Stereotyping and its costs

Recently I watched this

And this:

I’ve been watching TED videos for years now but still feel like an eye opening.

People may say, “Oh come on, these are TED videos right? They are meant to impress people.” I’m actually not that easily impressed. I’m not talking about the technology or the plasticity of human brain. I’m talking about the very fact that a disabled person could become an MIT professor, lead a world class research team or could be so sharp, so articulate and appear so *normal*.

Despite all the pride of being Chinese, we have to admit, that would not happen in modern China.

If Mr. Hugh Herr had been born in China, he would have probably at best dropped out of school very early on and attended a special school or even worse, simply stay at home, completely isolated. If Mr. Daniel Kish were in China, he won’t have had the chance to share his personal experience with others. Instead, with his outstanding ability, he probably will end up making a living by showing off his special ability in a circus (Or in Beijing subway if circus fade out of favor completely).

The reason behind the differences, I believe, lies primarily in everyone’s mind.

I happen to know the concept of “stereotype threat”. For those who don’t know, according to wikipedia it is “one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology”, that evaluates the impact of stereotyping. As it turns out, a lot of performance gaps between groups can be explained by this stereotype threat. I personally believe that stereotype threat is the key reason behind the performance gap between disabilities in China and disabilities in the US.

Let’s face it: China is still a country full of biased stereotypes. It’s true that stereotyping is part of human nature and that stereotypes exist in every society. However, China stands out in allowing stereotypes to go unchecked in every corner of everyday life, TV programs, newspapers, magazines, even textbooks for children. As a consequence, people are so used to all sort of stereotypes that no one even bothers to stand up against said stereotype, even though everyone has been a victim of one form of stereotype or another.

I have to admit that, I only started to pay attention to this topic after my wife and I had a child. My wife and I are lucky, our daughter is normal in every aspect. However, as new and inexperienced parents, at times when my daughter was sick and sometimes we became scared and couldn’t help but think about all kinds of what-if scenarios.

Out of this kind of reasoning I became a person that is conscious about stereotype. Bit by bit I recalled how I have struggled against all sorts of stereotypes against myself when I was young. I started to realized how I have stereotyped others and how destructive that could be. Everyone is a victim of this inescapable net of stereotyping.

So, on this special day, I propose one thing we could do to bring positive changes to China, without disturbing the government: reflect on ourselves and stop stereotyping.

To end this article, here’s a Stanford professor on this topic:

 

building self-aware device – part 1

The canonical way to tell whether an animal (or anything) is self-aware is the mirror-test. Put it in front of a mirror, if the animal recognize itself, then it’s self-aware; otherwise it’s not.

But then what exactly is self-awareness? What exactly does the mirror-test test? Can we make self-aware machines? I was pondering on this because I recently realized that vehicles (or in general any device) are considered dumb not only because they have no intelligence, but also because they are not self-aware.

Take a car for example, it’s considered dumb not only because it cannot make any intelligent decision on itself, but also because it will do things that are obviously against it’s own best interest as long as that’s the command from a human being. Would it be interesting if we can build a car that cares itself and avoids crashes and collisions out of its own interests?

Back to the mirror test. Essentially the test tests the ability of an animal to recognize oneself through visual signal of optical reflection. Let’s try to break it down by replacing non-essential part.

First of all,  it seems that there’s no obvious reason we should limit ourselves to visual signal. It’s just one form of signal that a lot of animals can sense easily. A lot of other animals rely on other sensors. For example, bats are known to be able to tell its own ultra sound signal from others. If we’re not limited to visual reflection, then recognizing oneself through reflected/echoed signal is not that difficult. For example, if an device could simply broadcast its own identity through ultra sound like a bat.

We can build a device that broadcast its own identity through ultra-sound, let’s say the identity has a form of a GUID. Now, our device will be able to tell its own signal apart from other signals. Is that enough to be self-aware?

Most cars manufactured nowadays have more than one ultra sound radar built in. They beep when they sense the danger of crashing into something. It seems that it kind of self-aware, but not quite, right?

We have to take a closer look at the mirror test. When a self-aware animal first sees itself through a mirror, it has no prior knowledge about its own appearance in the mirror. Then how exactly does it come to the conclusion that the object inside the mirror is a visual representation of himself? The only possibility is, the animal actually learns that by experimenting.

Wikipedia actually has a full description of the mirror test being conducted the first time:

In 1970, Gordon Gallup, Jr., experimentally investigated the possibility of self
-recognition with two male and two female wild pre-adolescent chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes), none of which had presumably seen a mirror previously. Each chimpanzee
was put into a room by itself for two days. Next, a full-length mirror was placed in
the room for a total of 80 hours at periodically decreasing distances. A multitude
of behaviors were recorded upon introducing the mirrors to the chimpanzees. Initially,
the chimpanzees made threatening gestures at their own images, ostensibly seeing their
own reflections as threatening. Eventually, the chimps used their own reflections for
self-directed responding behaviors, such as grooming parts of their body previously
not observed without a mirror, picking their noses, making faces, and blowing bubbles
at their own reflections.

From this description it’s obvious that the recognition is a learning process. This observation has several implications:

First of all, because it’s a learning process. It’s very flexible, very adaptive. The animal doesn’t have to stand still in front of a mirror to recognize itself. Even the physical appearance later changes dramatically, the animal will be able to recognize himself again very quickly.

In contract, if a device just broadcast our own identity, then in a noisy environment, then it may have difficulties. Or, if for some reason we have to change the identity, then we also have to change the verification logic.

Secondly, indeed we don’t have to limit ourselves to visual reflection. Voice will also do. Touching will also do. In fact, people that are born to be blind are able to recognize themselves by other senses. And we don’t think they are not self-ware.

Last, a very subtle prerequisite of such a learning process is, the animal has to know its own properties and boundary. Otherwise, the animal won’t be able to know a waving arm is its own or not (with or without a mirror). Every animal knows it’s own properties and boundary (This is my fur, this is my claw, etc),  if we’re trying to design devices to be self-aware, we have to build this capability as well.

So by now I think we can define self-awareness as:

  1. Knows ones own properties and boundary;
  2. Able to learn ones own identity from experiments;

Illusions well illustrated

The documentary Test you Brain from National Geographic is awesome!

Illusions are well known to human, but not all of them have been well illustrated in action. The problem is, some of the illusions are very  best described in experiment to shows all the intricacies. For that we need carefully designed experiments and video making. This is the first time I saw something like this is made.

As an example, here’s how this documentary illustrated an attention saturation situation devised in David Copperfield’s studio:

First you see a magician told you that he wanted to do something not at all legal with money. After showing you the cash, then messing around it, the silently putting it back to his pocket, you’re asked, “did you notice anything?”.

vlcsnap-2012-01-30-08h41m37s953

Of course you didn’t. Then the video rewind and show you what had happened before and after.

Then another video shot by a camera from another angel showed you these changes were made actually well you were watching. You didn’t notice only because you didn’t pay attention to them.

vlcsnap-2012-01-30-08h47m43s393

vlcsnap-2012-01-30-08h42m18s374

So after you see this, you cannot help to say to yourself, aha, that’s how they’ve deceived me. But then you have to rethink about perception and illusion.

While it’s not available in Youtube, we Chinese can already watch it here: