Free2Thee.com

Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

Cool, I just added you on Facebook . If you, like Jeopardy contestant Ken Jennings, are ready to welcome “our new computer overlords,” chances are you won’t have to wait long. Progress in the field of artificial intelligence has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past few years, churning out incredible machines like IBM’s Watson, which soundly defeated Jennings and fellow player Brad Rutter at America’s toughest trivia game. Now, scientists at Georgia Tech’s Center for Robotics and Intelligent Machines (RIM) say they are within a decade of creating personal robots capable of cleaning our homes, taking us on guided tours and caring for our grandparents in nursing facilities. However, computer scientists simply won’t be able to program every robot to do all the things we will want them to do. This means we’ll have to tell robots what do to and how to do it. How will we do that? Tip 1: Use English Scientists want our interaction with robots to be as intuitive as possible, so that means designing them to process our natural language. Usually, computers are programmed using math-based languages, but most people don’t want to earn a degree in computer science just to tell a machine to vacuum the floor. With this in mind, scientists are developing programming languages based on English syntax rather than mathematical symbols, which is no small feat. Math-based languages allow for only one means of expression, while natural languages like English can phrase a single thought in half a dozen ways. When programming in a natural language, scientists must factor in all, or most, possible phrasings of input commands—a tedious task, but one that won’t leave future citizens guessing for the exact phrasing that will get robots to take out the trash. Tip 2: Throw Away that Keyboard Though almost anyone can type a command into a computer, that kind of input method will prove impractical when granny needs her robot to help her out of the bathtub. Scientists know that personal robots will be expected to operate on voice commands for ease and efficiency of use. Some of this technology is already available through mediums like the iPhone’s Siri software, which allows users to make phone calls, send texts and search the Internet by voice. However, tomorrow’s robots will need to do more than just process simple voice commands; they will also need to learn the tasks their owners want them to do. This will require them to have electronic brains capable of being programmed with both visual and auditory information in the human-like process of “active learning.” RIM’s Maya Cakmak, Ph.D., is bringing this advanced technology to life by programming a robot named Simon to learn new tasks by asking questions. Her study on the subject, entitled “Designing Robot Learners that Ask Good Questions,” was recently presented at the 7th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). Cakmak’s work will someday allow ordinary people to program robots without ever touching a keypad or phrasing commands in seemingly bizarre ways. However, you may still have to demonstrate for your robot exactly how to line up your collectible action figures. Tip 3: Teach It to Ask the Right Questions Robots can’t ask just any kind of question if they are to learn and communicate effectively with their human masters. People don’t want to spend all day teaching their robots how to hang up a jacket, for instance. So, what kinds of questions should a robot ask to facilitate a smooth robot-human interaction? Surprisingly, humans have provided the answer. In an experiment, Cakmak asked a group of people to pretend to be robots bent on learning a new task. The questions participants asked in the course of their learning were sorted into three categories: label query, demonstration query and feature query. Cakmak found that 82 percent of the questions fell into the feature query category. When Cakmak asked the group to then rate which questions were “smartest,” 72 percent chose feature queries. Since humans seem to overwhelmingly prefer feature queries, this is the type of question learning robots will ask in the future. A feature query seeks to define the features a particular task. The example given in Cakmak’s study was, “Can I pour salt from any height?” Technically, anyone can pour salt from almost any height, but it may not be appropriate or desirable to do so, especially when the flavor of your mashed potatoes is at stake. This differs widely from a label query (“Can I pour salt like this?”), which simply yields a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Tip 4: Observe the Subtle Cues There’s more to communication than just verbalizing. Eye contact, hand gestures, tone of voice and body language are all part of the equation, and things that robots will have to master to truly integrate into our world. “Other human beings understand turn-taking,” says Aaron Bobick, chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Interactive Computing. “They understand that if I make some indication, they’ll turn and face someone when they want to engage with them, and they won’t when they don’t want to engage with them. In order for these robots to work with us effectively, they have to obey these same kinds of social conventions.” In the future, robots will be able to wave, beckon and communicate in other non-verbal ways. They’ll also be able to analyze their masters’ social and physical communication cues and respond to them appropriately. Researchers at Georgia Tech found that when they equipped their robot Simon with cameras, it could predict with 80 percent accuracy whether or not it had attracted a person’s attention with a simple mechanical gesture. Talking to a socially conscious robot means you won’t feel the urge to scream to make your wishes understood. Tip 5: Remember, It is Still a Robot Scientists are working hard to give robots more human-like qualities, such as smooth movements and somewhat random behavior. The purpose in doing these things is to make human-robot communication as natural and productive as possible. Someday, people may even be able to learn tasks by observing how robots perform them. No matter how human they seem, though, they’re still machines incapable of acting beyond their programming. This is especially important to remember if you ever find yourself in a hospital about to get a sponge bath from Georgia Tech’s “Cody.” No, the robot isn’t touching your arm to comfort you. It doesn’t have that capacity. You can climb down from the ceiling, now.

Go here to read the rest:
5 Tips for Communicating with a Robot

If you’re currently engaged in strategic decision-making, or will be in the future, this unit will stimulate your imagination and inform your judgement. An understanding of the frameworks of strategy and an ability to use them imaginatively will help your organisation survive in the longer-term and perform its role more effectively.

More here:
Introducing a framework for strategy

According to a new study by researchers at Penn State , what patients and their families believe about religion and genetics makes a difference in the way they react when told that they have a health problem. Roxanne Parrott, lead author of the study, explained that greater understanding of the different ways in which people react to being diagnosed with an illness helps professionals develop effective communication strategies. This is especially true when medical or lifestyle changes required by the diagnosis appear to run contrary to people’s beliefs. According to Parrott, the nature of a person or family’s uncertainty about the causes of an illness is a good predictor of how they will deal with their uncertainty and offers insight into the type of communication about the condition they would welcome. People who are dealing with conditions that are recognized genetic or chromosomal disorders view these conditions differently based upon their understanding of the role genes play in human health. These views heavily impact the way people behave in regards to the condition, and they also affect the way they communicate about it. Researchers asked participants questions about their beliefs concerning genetics and the impact behavior, religious beliefs and practices might have on them. Other questions included how participants deal with their uncertainty about the causes of the condition. In order to gauge how participants viewed the relationship between genetic factors and personal behavior, the investigators asked them whether such things as substance abuse or religious practice could impact genes. The researchers also examined how negative feelings experienced by patients and their loved ones were related to these beliefs. Parrott and her team observed that the participants generally belonged to one of four classifications. Some were uncertain about the impact behavior, religion and social networks have on genes. Others were more confident in their beliefs about how these factors impact genes. One group believed that genes are the sole determinant in the development of genetic disorders. Another group believed that factors such as behavior, religious faith and social support have an impact on genes. The study showed that members of the last group experience the most uncertainty about how to manage the disorder than members of the other groups. Those who believed genes alone determine the course of their disease were more eager to talk about the disorder. This is important because patients and their loved ones who are willing to communicate with providers about a diagnosis are more likely to take advantage of any help and support that may be available. Furthermore, according to Parrot, the emotions that arise in the wake of a diagnosis can have a big impact on the communication that occurs within the family afterwards. Emotions also affect how families deal with the disease and its management. These emotions are often influenced by the beliefs of patients and their families. “What we can do is design programs for genetic counselors that suggest different scripts for communicating based on understanding how people might respond to a diagnosis,” said Parrott. Related posts: Global Warming Beliefs Are Influenced by Daily Local Temperatures Language Style Matching (LSM) may predict the future of relationships Interactive media improved patients’ understanding of cancer surgery by more than a third

View post:
Matching Communicaton Styles to Patients’ Beliefs [Study]

A new study from the University of Portsmouth in Great Britain provides insight into the differences between the ways in which native English speakers and native Polish speakers use language during day-to-day interactions with family. The researchers hope their findings will lead to a greater understanding between members of the two groups and reduce misunderstandings based on cultural differences. The researchers’ findings demonstrated how common exchanges between Polish family members lead to an enhanced sense of family and attachment within the Polish community, but sound offensive when translated directly into English. Jörg Zinken observed family interactions among Polish and British families. He was particularly interested in the dynamics at play behind such everyday occurrences as a family member asking another family member to pass the milk during a meal. Zinken observed that British family members usually asked others to pass the milk, while Polish family members simply said, “Pass the milk.” The British version is framed as a request even though the asker is already certain that the person being asked for assistance will comply. Zinken believes this is because English-speaking cultures typically value autonomy and wish to provide at least the illusion that the decision to pass the milk belongs to the person who is being asked for assistance. In addition, the responder has the option to assent, which further establishes the idea that individuals decide for themselves whether to help or not. Polish family members often make no response, or respond with a one-word answer that has no direct translation in English but which translates roughly to “already,” suggesting that the responder is so eager to help that the deed is already as good as done. When Polish people try to translate the Polish words to ask for the milk directly into English, the words sound offensive and rude to English ears. The new study suggests this is not because the words do not translate properly, but rather because they do. Similarly, the usual English way of asking for the milk would seem insulting to a Polish person if it were translated directly. Zinken believes this is because both statements are considered respectful and positive in their native speakers’ own cultures but are inappropriate in the other culture. In Poland, the very fact that a family member would not consider refusing such a request is a sign of family love and closeness. The Polish way of asking for the milk expresses the idea that the asker knows and appreciates this fact about the other person. This is considered a positive statement about the relationship between the two family members. According to Zinken, his research highlights the differences between an individualistic culture like that of most English speakers and a collectivistic culture like that of most Polish speakers. These differing values are expressed in even the simplest everyday verbal interactions. “Every culture has its own social rules and values, but we often don’t notice them because they are ingrained in the way we use language, not just in the words we use but in grammar and sentence structure,” said Zinken. “If we understand these differences better, we can understand where other people are coming from, while also reflecting on what our own language says about us and how we relate to others.” No related posts.

More here:
Pass the Milk: Is That a Question or an Order?

At some point in your life, you may have found yourself unable to get a point across to another person. This frustrating experience may have been a result of basic differences in the way individual humans perceive and process information. Two Types of Perception Carl Jung, one of psychology’s most influential pioneers, was the first to write about the different ways humans assimilate information. He split people into two categories: sensors and intuitives. According to Jung, everyone uses both ways to process information but most people rely more heavily on one or the other. The basic difference between sensors and intuitives is that sensors perceive information and create meaning from the information they sense around them and intuitives do the same thing from conclusions drawn after raw information is pondered. Sensors Sensors pay attention to the things they can directly perceive around them. They like facts and concrete data. They tend to be very practical and are apt to live life on life’s terms. Sensors are very fond of logic and like order and schedules. They experience life as a sequence of immediate events and view things very specifically, without attaching symbolism or deeper meaning to events and sensations. Sensors have been characterized as relying only on their conscious perception. Although their approach to life and living makes sense in light of their nature, they often frustrate their intuitive friends, relatives and coworkers, who think them superficial and shortsighted. A sensor may not be able to offer any insight into the personality of a neighbor but can tell you that he says he is a butcher, drives a luxury car and wears designer suits when he leaves for work every afternoon. Intuitives Intuitives, on the other hand, barely notice details because their minds are busy looking for patterns, considering possibilities and interpreting what the information they are sensing means. Intuitives often focus on the long term, and like using strategy to pursue goals. For them, information has little meaning until it can be placed into a larger framework. Intuitives have been characterized as relying on their unconscious perceptions. Again, their approach to life and living is entirely reasonable, considering their natural abilities, but the sensors who know and love them may consider them impractical, fanciful and lacking in resolve. An intuitive may be able to tell you that the man next door is not trustworthy, but be unable to tell you exactly how they know this. Communication People often make the mistake of assuming that everyone thinks the way they do. It is natural to attempt to communicate with someone by expressing arguments that seem valid to you in ways that make sense to you. If you are a sensor talking to an intuitive, however, or an intuitive trying to talk to a sensor, you may feel as though you are speaking gibberish to an alien. Remembering a few basic concepts can make communicating across types much easier. Communicating with Sensors It is important to remember that sensors need and appreciate clarity. In order to get through to them, it helps to provide clear evidence, especially in the form of concrete presentations. Have plenty of details to share, and keep your plans down-to-earth and realistic, but do have a specific, step-by-step plan. Abstract concepts and long-term strategies are just words to sensors, so minimize them. They respond much better to being shown what you have in mind. When making a presentation to a sensor, use pictures, details, schedules, specific examples and set practical, realistic goals. Pictures that evoke different senses are helpful. PowerPoint presentations, prototypes and sales data make good props. Communicating with Intuitives If you are attempting to communicate with an intuitive, begin with the big picture and then add details, getting gradually more specific until you notice their attention beginning to wane. Be prepared to answer questions about fine details, but do not offer them until you are asked. Intuitives do not have to have everything spelled out for them. Instead, intuitives will form a mental picture to match your ideas if you provide them with metaphors and analogies. Intuitives will want to participate in the dialogue, so be prepared for broad ideas and vague suggestions from them and realize that they do not have any details worked out at this point. When making a presentation to an intuitive, express big ideas, long-term strategies and lofty goals. Use charts, testimonials and mission statements to illustrate your points and incorporate strategy sessions and question and answer opportunities into your presentation. Perceiving the World from Another Perspective It may be more comfortable to work with others who perceive in ways similar to your own. It is easy for sensors to dismiss intuitives and for intuitives to look down on sensors, but both types are effective at processing information and understanding situations. In the case of the dishonest neighbor, the sensor knows enough details about his life to know the man is not what he claims to be. The intuitive, on the other hand, has put together seemingly unnoticed details into a pattern and come to the same conclusion. Fortunately, most people use a combination of both types of perception, and although individuals tend to rely more heavily on one than the other, most people have at least limited familiarity with both ways of experiencing the world. Recognizing the way others communicate can help you to harness the unique strengths of both types of perceivers to accomplish your communication goals. No related posts.

Here is the original post:
Are You a Sensor or an Intuitive? How Does That Affect Your Communication?

In this video, Kate Hartman talks about the wearable art that she has created. Hartman, who calls herself an artist, educator and technologist, in that order, is a physical computing instructor. She shares with her audience her observations and personal sense of wonder about the ways in which humans communicate with themselves, with others and with the world around them in the context of modern technological advances. Hartman begins her presentation by introducing herself and telling watchers about her credentials and her own work, then challenges her audience to think about why bodies matter. The answer, she tells them, is that everyone has one. Everyone uses their bodies to hear and to make themselves heard. As part of her exploration of the ways in which people use technology to facilitate or block the development of relationships with self, others and the surrounding environment, Hartman has developed a number of technological devices that can be worn. Hartman’s whimsical communication projects include a Hat to Share Your Thoughts that allows wearers to share the cacophony of thoughts that fill the human consciousness, a Talk to Yourself Hat that channels the wearer’s voice back into his or her own ears, a Gut Listener to allow a person to listen to their own insides and the Discommunicator, that allows the intensity of angry words to get through but muffles the individual words that are spoken. For Hartman, what matters is not so much the devices themselves and whether they accomplish their aims, but what occurs inside the person who wears them and how that experience changes the wearer. The message Hartman hopes to leave with those she touches through her art and her science is that although humans find themselves in a very exciting time when devices allow people to communicate more quickly and in more ways than anyone ever predicted, it is crucial that people “…maintain a sense of wonder and a sense of criticality about the tools we use and the way we relate to the world.” No related posts.

See the original post:
The Art of Wearable Communication [Video]