Study Shows Kids are Born Creative Geniuses But the Education System Destroys Imagination


Dr. George Land and Beth Jarman were commissioned by NASA to help the space agency identify and develop creative talent. The two were tasked to research school children in an attempt to identify creative individuals from which the agency could pick to help with their many products. In a recent TED talk, Land described his team’s surprising findings on the education system which are nothing short of shocking.

It seems American schoolchildren lose their ability to think creatively over time. As students enter their educational journey, they retain most of their abilities to think creatively. In other words, children are born with creative genius. Employing a longitudinal study model, Land and Jarman studied 1,600 children at ages 5, 10, and 15.

Surprisingly, Land said they discovered if given a problem with which they had to come up with an imaginative, and innovative solution, 98 percent of 5-year-olds tested at the “genius” level. Simply put, their answers to how the problem should be solved were brilliant.

Upon entry into the school system, those numbers started to drop dramatically. When the team returned to test those same subjects at age 10, the percentage of genius-level imaginative and innovative thinkers fell to an unthinkable 30 percent. The indicators led the researchers to believe the current educational system is to blame. Not only did 68 percent of those students lose their ability to think with imagination and innovation, the thought that only 30 percent could still do is unfathomable.

The downward spiral continued to be demonstrated at age 15. When the researchers returned, the percentage of genius-level students had dropped to an abysmal 12 percent. Gasps could be heard all around the room as the audience attempted to process how such a brilliant group of students could sink so low in their imaginations and ability to solve problems with innovation.

Land blames the Industrial Revolution and its burgeoning factories for the demise of creativity. During that era, Land said the natural approach to teaching and learning led educators to develop “factories for human beings, too, called ‘schools’ so we could manufacture people that could work well in the factories.”

From a qualitative perspective, teachers point to governmental intrusion into the dumbing down of the nation’s school children. Starting with the development of the Department of Education, the federal government’s handprint is all over some of the worst decisions regarding public policy and education.

From the Clinton Administration’s mandated federal testing guidelines, to Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, to the disastrous Obama Administration’s Common Core Curriculum, teachers everywhere have complained they’re not teaching any longer. They’re simply instructing students to achieve the minimum educational requirements necessary for them to pass a standardized exam.

Predictably, during those administration’s attempts to force a model of education upon the nation, the homeschool movement has flourished. Parents were forced to come to the conclusion their local public school was failing to provide an education sufficient for their children to be able to attend college.

As a result, Land’s team was not surprised to find only 2 percent of adults (Age 31) still retain their ability to think imaginatively, with creativity and innovation. He said:

Look, folks, if we’re going to enter the future with hope, that’s not going to do it. We have to do something about it.

Land says people can actually get back to thinking creatively with imagination if they will get rid of stinking thinking. He urges listeners to get rid of three aspects of education: judgment, criticism, and censorship.

When students come up with a brilliant idea they’re met with constant criticism, therefore they become conditioned to think like the masses, instead of coming up with an accepted alternative solution.

“Find the 5-year-old,” in yourself, Land implores. He says it has “never gone away” and can be accessed at any moment. Land said “So, The Great Designer said, ‘I’m gonna put that mechanism in so they exercise it every day in case they ever need an idea.’ You’ve got that capability, absolutely!”

But Land says we only exercise that genius part of our brains when we’re dreaming. So dream big! Dream often. And don’t let naysayers rain on your imagination.

Using brain scan imaging, Land demonstrated how the brain is practically useless when it’s afraid. In contrast, the human brain is exceedingly active when it’s imagining.

Without specifically criticizing the educational system, Land addressed the major problem with teaching students to get the “right answer.” He says, instead, students should imagine many possibilities to achieve innovation and problem-solving.

According to Land, in order for industry to survive, it must be continually innovating, and adapting to change, expecting the landscapes to evolve, and evolve with it. Instead of becoming fixated on one right solution, come up with 30-40 imaginative ones to become innovative.

Jack Burns is an educator, journalist, investigative reporter, and advocate of natural medicine.

How to Dramatically Improve your Public Speaking Skills


What Giving a TED Talk Taught Me About Becoming a Better Speaker

Giving my TED talk at the end of the residency program

The ability to communicate a message, sell an idea, or paint a vision is a critical skill for anyone who wants to have an impact on the world. And even in the age of emojis, animated GIFs, and Snapchat filters, public speaking is still the most effective way to move, persuade, and inspire.

It’s why people pay a premium to attend conferences and see experts and leaders speak live, and why Americans took 460 million business trips in 2017 to communicate in person.

My journey as a speaker

As a child, no one would have said that I was destined to become a public speaker.

I didn’t do theater, debate, or mock trial. In one class activity, we took turns “reporting the news” in front of a video camera — every time I started talking, I would just burst into hysterical laughter. Eventually I’d regain my composure and try again, but the cycle would repeat itself.

Even as an adult, I used like as a filler word so often that the CEO of a company I interned for called me out for sounding like an airhead.

But for some reason, I was drawn to public speaking. And so I studied and I learned.

Nancy Duarte’s work taught me how to build better presentations. Seth Godin’s blog showed me what remarkable ideas look like. Gymnastics taught me how to deliver under pressure. Toastmasters helped me eliminate verbal tics and think on my feet.

I made huge progress. I ended up delivered the graduation speech at my high school (I was not valedictorian — it was selected in a blind review process). I have given dozens of internal presentations and have been flown out to speak to companies and conferences across the United States, Europe, and Asia. I gave the pitch for my first startup, Ridejoy, in front of hundreds of investors at Y Combinator’s Demo Day, and went on to raise $1.3 million in seed funding.

That is to say, by mid-2017, I felt like I was already a pretty strong speaker. But there’s always room for improvement.

 Enter TED

When I was accepted into the TED Residency in the summer of 2017, I knew that I was about to go to the next level as a speaker.

If you’re not familiar, the TED Residency is a semi-annual incubator that brings artists, entrepreneurs, social activists, and researchers together to launch projects and share their big ideas with the world. Some of the talks from former residents have appeared on TED.com, including the story of a 66 year-old startup founder and a woman who’s changing how society thinks about disability.

We all know the high bar that TED puts on its speakers — I had seen my fiancée, Amanda Phingbodhipakkiya, grow tremendously as a speaker during an earlier TED Residency cohort. She went from almost no speaking experience to speaking at Microsoft’s Outside In series, RISD, and Brown University, and delivering a main stage talk at TEDWomen 2017 in New Orleans.

I went through my own three-month journey to prepare and rehearse a talk about the future of hiring. Between my own talk preparation for my TED Residency, Amanda’s preparation for TEDWomen, and a close reading Chris Anderson’s book TED Talks, I have gained a new appreciation for the art of public speaking.

Here are some of my key takeaways and how you can implement them yourself.

Make every word count

All the TED Residency talks were capped at six minutes. While that might sound like a ludicrously short amount of time, it’s actually a great forcing function and gives you ample opportunity to explore an idea.

Assuming you speak around 150 words per minutes, that’s 900 words, or the length of a short blog post or opinion piece. You can say quite a bit at that word count, if you do it right. This recent NYTimes op-ed on criminal justice reform, for instance, is only 850 words.

My talk started around 1,000 words, went upwards of 1,200, and eventually was trimmed down to just 896 words, taking around 6 minutes and 15 seconds to complete.

Traditional TED talks might go upwards of 18 minutes, but in recent years, even those “long” talks have been pushed down to 15 or 12 minutes.

Why? Because attention is a scarce resource. And just as a magnifying glass focuses to the sun’s rays to produce intense heat, a short talk, if properly delivered and received, can have tremendous impact.

You have to start by making every word, every sentence, every story, count.

So, try the 6-minute limit.

Start strong

The best talks grab you from the first moment and never lets you go. Research done by Vanessa Van Edwards and her team at Science of People found that the top TED talks receive similar ratings on intelligence, charisma, and credibility when someone watches the whole talk, or just the first seven seconds.

We found that the ratings overall — who people liked overall and who they didn’t like — matched, whether they’d watched the first seven seconds or the full talk. We think that the brain actually decides as soon as that person takes the stage and begins speaking, “You know what? I’m gonna like this talk.”

Here are some examples:

  • Amy Cuddy’s video on body language starts with her offering “a free, no-tech life hack” that just requires the audience to change their posture for a few minutes. Who wouldn’t be interested in what she has to say next?
  • Dan Pink’s talk on motivation starts off with a fake-out—revealing that he has something to confess, a deep, dark, humiliating secret he’s kept to himself for many years. A secret that turns out to be attending (and doing really poorly in) law school. This beginning gets the audience laughing and sets up his frame: that he wants to make the case for changing how we incentivize people.
  • My talk on the future of hiring began with a bit of humor: “You know who I’m envious of?” I asked the audience. “People who work in a field that has to do with their college major.” That got a few laughs, but more importantly, it teed up the idea that what we study in school and what we do for work often are unrelated.

If you’re committed to making every word count, you can’t waste any time with a rambling introduction. Surprising personal anecdotes, new research with intriguing implications, provocative questions that demand answers, bold claims backed by evidence: these are all great ways to start a talk, provided they help us get into the main idea, the through-line.

Know your through-line

TED’s motto is “ideas worth sharing”. Their talks center around a core idea or message. If there was one word that I heard over and over again at TED, it was “through-line”. Here’s how TED’s Speaker’s Handbook elaborates on this:

Every talk should have a through-line, a connecting theme that ties together each narrative element. Think of the through-line as a strong cord onto which you will attach all the elements that are part of the idea you’re building. A good exercise is to try to encapsulate your through-line in no more than 15 words. What is the precise idea you want to build inside your listeners? What is their takeaway?

It’s sort of like the thesis statement of an essay (something I totally didn’t get in high school) or the answer you’d give if a friend asked you “so what’s the big takeaway of that talk?”

  • Amy Cuddy’s through-line might have been something like: Small changes in your posture can profoundly influence your mental and emotional state (13 words)
  • Daniel Pink’s through-line might have been something like: We have to stop using carrots-and-stick incentives if we want thoughtful, creative work (15 words)
  • My talk’s through-line was this: The future of work demands we hire people for their ability to perform, not their resume (14 words)

This through-line is something you come back to again and again. It can take time to nail down and I went through several versions of mine before I felt like I had it exactly right.

The TEDWomen curators also took several passes at Amanda’s talk and many of the suggested cuts or changes were to make sure the talk’s through-line was clear and well-supported, with no extraneous material.

A backstage photo I grabbed as we were preparing for the event. I had rehearsed through the talk dozens of times before my final delivery.

Rehearse like your life depends on it

This aspect of the TED talk experience was not a surprise to me, and if you’ve read my guide to deliberate practice, it won’t be a surprise to you either.

The number one reason TED speakers look and sound fantastic is because they invest an enormous amount of time preparing for their talk. Most of them reach what Wait But Why author Tim Urban of calls “Happy-Birthday-Level Memorized”.

Tim Urban’s Memorization Spectrum

After speaking at TED2016, Tim wrote a post detailing his experience and this is what he had to say about level of memorization (3C) is this:

Writing a great script means working on it a ton and carefully honing every sentence, and memorizing it to Happy Birthday level takes a huge amount more time. You’re essentially writing a play, casting yourself, and then learning the part well enough to act it on a stage with no fear of forgetting your lines. Preparing to this level is a nightmare — but if the stakes are high enough, it’s worth the time.

Not every TED talk is memorized, but memorizing your talk cold¹ means you can devote more of your brain to other things in the moment. It’s much easier to make a joke or adjust a point in real-time if you’re supremely confident about where you are in your talk.

Starting maybe a month before the talk, I started rehearsing my speech on my commute. I started by saying the talk out loud from the script on my phone. I had also recorded myself giving the talk and would listen to myself say it through my headphones. Over time, I started saying parts of the talk without looking. Then, the whole thing.

I would say it to myself in the shower, while biking around the city, during my lunch break. I rehearsed it to Amanda, to other residents in my cohort, and to a few friends.

Note: One important thing I did was start rehearsing a lot even though the talk wasn’t completely finished. The truth is, your talk is never done. You’ll get ideas and suggestions as you rehearse even into the final week. Memorization takes calendar time and cramming is a really bad idea.

Once I was able to reliably give the whole talk without looking at my script, I then had to improve the pacing. When I had just barely memorized it, my talk would come in at 7 or 7.5 minutes, well over my time limit. I had to practice speeding up my talk so that it was right around that 6 minute mark, without sounding like I was rushing through it.

Towards the end, I was hitting the 6 minute mark reliably and was able to use my last few days of rehearsals on delivery and timing of slide advancement.

Fewer slides, better slides

One thing that we often associate with TED speakers is great slides. Our brains devote tremendous resources towards processing visual information so it’s not crazy to think that great slides matter.

The truth is, plenty of great TED talks have no slides. Sir Ken Robinson’s talk on education is one. Susan Cain’s talk on introverts is another (though she uses a suitcase as a prop).

Having too much great visual material can also be a problem. Amanda is a designer, so when she was asked to give her first talk at the end of her TED Residency, she jam-packed it with lots of amazing visuals. But what she noticed is that during the talk, people mostly looked at the screen, not her.

So when she gave her TEDWomen talk a year later, she made fewer slides and made ample use of the “blank slide” option where nothing was projecting on the screen. Just as how when a talk is shorter, each word has greater meaning, when a talk has fewer slides, each slide packs a bigger punch.

I don’t have much to say in the way of slide design, but Aaron Weyenberg, a UX lead at TED, has a great post called 10 Tips for Better Slide Decks that can help you improve your own slide. Then be sure to eliminate any that don’t add power to your message: edit with a heavy hand.

Tell stories

We often miss opportunities to pursuade because we don’t tell enough stories.

I am all for making decisions using logic and data. But it’s hard to get people interested in pure data without a story behind it. A number doesn’t matter until you understand where the number is coming from and what it means.

Nonprofits have learned that telling the story of a single person who needs help is more effective at eliciting donations than using a data-driven approach, or even including the story and the data together². For some, this is maddening or seems sentimental. But the truth is, human beings evolved to tell and hear stories. It’s effective.

Stories create impact by getting the brains of your audience members literally in sync with your own.

Uri Hasson runs a psychology lab at Princeton and has used functional MRI scanners to show how when a listener hears someone telling a story, their brain waves start to align. The effect was limited if everyone was simply hearing the same non-verbal sounds, or sentences without real meaning. But only when a fully coherent and engaging story was told, the synchronization, or “neural entrainment,” spread to major parts of the brain, including the frontal cortex.

I was able to tell two personal stories in my TED talk — the first about the creative tactics I used to land a job as a product manager at Etsy, and the second about how I was almost put into a special needs track as a kindergartener. This experience taught me that there’s always time and room for stories, and that they are too powerful to ever be skipped or glossed over.

What is your body saying?

The last thing I’ll touch on is your physical presence. When you speak, it’s not just about the sounds you’re producing from your throat. Impact also depends on your facial expressions, your gestures, and your body language.

A talk delivered with slumped shoulders, glazed over eyes, and a hunched-over posture sounds pathetic compared to those same words being said with an open upright chest, expansive gestures, and a smile.

Going back to the Science of People research, Van Edwards found that speakers who smiled more were rated as more intelligent. It can feel strange to smile so much at a group of strangers, particularly when you are talking about something that might be pretty serious, but smiling puts people at ease and lets them know they can trust you, which may lead to their trusting what you have to say.

Meanwhile, when they looked at the total number of hand motions, whether up-and-down or side-to-side, they found it correlated with number of views of that presentation. Her hypothesis:

If you’re watching a talk and someone’s moving their hands, it gives your mind something else to do in addition to listening. So you’re doubly engaged. For the talks where someone is not moving their hands a lot, it’s almost like there’s less brain engagement, and the brain is like, “this is not exciting” — even if the content’s really good.

In retrospect, I felt like I could have been more generous with my gestures. There were certain parts of the talk where I think I had thoughtful gestures that aligned with my point, but it’s definitely something I’m going to continue to work on.

 Great public speaking skills aren’t are learned in a few hours, a few months, or even a few years. It is a lifelong process.

There’s still so much I can do to improve as a public speaker, but I am deeply grateful to TED as an organization for showing me what great talks look like, and giving me an opportunity to level up my skills. I hope these lessons help you deliver your next toast, presentation, or speech with greater confidence and power.

Gene Editing Can Now Change An Entire Species Forever


CRISPR has opened up limitless avenues for genetic modification. From disease prevention to invasive species control, Jennifer Kahn discusses the discover, application, and implications of gene drives.

Jennifer Kahn, a science journalist for the New York Times, recently did a TED Talk in which she discussed the discovery, application, and implications of a CRISPR gene drive used to make mosquitoes resistant to malaria and other diseases like chikungunya, and Zika.

Watch the talk in the video below, and learn how geneticists are achieving the (seemingly) impossible:

In pioneering experiments, biologist Anthony James became enamored with the idea of using genetic modification to make the genus of mosquito (Anopheles) that is responsible for transmitting malaria incapable of carrying the disease causing parasite. James was able to create the resistant mosquitoes, but he ran into a roadblock when trying to perpetuate the trait into future generations.

Kahn states that it would take introducing a number of engineered mosquitoes ten times the population of native mosquitoes. This would likely not go over well with the local humans.

In Janurary of 2016, James received word from biologist Ethan Bier that Bier and his grad student Valentino Gantz discovered a means in which biologists can ensure the inheritance of an engineered trait as well as the rapid proliferation of that trait from generation to generation. Prior to these experiments, it had been deemed impossible, due to Mendelian genetics, for an entire generation to inherit a specific trait.

Against conventional understanding, this is exactly what happened.

Two mosquitoes engineered to have red eyes were introduced to 30 white eyed mosquitoes. Two generations later, there were 3,800 new mosquitoes, all of which had red eyes.

This discovery opens up a world of possibilities outside of disease prevention such as invasive species elimination among countless others. These possibilities present some serious bioethical questions for the use of, or abstinence from, this form of modification. Kahn uses Asian carp as an example. While Asian carp is an invasive species in the Great Lakes, the species could go extinct if modified carp were introduced to their natural habitat.

Germs Are Magic and Other Things We Learned From Ed Yong’s New Book


WE TEND TO describe our immune systems with military metaphors. Pathogens invade our bodies, knock down our defenses, and try to kill us dead. We fight back with hand sanitizer and mild germ-related panic. Or we go nuclear and blast them with antibiotics. Ed Yong’s beautiful, smart, and sometimes shocking new book I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life will make you take a deep breath.

Yong, a science writer, blogger, tweeter, and TED talk-giver, takes readers from coral reefs to hyena backsides to describe the stunning amount of work bacteria (and viruses too) perform for us humans and for every other thing on Earth. How do Hawaiian bobtail squid get their glow? Germs! Don’t care about that squid? You will once you read Yong’s description of how luminous bacteria colonize and illuminate it. Here are seven other questions you probably have never thought to ask, but that will be answered anyway in these pages.

EdYong.jpg

For starters, you shouldn’t think about some kind of battle between good and evil. Microbes in your body dial the immune system up and down (so you don’t get all infected or go all auto-immune); they cause certain cells to get made; they train it to differentiate good guys from bad guys. “I think it’s more accurate to see the immune system as a team of rangers in charge of a national park—as ecosystem managers,” writes Yong. “They must carefully control the numbers of resident species, and expel problematic invaders.” Because the immune system isn’t a standing army. “The immune system isn’t just a means of controlling microbes. It is at least partly controlled by microbes.” They are kind of the boss of you. You need to update your mental metaphor.

What would happen if every germ on Earth suddenly vanished?
All hell would break loose. Animals that eat grass (deer, cows, horses) would starve, since they need germs in their stomachs to digest cellulose. Coral would bleach out. “In the deep oceans, many worms, shellfish, and other animals rely on bacteria for all of their energy,” Yong writes. “Without microbes, they too would die, and the entire food webs of these dark abyssal worlds would collapse.” And don’t stand there all smug, vegetarians. Microbes make nitrogen, and plants need nitrogen, so there’s the rest of the food supply shot. Also, as Yong says, “microbes are lords of decay.” There would be shit (and rotting leaves and dead bodies) everywhere.

What’s so great about mucus?
You guys, mucus—snot, boogers, slime, nose goblins, phlegm—is the best. It’s made of huge molecules that make a big tangle (Yong calls it “a Great Wall of Mucus”) to keep microbes where they belong. And it has a posse. A posse of little guys called phages, which are actually viruses that infect bacteria and kill them. “Imagine hordes upon hordes of them, stuck head-first, their legs outstretched and waiting to embrace passing microbes in a lethal hug,” he writes. One mucus researcher even thinks that creatures might switch up the composition of mucus to attract specific phages so that they kill some bacteria and not others. Woah.

Why do babies have lame sluggish immune systems?
Most people think that babies are prone to infection because their immune systems are dumb and immature. Not so. “To allow our first microbes to colonize our newborn bodies, a special class of immune cells suppresses the rest of the body’s defensive ensemble,” Yong writes. The infant’s immune system is taking a dive so germs can move in and get settled. But of course the baby only wants the best and most friendly germs to come to this little microbial birthday party. Mom to the rescue!

Why do human mothers make 200 types of molecules called oligosaccharides in their breastmilk when babies can’t even digest oligosaccharides in the first place?
Look kid, it’s not about you. The fats and the lactose in breastmilk, that’s for you. Drink up. But those oligosaccharides, those are for microbes, specifically one called Bifidobacterium longum infantis. You really want to attract that that guy and keep him around. Because B. infantis, as Yong writes, earns its keep by eating up those oligosaccharides and spitting out short-chain fatty acids. Baby gut cells eat the fatty acids. In other words, mom is feeding the B. infantis so the B. infantis will feed the baby.Your baby is eating germ poop! This microbe also tells gut cells to make proteins that glue everything together. And it makes anti-inflammatory molecules. It’s kind of a big deal. Unfortunately, B. infantis might be an endangered species. In developing countries, up to 90 percent of babies are colonized with the germ. In developed countries, however, that number is around 30 or 40 percent. Scientists aren’t sure why, but it’s probably not good.

Is there a bacterium that has a thing for men?
Yes! Here are some things that Wolbachia pipientis can do. It can eliminate the males of a certain wasp species. It can turn guy woodlice into gal woodlice. It kills baby boy butterflies. “Females are its ticket to the future; males are an evolutionary dead end,” Yong writes. “So it has evolved many ways of screwing over male hosts to expand its pool of female ones.” Oh, but also? It protects mosquitos from Zika, which means it could be deployed to protect you from Zika. Which goes to show you. “There is no such thing as a ‘good microbe’ or a ‘bad microbe.’ These terms belong in children’s stories. They are ill-suited for describing the messy, fractious, contextual relationships of the natural world … In reality, bacteria exist along a continuum of lifestyles, between ‘bad’ parasites and ‘good’ mutualists.”

Are there probiotics for goats?
There was this plant in Australia, and people wanted goats to eat it, but it was poisonous. But goats in Hawaii could eat this same plant. So scientist Raymond Jones, (“After several long flights, some involving thermos flasks full of rank rumen fluids and others involving live goats,”) dosed the Aussie goats with rumen germs from the Aloha goats and presto! They could eat the poisonous plant. Farmers buySynergistes jonesii as a “probiotic drench” they spray on the critters. Which sounds a little more palatable than a fecal transplant.

Bonus question: Speaking of! What is the worst/best fecal transplant joke in this book?
Well, if you could give people the microbes that live in the poop that seems to help when given to people withClostridium difficile infections, but not include the actual poop… that would be a stool substitute. It would be (drumroll) a sham-poo.