"Mathematicians have big egos, so they haven’t told anyone that math is easy.”
Links
🔖 Linking Economic Complexity, Institutions and Income Inequality
A country's mix of products predicts its subsequent pattern of diversification and economic growth. But does this product mix also predict income inequality? Here we combine methods from econometrics, network science, and economic complexity to show that countries exporting complex products (as measured by the Economic Complexity Index) have lower levels of income inequality than countries exporting simpler products. Using multivariate regression analysis, we show that economic complexity is a significant and negative predictor of income inequality and that this relationship is robust to controlling for aggregate measures of income, institutions, export concentration, and human capital. Moreover, we introduce a measure that associates a product to a level of income inequality equal to the average GINI of the countries exporting that product (weighted by the share the product represents in that country's export basket). We use this measure together with the network of related products (or product space) to illustrate how the development of new products is associated with changes in income inequality. These findings show that economic complexity captures information about an economy's level of development that is relevant to the ways an economy generates and distributes its income. Moreover, these findings suggest that a country's productive structure may limit its range of income inequality. Finally, we make our results available through an online resource that allows for its users to visualize the structural transformation of over 150 countries and their associated changes in income inequality between 1963 and 2008.
MIT has a pretty good lay-person’s overview of this article. The final published version is separately available.
Income inequality linked to export “complexity” | MIT News
The mix of products that countries export is a good predictor of income distribution, study finds.
What could happen if you refuse to unlock your phone at the US border? | Ars Technica
DHS says agents are in the right to ask for passwords, decryption help.
Trump’s F-35 Calls Came With a Surprise: Rival CEO Was Listening | Bloomberg
Kellyanne Conway Sparks Media Debate About Interviewing Trump Advisers | Fortune.com
Some news programs have said they will no longer interview Kellyanne Conway because she isn't credible.
🔖 Post filtering fixes at Homebrew Website Club | Colin Devroe
Last night Tucker Hottes, Den Temple and I held the first Homebrew Website Club at The Keys in Scranton, PA. I really appreciate that HWC will force me to set aside some time to work on my personal site since it is often neglected for more pressing projects.
Nota bene: Colin is dogfooding his IndieWeb friendly WordPress theme on Github! It’s a beautiful, simple, and very clean theme for a personal website/blog.
Colin, do you mind if we provide a link to your theme on https://indieweb.org/WordPress/Themes for others to potentially use and/or improve upon? (See also discussion at https://indieweb.org/WordPress/Development#Themes.)
PewDiePie Show Canceled by Google’s YouTube | WSJ
YouTube canceled its top star’s show on Tuesday over his anti-Semitic jokes, complicating its efforts to court television advertisers while also retaining its edgy video stars.
It’s Valentine’s Day, and it seems appropriate… | Michael Nielsen
Leaks Suggest Trump’s Own Team Is Alarmed By His Conduct | The Huffington Post
Playboy, Shedding a Policy Change, Brings Back Nudes | The New York Times
A year after the men’s magazine stopped featuring photographs of naked women, it has apparently had a change of heart.
Michael Flynn, OPEC, India: Your Tuesday Briefing | The New York Times
Here’s what you need to know to start your day.
🔖 The Epidemic Spreading Model and the Direction of Information Flow in Brain Networks
The interplay between structural connections and emerging information flow in the human brain remains an open research problem. A recent study observed global patterns of directional information flow in empirical data using the measure of transfer entropy. For higher frequency bands, the overall direction of information flow was from posterior to anterior regions whereas an anterior-to-posterior pattern was observed in lower frequency bands. In this study, we applied a simple Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible (SIS) epidemic spreading model on the human connectome with the aim to reveal the topological properties of the structural network that give rise to these global patterns. We found that direct structural connections induced higher transfer entropy between two brain regions and that transfer entropy decreased with increasing distance between nodes (in terms of hops in the structural network). Applying the SIS model, we were able to confirm the empirically observed opposite information flow patterns and posterior hubs in the structural network seem to play a dominant role in the network dynamics. For small time scales, when these hubs acted as strong receivers of information, the global pattern of information flow was in the posterior-to-anterior direction and in the opposite direction when they were strong senders. Our analysis suggests that these global patterns of directional information flow are the result of an unequal spatial distribution of the structural degree between posterior and anterior regions and their directions seem to be linked to different time scales of the spreading process.
🔖 Want to read: From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds by Daniel C. Dennett
Daniel C. Dennett (W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition, 496 pages (February 7, 2017))One of America’s foremost philosophers offers a major new account of the origins of the conscious mind.
How did we come to have minds?
For centuries, this question has intrigued psychologists, physicists, poets, and philosophers, who have wondered how the human mind developed its unrivaled ability to create, imagine, and explain. Disciples of Darwin have long aspired to explain how consciousness, language, and culture could have appeared through natural selection, blazing promising trails that tend, however, to end in confusion and controversy. Even though our understanding of the inner workings of proteins, neurons, and DNA is deeper than ever before, the matter of how our minds came to be has largely remained a mystery.
That is now changing, says Daniel C. Dennett. In From Bacteria to Bach and Back, his most comprehensive exploration of evolutionary thinking yet, he builds on ideas from computer science and biology to show how a comprehending mind could in fact have arisen from a mindless process of natural selection. Part philosophical whodunit, part bold scientific conjecture, this landmark work enlarges themes that have sustained Dennett’s legendary career at the forefront of philosophical thought.
In his inimitable style―laced with wit and arresting thought experiments―Dennett explains that a crucial shift occurred when humans developed the ability to share memes, or ways of doing things not based in genetic instinct. Language, itself composed of memes, turbocharged this interplay. Competition among memes―a form of natural selection―produced thinking tools so well-designed that they gave us the power to design our own memes. The result, a mind that not only perceives and controls but can create and comprehend, was thus largely shaped by the process of cultural evolution.
An agenda-setting book for a new generation of philosophers, scientists, and thinkers, From Bacteria to Bach and Back will delight and entertain anyone eager to make sense of how the mind works and how it came about.
4 color, 18 black-and-white illustrations
IPAM Workshop on Regulatory and Epigenetic Stochasticity in Development and Disease, March 1-3
Epigenetics refers to information transmitted during cell division other than the DNA sequence per se, and it is the language that distinguishes stem cells from somatic cells, one organ from another, and even identical twins from each other. In contrast to the DNA sequence, the epigenome is relatively susceptible to modification by the environment as well as stochastic perturbations over time, adding to phenotypic diversity in the population. Despite its strong ties to the environment, epigenetics has never been well reconciled to evolutionary thinking, and in fact there is now strong evidence against the transmission of so-called “epi-alleles,” i.e. epigenetic modifications that pass through the germline.
However, genetic variants that regulate stochastic fluctuation of gene expression and phenotypes in the offspring appear to be transmitted as an epigenetic or even Lamarckian trait. Furthermore, even the normal process of cellular differentiation from a single cell to a complex organism is not understood well from a mathematical point of view. There is increasingly strong evidence that stem cells are highly heterogeneous and in fact stochasticity is necessary for pluripotency. This process appears to be tightly regulated through the epigenome in development. Moreover, in these biological contexts, “stochasticity” is hardly synonymous with “noise”, which often refers to variation which obscures a “true signal” (e.g., measurement error) or which is structural, as in physics (e.g., quantum noise). In contrast, “stochastic regulation” refers to purposeful, programmed variation; the fluctuations are random but there is no true signal to mask.
This workshop will serve as a forum for scientists and engineers with an interest in computational biology to explore the role of stochasticity in regulation, development and evolution, and its epigenetic basis. Just as thinking about stochasticity was transformative in physics and in some areas of biology, it promises to fundamentally transform modern genetics and help to explain phase transitions such as differentiation and cancer.
This workshop will include a poster session; a request for poster titles will be sent to registered participants in advance of the workshop.
Speaker List:
Adam Arkin (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory)
Gábor Balázsi (SUNY Stony Brook)
Domitilla Del Vecchio (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Michael Elowitz (California Institute of Technology)
Andrew Feinberg (Johns Hopkins University)
Don Geman (Johns Hopkins University)
Anita Göndör (Karolinska Institutet)
John Goutsias (Johns Hopkins University)
Garrett Jenkinson (Johns Hopkins University)
Andre Levchenko (Yale University)
Olgica Milenkovic (University of Illinois)
Johan Paulsson (Harvard University)
Leor Weinberger (University of California, San Francisco (UCSF))
Adam Arkin (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory)
Gábor Balázsi (SUNY Stony Brook)
Domitilla Del Vecchio (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Michael Elowitz (California Institute of Technology)
Andrew Feinberg (Johns Hopkins University)
Don Geman (Johns Hopkins University)
Anita Göndör (Karolinska Institutet)
John Goutsias (Johns Hopkins University)
Garrett Jenkinson (Johns Hopkins University)
Andre Levchenko (Yale University)
Olgica Milenkovic (University of Illinois)
Johan Paulsson (Harvard University)
Leor Weinberger (University of California, San Francisco (UCSF))