Wednesday, May 30, 2018

How to be charming.

How To Be Charming: 5 Secrets From Research


This Is How To Be Charming: 5 Secrets From Research

Mr. Barker has excellent human resource connections in 
more than one field. His expert friends help him 
solve many human related problems...just click and follow
the trail of expertise from how to be charming to how to avoid arguments
and even how to free hostages using diplomatic negotiation methods. 

Eric Barker
ebarker@ucla.edu via mail200.atl221.rsgsv.net 

May 29 (1 day ago)
to me


Welcome to the Barking Up The Wrong Tree weekly update for May 29th, 2018.


This Is How To Be Charming: 5 Secrets From Research


***




Before we commence with the festivities, I wanted to thank everyone for helping my first book become a Wall Street Journal bestseller! To check it out, click here.


***


Click here to read the post on the blog or keep scrolling to read in-email.



Being charming. Is there a more enviable quality? We'd hate charming people if we didn't love them so much.

I've covered how to be sexy and cool but charming, well, that's a whole 'nother beast. And what a beautiful beast it is. We're going to pull together the research from many, many... well, far too many sources and create our own little Charm School here on the interwebz.

Let's start with the most fundamental dynamic in how people evaluate one another. It's how others judge you and how you judge others. And, amazingly, we get it wrong almost every time...


The Fundamental Dynamic


You know how people always say first impressions are oh-so-important? A good body of research shows they're right. And, to add to that, once those impressions are set, experts say they're exceedingly hard to change.

And that is downright scary. It's a lot of pressure. We're afraid of looking like an idiot when we first meet someone new. So often we try to impress them by appearing competent. Or maybe we play it cool.

Or maybe you do both. But if you're trying to be charming, that is a terrible idea...

Harvard research shows 80% of our judgments about people come down to warmth and competence. And the more important quality is warmth. We'll take a lovable moron over a competent jerk more often than not.



Being perceived as an idiot shouldn't be your biggest fear -- being seen as cold should. You want to be in the right hand column, not the left.

So what's the most important thing to do when it comes to being seen as warm? Former head of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Program, Robin Dreeke, says it's as simple as smiling more.

Moreover, when meeting someone new, studies show people are unlikely to judge the interaction by how interesting you are. They're nervous too. Like you, they are more focused on whether they're screwing up.

From The Art of Conversation:

Research has found that with a serious topic or a good friend, we measure a conversation’s success by how enthralled we were by what the other person said. Whereas, the less familiar the other person, the more trivial the topic, the likelier we are to rate the experience by our own performance.

So to be charming, think less about being impressive, more about being warm, and more about whether the other person feels like they're performing well.

(To learn more about the science of a successful life, check out my best selling book here.)

So we know what's important and the right attitude to take. But how should we act? And what error do we commonly make in our behavior? Well, to get this right, we need to take a lesson from... Would you believe me if I said "racists"?


Put Some Effort In, Willya?


Racists often have to pretend to not be racist. And that requires work. So they put in the effort that many of us don't when interacting with others. So research shows, believe it or not, racists often make a better first impression:

We tested the hypothesis that, ironically, Blacks perceive White interaction partners who are more racially biased more positively than less biased White partners, primarily because the former group must make more of an effort to control racial bias than the latter.

If you think I'm encouraging or condoning racism you're insane. Don't be racist. But do put in some effort when meeting others. If it can make racists come off better, imagine what it can do for you.

Making an effort sounds obvious but we just don't do it. We get lazy. Research shows that couples enjoy time together more when they pretend it's their first date. Why? When you're on a first date you put more effort in.

Think of a gracious host at a party. They try. They put in effort to make you feel welcome. To get to know you. To make sure you are introduced to others, that you have a drink and are comfortable. And when you feel awkward at the party you want to cling to them. Why? They went out of their way to be nice to you. That's charm.
 Research shows that how you go into a conversation often determines the result. When we're socially optimistic and expect others to like us, they often do. Mean while mistrust can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So make an effort. Don't play it cool. I like to frame it in my mind as: "How would I act if I had wanted to meet this person for a long time and finally got the opportunity?"

(To learn the 4 secrets to reading body language like an expert, click here.)

So we know the right attitude and how to behave. But we're not out of the woods yet. You may find yourself in the ninth circle of Small Talk Hell where traitors to charming conversation are condemned to an eternity of making comments about the weather...

What is the point of small talk? How do you do it well? And how do you break free from it and connect on a deeper level?


Small Talk = Seeking Similarity


What should your goal be when making small talk? Ask questions to find points of similarity. Similarity is extraordinarily powerful when it comes to bonding and this is backed by more studies than you would ever want to read.

Best part? The similarity doesn't even have to be something deep or serious to have profound effects.

From How To Have A Good Day:

Lauren Rivera, a sociologist at Northwestern University, found that 74% of recruiting managers at prestigious firms reported that their most recent hire had a "personality similar to mine." How did they decide they were "similar"? It wasn't a particularly deep assessment. One of the most important factors was having familiar leisure pursuits, such as a shared interest in sports or technology.

And when you find that similarity, don't be afraid to show some enthusiasm. You don’t have to hop up and down. Be calm and speak slowly but positive emotions, passion, and being excited about something are good. Isn’t that who you'd like to spend time with?

Professor Stephen Ceci taught his class the way he had for the past 20 years, replicating nearly everything imaginable -- except he started speaking with more enthusiasm. What happened?

His student ratings went up — in every single category.

From The Tell: The Little Clues That Reveal Big Truths about Who We Are:

And you want your body language to be open and comfortable. Think "expanding." Body movements that go up and out are good. Anything that compresses or squeezes is bad. Here's FBI behavior expert Robin Dreeke:

I always want to make sure that I’m showing good, open, comfortable non-verbals. I just try to use high eyebrow elevations. Basically, anything going up and elevating is very open and comforting. Anything that is compressing: lip compression, eyebrow compression, where you’re squishing down, that’s conveying stress.

So you know how to handle small talk -- but now how do you escape it? Nothing's worse than being mired in banality. We're going to cast three powerful scientific charm spells at once...

Hit them with the trifecta of a sincere complimentvulnerability, and a request for advice. This is a great combo for deepening a bond, humanizing yourself and taking the conversation to another level.

Is the person you're talking to in good shape? Then it's as simple as, "You look like you hit the gym a lot. I've really let myself go over the past year. I'd really appreciate any exercise tips you have."

You paid them an honest compliment, you opened up about something many people might be reluctant to admit, and positioned them as an expert. Who wouldn't be flattered?

(To learn the top 6 influence techniques of hostage negotiators, click here.)

By asking for advice, you build a more trusting connection and move on to a meatier subject. And it gets them talking. You just need to focus on listening. Problem is, most of us are terrible at listening. What's the secret to being a good listener?


They Need To Know You’re Listening


At some point someone has angrily asked you, "Are you listening to me?!" And you probably responded, "Of course, I am." And you probably were. So what's the problem here? You weren't making it clear you were listening.

And the best way to do that is to ask good questions. If you were to say, "Every morning I dream about poisoning my co-worker's coffee" and someone responded with, "Arsenic and cyanide are old standbys but have you considered thallium? It's odorless, colorless and tasteless" this would make two things clear. First, they are definitely listening to you. Second, this is not someone you want to make angry.

Robin Dreeke says the best questions are open-ended, beginning with "how" or "what." They're great because someone can't easily answer them with one word and they keep the conversation going.

Actively showing interest in others is powerful. When people speak, the best responses are both active and constructive. What’s that mean?

It is engaged, enthusiastic, curious and has supportive nonverbal action. Ask questions. Be excited. Ask for details. Smile. Touch. Laugh.

Via Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being:

You want to let them do the bulk of the talking but you don't want this to feel like an interrogation or a therapist's office. You need to talk too. Share something related, preferably emphasizing similarity yet again, and bounce the ball back with another open-ended question.

Remember what the research said: they'll judge the interaction by how well they feel theydid. So do not play the one-up game, where you're trying to top their story. They'll feel bad and you'll end up in the cold-competent quadrant. No bueno.

You can accept everything they say without having to agree with everything they say. Nod your head and don't pick fights. So none of that "I was just being honest" argument-inducing nonsense. To quote political communication expert Frank Luntz, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear."

Directness is the privilege of intimacy. Don't be blunt with people you barely know and rarely be blunt with people you do know. That's acting like warmth doesn't matter, and as we saw above, it matters more than anything else.

(To learn a clinical psychologist's 7 steps for making difficult conversations easy, clickhere.)

Okay, the conversation is humming along and you're pretty darn charming. Time to hit them with the knockout punch...


Give Them The Thing We All Want


Should we give them a big, flattering compliment and tell them they're awesome? Nope.

The fact is people don’t just want to be seen positively; they want to be seen as they see themselves. What's the thing we all want? To feel understood.

From No One Understands You and What to Do About It:

Psychologists call this the desire for self-verification, and it is a profound and universal need. People become really uncomfortable when they get compliments (or criticism) they feel they genuinely don’t deserve. What this means for you is that praising someone for a quality they don’t believe they possess can backfire on you big-time. The best way to steer clear of this problem is to stick with truthful affirmations. In other words, affirm the abilities and accomplishments that you have direct evidence of—the ones that you know to be authentic and genuinely admire.

So how do you do this? You’ve been putting effort into the conversation, right? Asking good questions? Well, then it's not too hard to suss out how this person sees themselves and what traits they value.

If you listen to people, they will tell you who they are. And professor Sam Gosling (who I think of as the academic Sherlock Holmes) says what they tell you is usually accurate:

Identity claims are deliberate statements we make about our attitudes, goals, values, etc… One of the things that’s really important to keep in mind about identity statements is because these are deliberate, many people assume we are being manipulative with them and we’re being disingenuous, but I think there’s little evidence to suggest that that goes on. I think generally people really do want to be known. They’ll even do that at the expense of looking good. They’d rather be seen authentically then positively if it came down to that choice.

So compliment them on who they tell you they are. It's not that hard. Former FBI lead international hostage negotiator Chris Vosssays it's as simple as listening and paraphrasing what they say to you.

And even if you get it wrong, you're still doing great. They'll correct you. This is called "getting to know them better." And the fact that you're trying to get to know them better is very, very flattering. Humbly revise your statement, paraphrasing what they told you.

This is what leads to that powerful feeling of “this person gets me.” And nothing feels better than that.

(To learn the two-word morning ritual that will make you happy all day, click here.)

Charm School students, class is dismissed. We've learned a lot. Let's round it up and learn how to do all of this so it's sincere...


Sum Up


This is how to be charming:
  • The Fundamental Dynamic: Warmth is more important than competence. Better to be seen as a lovable idiot than a cold, competent Evil Genius.
  • Put in some effort, willya?: They will judge the interaction by how they feelthey did. So help them do good. Gracious hosts make an effort.
  • Small talk = seek similarity: And once you've found it, offer a sincere compliment, show vulnerability, and ask for advice. You hate small talk? Me too. You’ve done a great job of reading this so far. Sometimes I have trouble reading long blog posts. What’s your secret? 
  • They need to know you’re listening: Ask open-ended questions, be active and constructive, and contribute but don’t one-up.
  • Give them the thing we all want: We all want to feel understood. Understand?
Now I get to sit back and wait for the emails from friends saying, “Eric, why don’t you do any of this when I’m talking with you?" Well, the best football coaches are not necessarily the best football players. But I try.

If you're not naturally charming (and I'm usually about as charming as a brick through a plate glass window) this stuff takes some practice. Which raises an important issue: if you make these changes, are you being inauthentic?

Not if you have the other person's best interests in mind. When I spoke to Harvard Business School professor Gautam Mukundahe said:

Changing yourself is not inauthentic. Part of what people do is they change. They evolve, they can grow, and they can change themselves. So what is it to be authentic? It doesn’t mean you can’t change, but it does mean that the changes that you make, again, have to be aligned with the sense of who you really are, and who you want to be.

In fact, research shows that when you try to be your best self, you end up presenting your true self:

In sum, positive self-presentation facilitates more accurate impressions, indicating that putting one’s best self forward helps reveal one’s true self.

To be charming, try to bring out the best in others. And you don’t have to be inauthentic:

Just be the best version of who you already are.


Please share this on Facebook or Pocket. Thank you!


Pocket


Email Extras


Findings from around the internet...

+ Want to know what kind of life changes lead to increased happiness? Click here.

+ Want to know how to lucid dream? Clickhere.

+ Want to learn 10 things you don't know about yourself? Click here.

+ Miss last week's post? Here you go: Ancient Wisdom Reveals 7 Rituals That Will Make You Happy.

+ Want to learn one of the biggest regrets people have -- and how to avoid it? Click here.

+ You made it to the end of the email. You have charmed me. *bats eyelashes* Alrighty, Crackerjack Time: Best thing I saw on the system of pipes known as the internet this week? How about "20 beautiful words for emotions you've felt, but couldn't explain." Check it out here.

Thanks for reading!
Eric

PS: If a friend forwarded this to you, you can sign up to get the weekly email yourself here.


This email was sent to human4usbillions@gmail.com 

Sunday, May 27, 2018

standard-model-of-particle-physics

The Standard Model of Particle Physics: The Absolutely Amazing Theory of Almost Everything

3,835
The Standard Model. What a dull name for the most accurate scientific theory known to human beings.
More than a quarter of the Nobel Prizes in physics of the last century are direct inputs to or direct results of the Standard Model. Yet its name suggests that if you can afford a few extra dollars a month you should buy the upgrade. As a theoretical physicist, I’d prefer the Absolutely Amazing Theory of Almost Everything. That’s what the Standard Model really is.
Many recall the excitement among scientists and media over the 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson. But that much-ballyhooed event didn’t come out of the blue—it capped a five-decade undefeated streak for the Standard Model. Every fundamental force but gravity is included in it. Every attempt to overturn it to demonstrate in the laboratory that it must be substantially reworked—and there have been many over the past 50 years—has failed.
In short, the Standard Model answers this question: What is everything made of, and how does it hold together?

The Smallest Building Blocks

Physicists like things simple. We want to boil things down to their essence, a few basic building blocks. Over a hundred chemical elements is not simple. The ancients believed that everything is made of just five elements—earth, water, fire, air, and aether. Five is much simpler than 118. It’s also wrong.You know, of course, that the world around us is made of molecules, and molecules are made of atoms. Chemist Dmitri Mendeleev figured that out in the 1860s and organized all atoms—that is, the elements—into the periodic table that you probably studied in middle school. But there are 118 different chemical elements. There’s antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium…and 114 more.
By 1932, scientists knew that all those atoms are made of just three particles—neutrons, protons, and electrons. The neutrons and protons are bound together tightly into the nucleus. The electrons, thousands of times lighter, whirl around the nucleus at speeds approaching that of light. Physicists PlanckBohrSchroedingerHeisenberg, and friends had invented a new science—quantum mechanics—to explain this motion.
That would have been a satisfying place to stop. Just three particles. Three is even simpler than five. But held together how? The negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons are bound together byelectromagnetism. But the protons are all huddled together in the nucleus, and their positive charges should be pushing them powerfully apart. The neutral neutrons can’t help.
What binds these protons and neutrons together? “Divine intervention” a man on a Toronto street corner told me; he had a pamphlet, I could read all about it. But this scenario seemed like a lot of trouble even for a divine being—keeping tabs on every single one of the universe’s 10⁸⁰ protons and neutrons and bending them to its will.

Expanding the Zoo of Particles

Meanwhile, nature cruelly declined to keep its zoo of particles to just three. Really four, because we should count the photon, the particle of light that Einsteindescribed. Four grew to five when Anderson measured electrons with positive charge—positrons—striking the Earth from outer space. At least Dirac had predicted these first anti-matter particles. Five became six when the pion, which Yukawa predicted would hold the nucleus together, was found.
Then came the muon—200 times heavier than the electron, but otherwise a twin. “Who ordered that?” I.I. Rabi quipped. That sums it up. Number seven. Not only not simple, redundant.
By the 1960s there were hundreds of “fundamental” particles. In place of the well-organized periodic table, there were just long lists of baryons (heavy particles like protons and neutrons), mesons (like Yukawa’s pions) and leptons (light particles like the electron and the elusive neutrinos)—with no organization and no guiding principles.
Into this breach sidled the Standard Model. It was not an overnight flash of brilliance. No Archimedes leapt out of a bathtub shouting “eureka.” Instead, there was a series of crucial insights by a few key individuals in the mid-1960s that transformed this quagmire into a simple theory, and then five decades of experimental verification and theoretical elaboration.
Quarks. They come in six varieties we call flavors. Like ice cream, except not as tasty. Instead of vanilla, chocolate, and so on, we have up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top. In 1964, Gell-Mann and Zweig taught us the recipes: Mix and match any three quarks to get a baryon. Protons are two ups and a down quark bound together; neutrons are two downs and an up. Choose one quark and one antiquark to get a meson. A pion is an up or a down quark bound to an anti-up or an anti-down. All the material of our daily lives is made of just up and down quarks and anti-quarks and electrons.
The Standard Model of elementary particles provides an ingredients list for everything  around us. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, CC BY
Simple. Well, simple-ish, because keeping those quarks bound is a feat. They are tied to one another so tightly that you never ever find a quark or anti-quark on its own. The theory of that binding, and the particles called gluons (chuckle) that are responsible, is called quantum chromodynamics. It’s a vital piece of the Standard Model, but mathematically difficult, even posing an unsolved problem of basic mathematics. We physicists do our best to calculate with it, but we’re still learning how.
The other aspect of the Standard Model is “A Model of Leptons.” That’s the name of the landmark 1967 paper bySteven Weinberg that pulled together quantum mechanics with the vital pieces of knowledge of how particles interact and organized the two into a single theory. It incorporated the familiar electromagnetism, joined it with what physicists called “the weak force” that causes certain radioactive decays, and explained that they were different aspects of the same force. It incorporated the Higgs mechanism for giving mass to fundamental particles.
Since then, the Standard Model has predicted the results of experiment after experiment, including the discovery of several varieties of quarks and of the W and Z bosons – heavy particles that are for weak interactions what the photon is for electromagnetism. The possibility thatneutrinos aren’t massless was overlooked in the 1960s, but slipped easily into the Standard Model in the 1990s, a few decades late to the party.
3D view of an event recorded at the CERN particle accelerator showing characteristics expected from the decay of the SM Higgs boson to a pair of photons (dashed yellow lines and green towers). McCauley, Thomas; Taylor, Lucas; for the CMS Collaboration CERNCC BY-SA
Discovering the Higgs boson in 2012, long predicted by the Standard Model and long sought after, was a thrill but not a surprise. It was yet another crucial victory for the Standard Model over the dark forces that particle physicists have repeatedly warned loomed over the horizon. Concerned that the Standard Model didn’t adequately embody their expectations of simplicity, worried about its mathematical self-consistency, or looking ahead to the eventual necessity to bring the force of gravity into the fold, physicists have made numerous proposals for theories beyond the Standard Model. These bear exciting names like Grand Unified Theories,SupersymmetryTechnicolor, and String Theory.
Sadly, at least for their proponents, beyond-the-Standard-Model theories have not yet successfully predicted any new experimental phenomenon or any experimental discrepancy with the Standard Model.
After five decades, far from requiring an upgrade, the Standard Model is worthy of celebration as the Absolutely Amazing Theory of Almost Everything.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Image Credit: general-fmv / Shutterstock.com
Together with collaborators, research associates, graduate and undergraduate students I am engaged in a number of very exciting projects closely connected with current or future data.

FOLLOW GLENN:

  

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Unhappy?


If you are unhappy and tired and lonely, find Andre Rieu on the web. His music is the absolute best. Do not stop searching even if you are faced with blocks and stops and greed filled computer related announcements. When you do find Rieu it will be worth the search time.
https://www.andrerieu.com/en
Look below the ticket sales to find his music and if you are lucky enough to have the funds I highly recommend you visit one of his concerts.
If like myself you are often refrigerator-empty broke, look in youtube for his past concerts. Andre Rieu has become an international musical feast for the soul. A musical treasure!


Sunday, May 20, 2018

TED.COM

 ATTENTION POLITICAL PARTIES OF CANADA AND THE WORLD. HERE IS A LADY WITH HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND THE FACTS YOU NEED TO HELP YOU CHANGE THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH TO THE CONCEPTS OF SUSTAINED QUALITY AND ZERO ECONOMIC GROWTH THAT MAINTAINS THE BALANCE OF NATURE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

TALK OF THE WEEK

Kate Raworth: "A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow"


https://www.ted.com/talks/kate_raworth_a_healthy_economy_

From Singularity

This Week’s Awesome Stories From Around the Web (Through May 19)

52

TRANSPORTATION

Elon Musk Presents His Tunnel Vision to the People of LA
Jack Stewart and Aarian Marshall | Wired
“Now, Musk wants to build this new, 2.1-mile tunnel, near LA’s Sepulveda pass. It’s all part of his broader vision of a sprawling network that could take riders from Sherman Oaks in the north to Long Beach Airport in the south, Santa Monica in the west to Dodger Stadium in the east—without all that troublesome traffic.”

ROBOTICS

Feel What This Robot Feels Through Tactile Expressions
Evan Ackerman | IEEE Spectrum 
“Guy Hoffman’s Human-Robot Collaboration & Companionship (HRC2) Lab at Cornell University is working on a new robot that’s designed to investigate this concept of textural communication, which really hasn’t been explored in robotics all that much. The robot uses a pneumatically powered elastomer skin that can be dynamically textured with either goosebumps or spikes, which should help it communicate more effectively, especially if what it’s trying to communicate is, ‘Don’t touch me!’”

VIRTUAL REALITY

In Virtual Reality, How Much Body Do You Need?
Steph Yin | The New York Times 
“In a paper published Tuesday in Scientific Reports, they showed that animating virtual hands and feet alone is enough to make people feel their sense of body drift toward an invisible avatar. Their work fits into a corpus of research on illusory body ownership, which has challenged understandings of perception and contributed to therapies like treating pain for amputees who experience phantom limb.”

MEDICINE

How Graphene and Gold Could Help Us Test Drugs and Monitor Cancer
Angela Chen | The Verge 
“In today’s study, scientists learned to precisely control the amount of electricity graphene generates by changing how much light they shine on the material. When they grew heart cells on the graphene, they could manipulate the cells too, says study co-author Alex Savtchenko, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego. They could make it beat 1.5 times faster, three times faster, 10 times faster, or whatever they needed.”

DISASTER RELIEF

Robotic Noses Could Be the Future of Disaster Rescue—If They Can Outsniff Search Dogs
Eleanor Cummins | Popular Science 
“While canine units are a tried and fairly true method for identifying people trapped in the wreckage of a disaster, analytical chemists have for years been working in the lab to create a robotic alternative. A synthetic sniffer, they argue, could potentially prove to be just as or even more reliable than a dog, more resilient in the face of external pressures like heat and humidity, and infinitely more portable.”
Image Credit: Sergey Nivens / Shutterstock.com
Singularity Hub chronicles technological progress by highlighting the breakthroughs and issues shaping the future as well as supporting a global community of smart, passionate, action-oriented people who want to change the world.

FOLLOW SINGULARITY:

     

Monday, May 14, 2018

The Robots are coming.

DeepMind-neural-network-navigating-grid-cells-brain-structure

This DeepMind AI Spontaneously Developed Digital Navigation ‘Neurons’ Like Ours

1,032
When Google DeepMind researchers trained a neural network to tackle a virtual maze, it spontaneously developed digital equivalents to the specialized neurons called grid cells that mammals use to navigate. Not only did the resulting AI system have superhuman navigation capabilities, the research could provide insight into how our brains work.
Grid cells were the subject of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, alongside other navigation-related neurons. These cells are arranged in a lattice of hexagons, and the brain effectively overlays this pattern onto its environment. Whenever the animal crosses a point in space represented by one of these hexagons, a neuron fires, allowing the animal to track its movement.
Mammalian brains actually have multiple arrays of these cells. These arrays create overlapping grids of different sizes and orientations that together act like an in-built GPS. The system even works in the dark and independently of the animal’s speed or direction.
Exactly how these cell work and the full range of their functions is still somewhat of a mystery though. One recently proposed hypothesis suggests they could be used for vector-based navigation—working out the distance and direction to a target “as the crow flies.”
That’s a useful capability because it makes it possible for animals or artificial agents to quickly work out and choose the best route to a particular destination and even find shortcuts.
So, the researchers at DeepMind decided to see if they could test the idea in silico using neural networks, as they roughly mimic the architecture of the brain.
To start with, they used simulations of how rats move around square and circular environments to train a neural network to do path integration—a technical name for using dead-reckoning to work out where you are by keeping track of what direction and speed you’ve moved from a known point.
They found that, after training, patterns of activity that looked very similar to grid cells spontaneously appeared in one of the layers of the neural network. The researchers hadn’t programmed the model to exhibit this behavior.
To test whether these grid cells could play a role in vector-based navigation, they augmented the network so it could be trained using reinforcement learning. They set it to work navigating challenging virtual mazes and tweaked its performance by giving rewards for good navigation.
The agent quickly learned how to navigate the mazes, taking shortcuts when they became available and outperforming a human expert, according to resultspublished in the journal Nature this week.
To test whether the digital grid cells were responsible for this performance, the researchers carried out another experiment where they prevented the artificial grid cells from forming, which significantly reduced the ability of the system to efficiently navigate. The DeepMind team says this suggests these cells are involved in vector-based navigation as had been hypothesized.
“It is striking that the computer model, coming from a totally different perspective, ended up with the grid pattern we know from biology,” Edvard Moser, a neuroscientist at the Kavli Institute for Systems Neuroscience in Trondheim, Norway, and one of the Nobel winners who discovered grid cells, told Nature.
But how much can actually be learned about the human brain from the experiment is up for debate.
Stefan Leutgeb, a neurobiologist at the University of California, San Diego, told Quanta that the research makes a good case for grid cells being involved in vector navigation, but that it is ultimately limited by being a simulation on a computer. “This is a way in which it could work, but it doesn’t prove that it’s the way it works in animals,” he says.
Importantly, the research doesn’t really seem to explain how grid cells help with these kinds of navigating tasks, simply that they do. That’s in part due to the difficulty of interpreting neural networks, neuroscientists Francesco Savelli and James Knierim at Johns Hopkins Universitywrite in an accompanying opinion article in Nature.
“That the network converged on such a solution is compelling evidence that there is something special about grid cells’ activity patterns that supports path integration,” they write. “The black-box character of deep-learning systems, however, means that it might be hard to determine what that something is.”
The DeepMind researchers are more optimistic though.In a blog post, they say their findings not only support the theory that grid cells are involved in vector-based navigation, but also more broadly demonstrate the potential of using AI to test theories about how the brain works. That knowledge in turn could eventually be put back to use in developing more powerful AI systems.
In general, DeepMind is profoundly interested in how the fields of neuroscience and AI can connect and inform each other—writing papers on the subject and using inspiration from the brain to make  powerful neural networks capable of amazing and surprising feats.
The research on grid-cells is still very much basic science, but being able to mimic the powerful navigational capabilities of animals could be extremely useful for everything from robots to drones to self-driving cars.
Image Credit: DeepMind

DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF INTELLIGENT? GET OVER IT!

     Do you consider yourself intelligent? If yes, how about explaining the concept of eternity?....... Not easy, is it?  I am a perpetual s...