Product Idea: the Fiercely Reciprocal Robot

Mirrors were a phenomenal invention for promoting self-awareness. Mirrors don't make us look great but because they inform us of how we do look, they do make us look better. We can use the image they send back to correct what we can.

Our social image is tougher to discern than our physical one. We can easily see our face in a mirror; it's tougher to see how we come across to different people in different situations. For that I think it'd be interesting to get kids a fiercely reciprocal robot.

One problem with understanding how we come across is that there are different lag times and different probabilities for feedback from people. One person might patiently take our stupid jokes or tendency to volunteer "honest" feedback about how fat they look in that outfit while another will immediately take offense and avoid us later. One will put up with something from us for a couple of months before deciding that it is too much and another will put up with it for life. We don't really know how we come across as social beings and particularly for the young this process of understanding who we are to others can be slow and difficult.

A potential solution to this is the fiercely reciprocal robot. Imagine a robot that a child aged 2 to 14 could interact with. This robot would reciprocate everything from being ignored to telling amusing jokes to giving compliments to insults, handshakes to punches. If the child looked away when the robot was telling a story, the robot would look away; if the child made appropriate noises - the Ooohs and the "oh no's!" to express amazement or alarm, the robot, too, would make such noises. If the child expressed encouragement rather than complaints, the robot would be encouraging rather than complaining.  If the child were happy being with the robot then one might safely assume that the average, typical peer would also be happy to be with the child; if the child were miserable with the robot, then one might safely assume that the average, typical peer would be miserable with the child. Whatever the robot made one feel would be a reflection of what the child made others feel.

Of course you would need a "model good form" mode that might inspire the child to new behaviors. It could not be all reciprocity. Sometimes instruction is needed.

The default mode would be reciprocity, though, and this would be a great teacher and predictor. As it turns out, the average person is fiercely reciprocal. If you are kind to strangers they're generally kind to you; if you are rude to them, they're generally rude to you. For the most part, who we are dictates who people are to us. The fiercely reciprocal robot would be unique mostly in the immediacy and the relentlessness of its feedback.

Development, Social Evolution, and a Post-Economic Community

Apparently it is bad form to talk about communities being at different stages of development. It is supposedly demeaning of "less developed" communities. To me, though, this stage of history is so transitory that the differences between poor and rich countries is almost incidental.

One of the more important people in the Pharaoh's Court:
The Royal Manicurist

If you had a smattering of parents talking about their young children, the conversation would gravitate towards the perils of potty training, sleepless nights, tantrums, and speculation about whether toddlers are natural tyrants. No one would think it demeaning to suggest that it'd be a good idea for your two year old to learn how to control her bladder before heading to university. And no one would think for a moment that the fact that all the toddlers were going through nearly identical stages of development suggested that they were - or would grow up to be - nearly identical people.  Or that the child who is three years younger is going to be perpetually less developed than the older children. We all go through similar, necessary stages of development but we will end up with very different lives.

Communities that give their people fewer options about how to live a life - whether in the form of letting women stay single or providing young people with enough income to afford a place of their own - are less developed. Development involves an overlapping series of steps like accumulating and creating capital, educating children to become knowledge workers and popularizing entrepreneurship. (Something even our most advanced communities haven't quite done. Yet.) There is reason to believe that the roughly 7 or 8 centuries from about 1300 to 2100, a period in which we transition from abject poverty to something like widespread abundance, will take us from a starting point of a community based on shared superstitions through the creation of communities focused on overcoming economic scarcity into a post-economic community in which the questions of economic scarcity give way to larger, more interesting questions about how to live and what sorts of communities to create.

Social evolution has been playing out for thousands of years, since well before Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, Jews, and Greeks brought humanity into history with writing, giving us a continuity beyond the scope of our own lives. Our own lives play out within a tiny little window of this evolution that is likely to continue for thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands - more years.

Our society doesn't represent  the culmination of evolution. We are not the product of evolution: we are just part of a process that has and will play out for a longer time than we could ever imagine.

Stunning Election Results from San Diego

Today I went into my wife's class and held an election for 23 second graders. 7 year olds, most of them. Everyone at this San Diego city school qualifies for free lunch. The class isn't all Hispanic. There are two African-Americans.

They were intrigued with the process. I let them choose between four candidates: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. We discussed each candidate. I made the argument for each one. (Jill Stein wants to protect the environment, air and water, etc.) We talked about voting and hard choices (broccoli vs. candy), etc. They had some good questions (What's the difference between government and the president?) And opinions. (Trump just wants to make the rich richer.) They certainly know who Trump and Clinton are.

They voted in private at their desk, checking a box next to the candidate and his / her picture and name before folding up their ballot and handing it in.

Johnson, Stein, and Trump had a three-way tie.
Clinton got every single vote.

Nate Silver might dismiss this as both irrelevant and statistically insignificant. I think it's an indication of the trouble Trump faces with Hispanics.

Litany - as Recited by a 3 Year Old

Happy Friday



Or ...

Litany

BY BILLY COLLINS

You are the bread and the knife,
the crystal goblet and the wine.
You are the dew on the morning grass
and the burning wheel of the sun.
You are the white apron of the baker
and the marsh birds suddenly in flight.

However, you are not the wind in the orchard,
the plums on the counter,
or the house of cards.
And you are certainly not the pine-scented air.
There is just no way you are the pine-scented air.

It is possible that you are the fish under the bridge,
maybe even the pigeon on the general's head,
but you are not even close
to being the field of cornflowers at dusk.

And a quick look in the mirror will show
that you are neither the boots in the corner
nor the boat asleep in its boathouse.

It might interest you to know,
speaking of the plentiful imagery of the world,
that I am the sound of rain on the roof.

I also happen to be the shooting star,
the evening paper blowing down an alley,
and the basket of chestnuts on the kitchen table.

I am also the moon in the trees
and the blind woman's tea cup.
But don't worry, I am not the bread and the knife.
You are still the bread and the knife.
You will always be the bread and the knife,
not to mention the crystal goblet and—somehow—the wine.

Progress

Regular readers know that I'm stupidly optimistic about the future but still have bouts of frustration when it appears that so few voters and policy makers get how much is at stake (for good or bad). I had to smile to see this report about the two Bills (Gates and Clinton) who do seem to realize how much difference a person can make.

This from Gates' post:

It’s pretty amazing to realize that 50 years ago, more than 20 million children died before their fifth birthday. Last year, it was fewer than 9 million. I think this is one of the greatest accomplishments of the last hundred years.

But 9 million children dying unnecessarily each year is still 9 million too many. That’s why we need to continue our efforts.

To read the whole post ...

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Thinking/article.aspx?ID=121

Doesn't Nadya Sound Like a Swedish Name?

I recently talked with an English guy from Sweden.

I queried him about the country and he said, "Well, you know, in the UK we have these lovely little bits that are surrounded by poverty and unsafe areas. But in Sweden, it all seems to be lovely bits. They don't seem to have any areas with poverty. Everyone has a Volvo and a three-bedroom place. I don't know how they do it."

And then he told me that Swedish companies offer 18 months of paternity leave for new fathers. Should the father not want to use his, he can lump it in with his wife's leave, giving her a total of 36 months. 3 years leave per child.

If I were Nadya Suleman, I would have moved to Sweden before giving birth to 14 children. Just think about it: 42 years of paid leave. With leave polices like that, who needs a career? It makes you wonder, really, how it is with such inducements that Sweden has a population of only 9 million.

The Odd Job of Parenting

Tomorrow my youngest turns 18 and next week my daughter is 20. Even though I'm only 46, I have 38 years of experience as a parent (you just add up the ages of your children to calculate years of experience, right?).

I've learned a few things about parenting. I've learned to kiss them on the head when I'm confused by them or frustrated by them or delighted with them. This seems to work on 18 month old children and 18 year old children alike. I've learned to call them "precious children," as a reminder to me and to them. And I've changed my mind about my job as a parent.

When these two little people came into the world, I actually thought it was my job to help turn them into certain kind of people. A couple of decades later, I'm come around to the opinion that my job is very different.

Anyone with children is amazed by what distinct personalities they are. They come into the world at a particular trajectory, seemingly destined to be a particular somebody, and it is not exactly clear that a parent can do much about it. Well, other than make them feel self-conscious or guilty about who they are.

So, how has this realization changed my notion of what it means to be a parent? Rather than try to change or shape who they are, I see my job as helping them to figure out how to succeed, how to navigate life, given that they are who they are. As we stand beside each other, trying to figure this out, I learn one more thing; they usually have a better idea than me about how to do that.

Parenting. It's an odd job and after 20 years I still don't know where I'm supposed to pick up my paycheck.

Mothers and Presidential Race 2008 Policy Proposal One

The civilized world rests on the fragile foundation of mothers. We digress about the influence of media, the quality of our schools, and the importance of good government. All those are important, but none is as influential on a child as his or her mother. Because we've forgotten this fundamental fact, we've ignored what mothers are going through. We all know that mothers are, in record numbers, raising children alone. Additionally, mothers are more likely to raise a child hundreds of miles away from a family network of their parents or siblings, resources that have historically been available for tasks as simple as baby sitting while she runs an errand or as profound as offering advice about how to deal with bad behavior or a child who wakes the household many times a night. Finally, jobs demand more and both mothers and fathers are forced to juggle parenting with excessive hours and stress from jobs they're required to work in order to pay the rent or mortgage. The traditional social supports of partner, extended family, or tolerant (or even unnecessary) employer have eroded. What we need is recognition of this fact. One little thing that we can begin doing to help - and it is just one little thing that will need so many other supporting tissues to work - is to offer education and support sessions for mothers. I'm proposing a series of pilot programs to introduce free sessions for mothers. Once these pilots have been revised to the point that they have proven successful, I would fund the rollout of a nationwide program. These sessions will meet at least three needs. One, mothers will be in classes with peers who have children roughly the same age, creating social networks that are helpful in ways that can scarcely be calculated. Two, these sessions will share the latest and best research on nutrition, learning, behavior, and child development. These courses will continue for years.

And three, these courses will do more than offer advice. They will be agents for problem solving, forming a central reference place for dealing with issues as varied as spousal or child abuse to homelessness or finding and funding a dentist. The leaders of these sessions will effectively be advocates for mothers, working with agencies as varied as urban housing and local schools to help these mothers to more effectively care for the children they love. There are a variety of questions and further issues raised by this proposal. For instance, I would propose as part of the legislation tax breaks for employers who allow mothers time off to attend these sessions. These and other kinds of supporting initiatives could be worked out at the various pilot program sites.

This initiative will help with education; it is time to stop admonishing teachers to do the job that we won't help mothers to do. Teachers can't be expected to raise children but we do need to do more to help mothers to do just that. Just as it is not enough to praise troops and then leave them to fight unarmed and unprotected, we have to do more than praise mothers and do more to ensure that they have what they need to do their jobs.
[I'm going to begin an intermittent series of proposals that I'd like to hear from a candidate - any candidate - for president in 2008. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm looking for a candidate who aligns with my values but just as importantly, I am looking for a candidate who shows signs of being a social inventor like FDR. Too many candidates can (and have) polled people to learn how to speak to their values; at this point I am less interested in a candidate who tells me that he'll sell me a Van Morrison record than a candidate who has invented an iPod that lets me listen to Van Morrison in a new way. This is the first in a series of sketches of policy innovations that I would support.]