worse yet, calling for him to resign his post. Likely this whole thing will blow over, but this is the kind of thing that kills careers in science.
What do you think?
I think not. I’ve just returned from a meeting of malaria researchers in Basel, Switzerland. The meetings were excellent. It is rare to have such a wide showing of malaria experts in one place, talking about nothing but malaria.
The meeting was notable for what was included, namely excellent presentations on vaccine development, subsidies to increase access to medications, malaria elimination programs in less than talked about parts of the globe (Bhutan, Turkmenistan, PNG), and the paucity of research on Plasmodium vivax.
The meeting was also notable for what it did not include, namely global economic determinants of malaria.
To me, malaria is 100% a disease of poverty. Where poverty is low, malaria is low. This is true globally, as well as within still malarious countries. The graph to the right shows the relationship of country level GDP with the estimated number of malaria cases per 100,000 in 2006. Though accurate data on the true number of cases is difficult to obtain for developing countries for a host of reasons, the trend should be clear. More money equals less malaria.
Is this because on better funding for malaria programs? After all, wealthier countries are able to put more resources into prevention, mosquito control, and treatment. Sure, I think this is partially the case. It has to be said, however, that malaria was eliminated from the United States without modern medicines and insecticide treated bednets, cornerstones of current malaria control strategies. Though DDT was instrumental in helping to control malaria transmitting mosquitoes in the US, the truth is, the bugs are still here.
Malaria deaths around the world are down. It is also the case that worldwide development is up. The economies of developing countries are improving, record numbers of people are moving out of entrenched poverty and, while within country inequality is increasing, global inequality is decreasing. Personally, I think the relationship between development and malaria is no accident at all.
What strikes me, is that this topic was hardly mentioned last week. I brought it up a couple of times, but, unfortunately, scientists are hesitant to move out of their comfort zone, and wish to give it little thought. Talk of politics or economics produces blank looks in scientists trained in microbiology or entomology. I’m sure its the same on the other end. Certainly, the current research is important, helpful, relevant and should be continued. However, I don’t think that we, as scientists, should stick our heads in the sand and willfully ignore the bigger picture.
Malaria will be eliminated not through fancy pharmaceuticals and ever improved bednets, but through the increase in access to employment, market economies and remunerative opportunities. Malaria will be eliminated through the elimination of entrenched poverty, the expansion of free education, reductions in gender inequities and improved nutrition. In my opinion, these were the true factors which led to the elimination of malaria from the US, Europe, Japan. Granted, there are climatic differences between those countries and sub-Saharan Africa, but P. vivax, a cold weather malaria, was also fully eliminated.
People I spoke with sort of waved their hands and acted as if there is nothing we can do about these global and economic problems. I disagree, of course. Policy makers look to scientists for answers (though they make ignore what they don’t like). Endless bednet trials that only marginally expand on previous research do not do much to ameliorate the structural factors which keep people in poverty. Research which explores those big picture factors, however, could have vast benefits.
A few friends sent me links to recent articles touting the development of a new class of drugs against malaria. Trials in mice have shown that a single dose of the medication can fully eliminate the parasite from the blood with little or no side effects.
I applaud the ongoing efforts of researchers to develop new malaria medications. Chloroquine has long been rendered useless in many parts of the world, and artemisinin based medications, while currently effective, might possibly go the way of chloroquine in the near future. We need more and a wider variety of drugs to fight the disease.
The optimism, however, may be misplaced. First, the researchers have only recently obtained approval for human trials. Until now, the drug has only been tested in mice, which are unable to contract the human strains of malaria. Second, the claims of few side effects are suspect. While serious side effects (like death) are quite obvious, mice have no effective means of communication with their keepers.
Third, what is magical today, may be useless in the future. Drugs are only as good as hosts as parasites allow them to be. Without true trials in the field, we can never know how quickly Plasmodium parasites will adapt to a new set of pressures. Experience to date indicates that they do rather well.
Fourth,before touting unsubstantiated successes in the popular press, the question of genetic compatibility must be addressed. Not all humans (and parasites) are created from the same mold. What works in Zambia might be useless in Cambodia.
I find overly optimistic predictions annoying, though unsurprising in the popular press. Scientists, however, should refrain from making rash predictions as to the success of their efforts. Certainly, this makes us appear wishy washy in the eyes of the public, but ’tis better to err on the side of caution lest we set ourselves up for ridicule and failure.
How did I miss this moron? Satoshi Kanazawa, a Tokyo born academic at the London School of Economics, inexplicably earned his PhD at the University of Arizona. Now, he spends his time publishing papers on why Africans are a) ugly and b) stupid. Recently, Psychology Today’s editors slept on the job and even gave him a forum with which to spread his idiotic, racist research, which is of a statistical quality one might expect more of college freshmen than PhD’s at a respectable institution.
While I am late in jumping on this liberal bandwagon (call me what you will), the crux of his latest piece of nonsense is this: Black women are more unattractive than anyone else in the world, yet mistakenly believe that they are the most attractive. Kanazawa, using zero evidence, confidently claims that this is because women of African (read Sub-Saharan, err black) descent have higher levels of testosterone, and thus are more masculine in appearance.
Please. Aside from the incredible difficulties of assigning race, and the massive genetic variation that exists in every method of partitioning humanity, we must ask, has this man ever been to Africa? Satoshi reminds me of my drunken 55 year old racist english conversation students that I used to teach in Japan, who enjoyed ignorantly pigeonholing the world’s vast collection of geographic regions, peoples, cultures and individuals into three nice and convenient categories. His command of written English is about as proficient. Actually, he would do well in racist circles in any part of the globe.
One is free to find a particular type of person attractive or unattractive, but besides the incredible methodological difficulties in assigned groups and measuring “attractiveness,” we have to ask, what is the value of this research?
Fortunately, many, including Scientific American, have stepped up to debunk his methods and you can read about them here.