Monthly Archives: September 2013

Intel anthropologist says humans forming deeper relationships with their gadgets

Posted on by

Having an anthropologist working for Intel is interesting enough, but there’s more: this sociologist argues humans are having more social interaction with their electronic devices.

Bell, who is set to speak Thursday at Intel’s developer forum in San Francisco, says the first step is the creation of devices like the Moto X that have always-on sensors listening for our commands.

“There’s an implicit promise in the listening,” Bell told AllThingsD in an interview on Wednesday.

Bell said she started thinking about this notion after watching a YouTube video of a Furby attempting to interact with Apple’s Siri.

Of course, many devices today still have trouble comprehending what we are saying, let alone caring about us. But the tie between us and our devices is clearly growing, Bell says, if we have reached a point that people sleep with their smartphones within arm’s reach. The shift from personal devices to devices with which we truly have a relationship will take time, she said, perhaps a decade or more.

In her travels around the world, Bell says, people often describe their smartphones in highly personalized ways. Bell recalls one person saying of her phone, “I fight with it sometimes, but we make up, and I know it will always have my back.”

Interesting. This argument seems similar to that made by Sherry Turkle in Alone Together. Turkle describes years of research examining how children have social interactions with electronic devices, like Furbies and Tamagotchi. She found kids can form close bonds and had a really difficult time when the device was taken away or worse, died.

Americans in poverty have electronics, showing how ubiquitous they are

Posted on by

This article is intended to suggest that Americans in poverty don’t have it that bad because of the items they have in their home. I would argue for a different interpretation: this shows how common and relatively cheap these consumer goods are.

American poverty just ain’t what it used to be. A new report from the Census Bureau found that 80.9% of households considered poverty stricken have cell phones along with their landline phones, and 58.2% have computers. 96.1% of those in “poverty” have televisions, and 83% have some sort of DVR.

The percentage owning refrigerators? 97.8%

Gas or electric stoves? 96.6%.

Microwaves? 93.2%

Air conditioning? Over 83%.

Washer? 68.7%

Dryer? 65.3%

Having these items is simply part of modern living. The adoption rate for new devices rises much more quickly today than it did a century ago. Take cell phones as an example. Here is one description about how quickly they spread in the United States:

Just a quick note for your next PowerPoint deck on megatrends: more than 90 percent of adults now have a cell phone, according to the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. For people under the age of 44, that number is closer to 97 percent.

Pew calls the cell phone the fastest-adopted device in history. These things are subject to some variability because of when we start the clock, but the cellphone adoption rate is certainly up there with the radio and color TV, and far faster than computers or landline telephones.

Additionally, there is an important difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Sure, poverty in the United States doesn’t look like the most desperate poverty in the world but that doesn’t mean there aren’t clear differences and disadvantages between those with lower incomes and wealth than those with more.

Treehouse owner vs. “McMansion proponents”

Posted on by

This news report shows an argument in Venice, California between a woman with a unique treehouse versus the “McMansion proponents” suspected to be behind opposition to the treehouse.

We don’t get much background about these “McMansion proponents” but it does strike me as an effective moniker to neutralize the opposition. Who wants to be known publicly for being a “McMansion proponent”? Even those who like big houses or think property owners should be able to have teardowns wouldn’t loudly say they like McMansions. They would want to shift the language to something like “luxury house” or turn the conversation back to the topic of individual rights. Additionally, using the term McMansion often implies outsiders who want to build big houses and change/destroy the neighborhood with their oversized homes. It suggests this is an us vs. them battle, the humble homeowners who just want enjoy their neighborhood versus monied people who want to construct their private paradises.

Regardless of the outcome of this, it is hard to imagine a more effective negative name to use than “McMansion proponents.”

Headed toward another housing bubble in the United States?

Posted on by

A CNBC editor looks at some data that suggests the United States may already be experiencing a housing bubble:

On Monday, we got the fourth month of home affordability data coming in below trend, which is a strong confirmation that the housing market is once again in a bubble. (The NAR index is published with a two-month delay, so the latest numbers are for July).

The affordability index measures the household income needed to qualify for a traditional mortgage on a median-priced single family home. So it’s looking at a mortgage with a 20 percent down payment and a monthly payment below 25 percent of income at the currently effective rate on conventional mortgages…

The index has been dropping rapidly since peaking in January at 210.7. We’re now down to 157.8, according to the preliminary numbers released for July on Monday. Home prices have been rising and interest rates climbing, while wages haven’t kept up. That’s how we got to the lowest level of affordability seen since July of 2009.

According to the NAR, this shouldn’t be dire news. A score of 157.8 officially indicates that a household earning the median income has 57.8 percent more income than needed to get a mortgage on a median priced home.

A few interesting things to note here:

1. There is some debate about whether this index has predictive power. In other words, it isn’t necessarily easy to identify when there might be a housing bubble.

2. This adds more evidence that a housing recovery in the US is a long-term project. Housing prices may have risen so much by the mid-2000s that it will take years to sort it all out. A slow-growth economy doesn’t help.

3. Instapundit has a good take: “I WISH IT WOULD GET TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD.” While the idea of a bubble could be troubling, there are plenty of homeowners who would welcome some increased value for their home. Of course, that increased value might disappear again…

Venkatesh on writing for a mass audience vs. a more scholarly audience

Posted on by

A review of Sudhir Venkatesh’s latest book Floating City: A Rogue Sociologist Lost and Found in New York’s Underground Economy notes that Venkatesh finds himself between writing for the public versus academics. And the reviewer doesn’t like hearing about this tension:

There’s one more thing that’s irritating: Early on, Venkatesh tells readers that some sociologists at his Ivy-League institution look down on writing a book for the masses. And he describes being caught between wanting to be taken seriously as an academic and telling stories and reaching a larger audience. But that internal torture sounds hollow, and it seems pretty clear that Venkatesh, well-known already, likes the spotlight of mass appeal. So why not just drop the pretense and write?

While the average reader might not be interested in this tension, I feel I have heard versions of this conversation numerous times. But, which way the conversation goes tends to depend heavily on the context. At the more official sessions and events of the ASA, you get more of a push for the scholarly audience. The big names are present, there is a lot of conversation about theories and the latest research, and there are awards for he best scholarly work. At more regional meetings, you hear a mix. When teaching undergraduate liberal arts students, they often ask why academics tend to write in journals that relatively few people read. From their point of view, why become a sociologist if not many people pay attention to your findings and ideas?

Perhaps the reviewer is right: Venkatesh and others could just pick a side and go with it. Yet, there are clear consequences for such decisions. There are certainly sociologists who have gone the more mass market approach and done okay, even if their status within the academic discipline doesn’t rise accordingly or they are viewed by some as lightweights.

Raising speed limits doesn’t lead to faster driving

Posted on by

I’ve seen several articles about this lately as several states consider raising highway speed limits: raising the speed limits does not lead more people to drive faster.

Traffic experts say that motorists tend to drive at a speed they feel comfortable, regardless of the posted speed limit. And according to Michigan Department of Transportation spokesman Rob Morosi, comfortable drivers generally make for safe roads.

“There’s a misconception that the faster the speed limit, the more dangerous the road,” said Morosi, “and that’s not necessarily true. Speed limits are most effective when the majority of people driving are comfortable at that speed.”…

Common sense, then, would suggest that increasing a speed limit would lead those motorists to increase their speed at a similar rate. But Megge, pointing to I-96 in Flint as a striking example, says that belief is not supported by the research.

Before 2005, traffic studies indicated that most motorists were traveling the Interstate at roughly 73 mph, he said. After the speed limit was increased, most motorists still traveled the Interstate at roughly 73 mph.

“When we raise a speed limit, traffic speed does not automatically increase. That’s a myth,” Megge said. “I’ve been doing this 15 years and raised 300 speed limits, and never have we seen or observed a wholesale increase in traffic speeds. It’s a very counter-intuitive idea. But the science and engineering works. We want to ensure it’s safe and fair to the public.”

Common sense approaches often don’t apply to traffic. This finding about speed limits fits with another finding about traffic signs: drivers don’t necessarily pay attention. Read about several places in Europe that have no traffic signs and few traffic markers and safety improves. In the case of driving speed, drivers seem to pay more attention to nearby drivers rather than the official speed limit. So even as people often drive solo and might argue their actions on the road are the result of their own individual choices, driving is indeed a social activity.

Here is a second good example regarding traffic that counters “common sense” or common behavior: using all possible lane space to merge is more efficient for everyone rather than having drivers block off lanes that will soon close.

 

Plans for the first skyscraper that can disappear

Posted on by

Construction is expected to begin soon on a South Korean skyscraper that could hide itself:

[T]he world’s first disappearing skyscraper has just been approved for construction for the Incheon International Airport area outside Seoul, South Korea. No date is given as the projected completion yet, but according to Architizer, Tower Infinity, designed by GDS Architects, will rise 450 meters (1476.38 feet) in the air and feature “a cutting-edge LED façade system that allows visual information behind the skyscraper to be captured and simultaneously projected from the tower’s surface.” The building, in turn, will “blend into the background like an enormous, crystalline chameleon.”

Tower Infinity, which will be filled not with residences but with “entertainment and leisure purposes,” will have the third highest observation deck in the world, and its the exterior can also be used as a giant screen to project photos or movies. Despite its massive, thunderous stature—the architects believe that the primary function of the skyscraper, which they’ve nicknamed the “Anti-Landmark,” is to “celebrate the global community rather than focus on itself.” They write: “Instead of symbolizing prominence as another of the world’s tallest and best towers, our solution aims to provide the World’s first invisible tower, showcasing innovative Korean technology while encouraging a more Global narrative in the process.”

Whether Tower Infinity is “a magical piece of technological ingenuity, or a cynical new branch of architectural exhibitionism,” as Architizer puts it, one thing’s for sure: the $28B “Dream Hub,” a minicity of architectural experimentation composed of buildings by Daniel Libekind, Foster + Partners, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, among others, as well as a rather controversial number by MVRDV, probably won’t happen in Seoul.

It will be interesting to see how this type of facade will be deployed. Imagine a regular show where the building lights up and then suddenly disappears. In a less urban area or if the backdrop is conducive, the building could disappear to be replaced by a scene of nature. Or, the LCD facade might be used as a giant advertising screen. Perhaps new regulations and codes have to be developed by urban municipalities to limit what the building might do.

But, I can’t help thinking the building has a future in action movies, perhaps the James Bond or Mission: Impossible series, as the centerpiece in some bizarre plot.

American colleges have Gothic architecture because they wanted to be linked to English universities, make clear their intellectual heritage

Posted on by

American colleges adopted Gothic architecture to make statements about their connections to the past as well as to other well-known schools:

American universities had always treasured the influence of Oxford and Cambridge. The colleges that would become the Ivy League were meant to model the Oxbridgian ideal of constructing a college around a quadrangle. In practice, though, American colleges of the 18th century were quite different. They were more devoted to scholarship than their British brethren. They were disconnected from a university. And they were poorer: Often, they didn’t have enough money to complete a ring of buildings around their quad…

“What Gothic meant changed depending on the time,” Johanna Seasonwein, a fellow at Princeton University Art Museum, told me. When Victorians emulated Gothic, they did it sloppily, mixing styles and idioms. “Something Islamic, something Byzantine,” might get thrown in there, says Seasonwein. This was the Victorian Gothic of the 1860s and ‘70s: a mishmash.

Collegiate Gothic, which followed Victorian Gothic, was much more precise. It emulated Oxford and Cambridge more directly.

There’s even a patient zero, of sorts, of Collegiate Gothic. In 1894, Bryn Mawr commissioned a new building, Pembroke. Its interpretation of Gothic so inspired other schools that they commissioned similar plans from the architects which designed the hall. (That firm, Stewardson & Cope, wound up constructing a near-copy of Pembroke on Princeton’s campus, where it’s called Blair Hall.)…

Collegiate Gothic was not a naive emulation, though. The Gothic revival “was just as much saying who was accepted in this atmosphere [of the college] as who was not,” says Seasonwein. Universities were expanding, and welcoming new students, but they were still mostly populated by WASPy men. Before the 1890s, many college presidents would have resisted a filigreed medieval style for fear it would look too “papist.”

Woodrow Wilson, when president of Princeton, has a now-famous quote about the revival: “By the very simple device of building our new buildings in the Tudor Gothic style we seem to have added a thousand years to the history of Princeton,” he said. Normally, the quote is truncated there, but in fact it continues: “…by merely putting those lines in our buildings which point every man’s imagination to the historical traditions of learning in the English-speaking race.” (Emphasis mine.)

All together, this is a good reminder that an architectural style we associate with a particular set of activities didn’t necessarily have to be. Social forces pushed colleges to adopt a particular architecture and they assumed this design communicated key messages.

The examples of collegiate Gothic cited in this article tend to be from elite Northeast and Midwest institutions. So does this architecture today still function in a similar manner, clearly demarcating these campuses as a cut above the rest? Other kinds of colleges, perhaps marked by region or the year they were founded or the students they serve, might have intentionally adopted other architectural styles to communicate other messages. Let’s say we wanted to look at the architecture of community colleges. I suspect more of them are post-World War II institutions that more modernist and functional architecture. What exactly does this communicate? Some counterfactuals might be interesting to look at as well: the community college with more traditional architecture or the elite school, like a Caltech, that has a different architectural style.

New York’s skyline and buildings on 9/11 and today

Posted on by

This set of photos compares New York’s skyline and buildings on September 11, 2001 to its current state. As you might expect, there is still quite a bit of construction going on. But, after a flurry of conversation in the years after 9/11 about how New York would rebuild, I have heard little in recent years about how this all might transform these spaces in New York City. The new One World Trade Center Place – the Freedom Tower – is interesting but how will it fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, fit in with New York’s skyline, and change New York’s identity?

US News & World Report changing up its college ranking methodology

Posted on by

US News & World Report recently announced changes to how it ranks colleges:

  • The “student selectivity” portion of the methodology will count for 12.5 percent of a college’s total, not 15 percent.
  • Within the student selectivity formula, class rank will count for 25 percent, not 40 percent. The change is attributed to the increase in the proportion of high schools that do not report class rank. SAT/ACT scores, meanwhile, rise to 65 percent from 50 percent of that score. (The rest isn’t explained but has in the past been based on colleges’ acceptance rates.)
  • Graduation rate performance (a measure that attempts to reward colleges for doing better than expected with their student body) will be applied to all colleges, not just the “national” ones at the top of the rankings.
  • “Peer assessment” — one of the most widely criticized criteria, based on a survey of presidents — will be cut from 25 to 22.5 percent of the formula for evaluating regional colleges. (One of the questions U.S. News declined to answer was whether there would be any change in the weighting for national universities.)
  • Graduation and retention rates will matter more for national universities, going from 20 percent to 22.5 percent.

This would really get interesting if these changes lead to significant shake-ups in the rankings. If some colleges move up quite a bit and, perhaps more importantly, others fall (knowing that people/institutions would feel a loss harder than an equivalent gain), there could be a lot of discussion. It would probably lead to schools that drop decrying the changes while colleges that rise would praise the new system.

It is too bad we don’t get an explanation of why these changes were made. The validity of the methodology is always in question but US News could at least try to make a case.