Poetry - by @mondaydpoet

Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find Because of the Burden of Knowledge?

By Matt Clancy

https://mattsclancy.substack.com/p/are-ideas-getting-harder-to-find

 

Innovation appears to be getting harder. At least, that’s the conclusion of Bloom, Jones, Van Reenen, and Webb (2020). Across a host of measures, getting one “unit” of innovation seems to take more and more R&D resources.

 

To take a concrete example, although Moore’s law has held for a remarkable 50 years, maintaining the doubling schedule (twice the transistors every two years) takes twice as many researchers every 14 years. You see similar trends for medical research - over time, more scientists are needed to save the same number of years of life. You see similar trends for agriculture - over time, more scientists are needed to increase crop yields by the same proportion. And you see similar trends for the economy writ large - over time, more researchers are needed to increase total factor productivity by the same proportion. Measured in terms of the number of researchers that can be hired, the resources needed to get the same proportional increase in productivity doubles every 17 years.

 

There are lots of issues with anyone of these numbers. I’ve written about some of them (on the recent total factor productivity slowdown here, and on agricultural crop yields here). But taken together, the effects are so large that it does look like something is happening: it takes more people to innovate over time.

 

Why?

 

The Burden of Knowledge

A 2009 paper by Benjamin Jones, titled The Burden of Knowledge and the Death of the Renaissance Man, provides a possible answer (explainer here). Assume invention is the application of knowledge to solve problems (whether in science or technology). As more problems are solved, we require additional knowledge to solve the ones that remain, or to improve on our existing solutions.

 

This wouldn’t be a problem, except for the fact that people die and take their knowledge with them. Meanwhile, babies are (inconveniently) born without any knowledge. So each generation needs to acquire knowledge anew, slowly and arduously, over decades of schooling. But since the knowledge necessary to push the frontier keeps growing, the amount of knowledge each generation must learn gets larger. The lengthening retraining cycle slows down innovation.

 

Age of Achievement

A variety of suggestive evidence is consistent with this story. One line of evidence is the age when people begin to innovate. If people need to learn more in order to innovate, they have to spend more time getting educated and will be older when they start adding their own discoveries to the stock of knowledge.

 

Brendel and Schweitzer (2019) and Schweitzer and Brendel (2020) look at the age of academic mathematicians and economists when they publish their first solo-authored article in a top journal: it rose from 30 to 35 over 1950-2013 (for math) and 1970-2014 (for economics). For economists, they also look at first solo-authored publication in any journal: the trend is the same. Jones (2010) (explainer here) looks at the age when Nobel prize winners and great inventors did their notable work. Over the twentieth century, it rose by 5 more years than would be predicted by demographic changes. Notably, the time Nobel laureates spent in education also increased - by 4 years.

 

 

Brendel and Schweitzer (2019) and Schweitzer and Brendel (2020) also point to another suggestive fact that the knowledge required to push the frontier has been rising. The number of references in mathematicians and economists’ first solo-authored papers is rising sharply. Economists in 1970 cited about 15 papers in their first solo-authored article, but 40 in 2014. Mathematicians cited just 5 papers in the 1950s in their debuts, but over 25 in 2013.

 

Outside academia, the evidence is a bit more mixed. In Jones’ paper on the burden of knowledge, he looked at the age when US inventors get their first patents and found it rose by about one year, from 30.5 to 31.5, between 1985 and 1998. But this trend subsequently reversed. Jung and Ejermo (2014), studying the population of Sweden, found the age of first invention dropped from a peak of 44.6 in 1997 to 40.4 in 2007. And a recent conference paper by Kaltenberg, Jaffe, and Lachman (2020) found the age of first patent between 1996 and 2016 dropped in the USA as well.

 

That said, there is some other suggestive evidence that patents these days draw on more knowledge - or at least, scientific knowledge - than in the past. Marx and Fuegi (forthcoming) use text processing algorithms to match scientific references in US and EU patents to data on scientific journal articles in the Microsoft Academic Graph. The average number of citations to scientific journal articles has grown rapidly from basically 0 to 4 between 1980 and today. And as noted in a previous newsletter, there’s a variety of evidence that this reflects actual “use” of the ideas science generates.

 

Splitting Knowledge Across Heads

But that’s only part of the story. In Jones’ model, scientists don’t just respond to the rising burden of knowledge by spending more time in school. They also team up, so that the burden of knowledge is split up among several heads.

 

The evidence for this trend is pretty unambiguous. The rise of teams has been documented across a host of disciplines. Between 1980 and 2018, the number of inventors per US patent doubled. Brendel and Schweitzer also show the number of coauthors on mathematics and economics articles has also risen sharply through 2013/2014. Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi (2007) has also documented the rise of teams in scientific production through 2000.

 

 

We can also take inspiration from Jones (2010) and look at Nobel prizes. The Nobel prize in physics, chemistry, and medicine has been given to 1-3 people for most of the years from 1901-2019. When more than one person gets the award, it may be because multiple people contributed to the discovery, or because the award is for multiple separate (but thematically linked) contributions. For example, the 2009 physics Nobel was one half awarded to Charles Kuen Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication", with the other half jointly to Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit - the CCD sensor."

 

The figure below gives the average number of laureates per contribution, over the preceding 10 years. For the physics and chemistry awards, there’s been a steady shift: in the first part of the 20th century, each contribution was usually assigned to a single scientist. In the 21st centruy, there are, on average, two scientists awarded per contribution. In medicine, there was a sharp increase from 1 scientist per contribution to a peak of 2.6 in 1976, but has slightly declined since then, though it remains above 2.

 

 

According to Jones’ the reason for teams is that teams can bring more knowledge to a problem than an individual. If that’s the case, then innovations that come from teams should tend to perform better than those created by individuals, all else equal. For both patents and papers, that’s precisely what Ahmadpoor and Jones (2019) find. For teams of 2-5 people, the bigger the team the higher the citations the paper/patent receives (though the extent varies by field). Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019) also find the bigger the team, the more cited are patents, papers, and software code.

 

The Death of the Renaissance Man

By using teams to innovate, scientists and innovators reduce the amount of time they need to spend learning. They do this by specializing in obtaining frontier knowledge on an ever-narrower slice of the problem. So Jones’ model also predicts an increase in specialization.

 

In Jones’ paper, specialization was measured as the probability solo-inventors patented in different technological fields within 3 years on consecutive patents. The idea is the less likely they are to “jump” fields, the more specialized their knowledge must be. For example, if I apply for a patent in battery technology in 1990 and another in software in 1993, that would indicate I’m more of a generalist than someone who is unable to make the jump. Jones used data on 1977 through 1993, but in the figure below I replicate his methodology and bring the data up through 2010. Between 1975 and 2005, the probability of solo-inventor patents in different technology classes, on two consecutive patents with applications within 3 years of each other, drops from 56% to 47%.

 

 

(While the probability does head back up after 2005, it remains well below prior levels and it's possible this is an artifact of the data - see the technical notes at the bottom of this newsletter if curious)

 

Schweitzer and Brendel exploit the JEL classification system in economics. These classifications can be aggregated up to the level of one of 9 fields, and Brendel and Schweitzer look at the probability an economist hops from one field to another between two solo-authored publications that are published within 3 years. Among all articles listed on EconLit, it's fallen in half, from 33% to 14% between 1973 and 2014. Restricting attention to the top ten publications, it fell even more sharply, from 28% to 0%(!) in 2014.

 

Lastly, let’s consider the Nobel prizes again. Since Nobel prizes are awarded for substantially distinct discoveries, winning more than one Nobel prize in physics, chemistry, or medicine, maybe another signifier of multiple specialties. There have been just three Nobel laureates to win more than one physics, chemistry, or medicine Nobel prize: Marie Curie (1903, 1906), John Bardeen (1956, 1972), Frederick Sanger (1958, 1980). If it takes as long as 25 years to receive a second Nobel prize, then we can be sure there was no multiple-winner between 1958 and 1994. There were 218 Nobel laureates between 1959 and 1994, compared to 207 between 1901 and 1958. That means there were 3 multiple Nobel laureates in the first 207 and 0 in the second 218.

 

Why are ideas getting harder to find?

Bloom, Jones, Van Reenen and Webb (2020) document the productivity of research is falling: it takes more inputs to get the same output. Jones (2009) provides an explanation for why that might happen. New problems require new knowledge to solve, but using new knowledge requires understanding (at least some) of the earlier, more basic knowledge. Over time, the total amount of knowledge needed to solve problems keeps rising. Since knowledge can only be used when it’s inside someone’s head, we end up needing more researchers. And that’s precisely the dimension that Bloom et al. (2020) use to measure the declining productivity of research - it does take more researchers to get the same innovation.

 

Visit https://mattsclancy.substack.com/p/are-ideas-getting-harder-to-find for the full article. 

Developing Motor Skills - Brain Buzz Article

Developing Motor Skills 

by Ms. Patience 

Over the years, I’ve worked with pre-teens, and I have come to observe a few of them struggle with simple activities, which shouldn’t pose a challenge to them. Then I realized that their gross and fine motor skills were not developed early.

Early childhood development includes acquiring fine and gross motor skills. While both these skills involve movement, they do have differences.

 

So what are these skills?

Fine motor skills involve the movement of the smaller muscle group in children’s hands, fingers, and wrists while Gross motor skills involve the movement of the larger muscle group like the arms and legs. It’s these larger muscle groups that allow babies to sit up, turn over, crawl, and ultimately walk.

 

Both types of motor skills enable children to become more independent.

 

Fine motor skills are especially important because the ability to use the smaller muscles in the hand allows children to perform self-care tasks without assistance.

 

To help your child develop his/her gross and fine motor skills, there are activities you can schedule to build them developmentally. This is why schools have Early Years sections. Believe me, they are not ‘playing’, like most people think. Serious learning is taking place. A child’s development begins here.

 

Babies and toddlers develop fine and gross motor skills at their own pace. Some children develop some skills earlier than others and that’s perfectly normal. Children usually begin to attain these skills as early as one ore two months old and continue to learn additional skills through preschool and primary school.

 

According to early childhood development experts, the most important fine motor skills children need to develop include the following:

 

·      The Palmar Arches which allows the palms to curl inwards. Strengthening these helps coordinate the movement of the fingers, which is needed for writing, unbuttoning clothes, and gripping.

·      Wrist stability develops by early school years. It allows children to move their fingers with strength and control.

·      Skilled side of the hand is the index finger, and other fingers together for precision grasping

·      Bilateral hand skills permit the coordination of both hands at the same time

·      Scissor skill develops by age four and teaches hand strength and eye coordination.

 

It looked like past generations are tough and sturdy because of the activities they did growing up. Activities such as climbing trees, playing ten-ten, suwe (hopscotch), Ludo, rolling tires, cooking with flowers, playing with clay, catapulting, and even football. It didn’t seem like it but we were learning as we played. However, with the advent of the Internet, most kids today are stuck indoors, sitting for hours playing Fortnite or Tik Toking. Nothing wrong with these but access to the technology should be limited for children in growing years. Let children play, they learn in the process, thereby developing themselves.

 

For materials to help your child develop motor skills check Coco Resources @co2resources

 

Brain Buzz

COVID-19 and Online Learning

by Ms Patience

 

Limit your child’s cellphones and tablets until their schoolwork is done so that it can receive their undivided attention. Apps, games, and messaging features are fun, but they can also be distracting. Having a dedicated device is ideal for optimum online learning.

 

Children achieve their best work in a quiet, comfortable, and dedicate space. Avoid rooms where their games and TV are set up. Remember that children will make use of this space for many hours each day, so watch out for comfort and posture.

Online learning requires proper observation. Ensure they’re taking notes or asking questions at the end of a lesson. This may require a lot of effort as a parent but it’s important to confirm that your child is indeed learning. If there are any issues contact the teacher. 

Make sure your kids take plenty of breaks in order to get physical activity and time away from screens. Set alarms similar to those they would encounter at school and encourage them to get up, get some fresh air, go for a walk or bike ride, or have a snack so that they are not sedentary for the entire day.

In-person interaction is ideal for kids, so sit your children down for face-to-face conversations about screen time. To give them ownership, discuss how much time they think is reasonable to spend online and make a “contract” committing to goals for on-screen vs. off-screen hours.

Remember that you’re not alone on this journey. Check-in with other parents to see what they’ve found effective or to ask if they need help. Share your concerns and useful hints. If you need contact information for other parents or resources, reach out to the PTA or your child’s school. It is important that we all work together as a community for the good of our children and families.

Community Reports

Wuye Police Division Inaugurates Divisional Community Policing Advisory Committee (DCPAC)

 

The event held on the 24^th of July 2020, at the Divisional Police Station, Wuye. In attendance were the Divisional Police Officer (DPO), Wuye, the Area Commander Metro (AC Metro), the Chairman Police Community Relations Commission (PCRC), Wuye, and community representatives that included Ethnic Representatives and residents of the community. 

 

The program started with a recital of the National Anthem and was followed by opening prayers from both the Christian and Muslim religions. This was immediately followed by a lecture delivered by SP Naomi Mathias on the overview of functions for the DCPAC.

 

In her speech, SP Naomi Mathias explained that the committee inaugurated would sit and select persons would serve as ‘special constable’. These are people of unquestionable character residents in the community, who are charged to keep the peace, promote safety and security awareness, settle the civil dispute, and petty crimes while overseeing the implementation, monitoring, and evaluating community policing at the grassroots.

 

Thereafter the AC Metro, ACP Nuruddeen A. Sabo, gave the inauguration speech where he charged committee nominees which comprise of people drawn from different fields with experiences from various sectors including security, business amongst others to bring all hands on deck to ensure positive results as regards discharging the duties as members of DCPAC. In addendum, he commended the nominees for their courage and sacrifice for accepting this great task, as he wished them God’s guidance in the cause of duty discharge.

 

The DPO Wuye Division acknowledged the Inspector General (IG) of Police for the DCPAC inauguration through the AC Metro and stressed that the members of the committees would be vetted with Nigerian Police to make sure none of the members is a felon.

 

The Chairman PCRC Wuye Division gave the vote of thanks. He also commended the IG, as he pledged to work with the committee to bring about peace, security, and development to the Wuye community. 

 

The DCPAC would consist of traditional rulers, religious organizations, town unions, Ministry of Health, Social Welfare..etc, Vigilante, professional unions, Hoteliers, and the physically challenged.

Featured Article

Brain Buzz

HELP! 

by Ms. Patience 

Growing up as a child in Lagos, I had a neighbor whom I believed was the most beautiful girl ever. She was dark and lovely. However, she had challenges academically. In fact, she was labeled dumb because she couldn’t read. She also believed God did not give her intelligence. Naysayers made it worse by insinuating that her family ‘used her head’ to make the family business prosper. Eventually, she dropped out of school and joined the family business. And she really prospered. 

So, over the years, I’ve wondered: would life had been somewhat different for her if the teachers were equipped enough to discover she may have had Dyslexia? 

Dyslexia is a combination of strengths and difficulties that may affect learning, reading, writing, spelling, and word finding. It is a spectrum that includes children of all abilities. It's thought to affect about ten percent of the population. 

Often one of the first signs that a child may have dyslexia is when you notice a big difference between that child's general intelligence and their poor performance in reading and writing tasks. This discrepancy can seem surprising or hard to explain. 

In our next edition, we will find out the signs to look out for in a child who may be struggling with dyslexia.