All posts in Philosophy

Those that say money doesn’t buy happiness don’t know where to shop


Those that say money doesn’t buy happiness don’t know where to shop.

Primary Research Question (Micro):

What is the correlation between suicide rates and income per capita?


Suicide rate decreases as income per capita increases.  

Data Set & Description of Research Question:

After looking through the GapMinder codebook, I have decided that I am particularly interested in suicide rates. I want to study the correlation between suicide rates and income per capita (micro analysis).


Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 10.32.50 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 10.32.56 PM

Secondary Research Question (Macro):

What is the correlation between suicide rates and urbanization?


Suicide rate decreases as urbanization increases.   

Data Set & Description of Research Question:

After looking through the GapMinder codebook, I have decided that I am particularly interested in suicide rates. I want to study the correlation between suicide rates and urbanization (macro analysis).  


Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 10.32.56 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 10.33.03 PM

Tertiary Research Question (Macro, Opposite of Primary Question):

What is the correlation between suicide rates and employment rate?


Suicide rate increases as employment rate decreases.  

Data Set & Description of Research Question:

After looking through the GapMinder codebook, I have decided that I am particularly interested in suicide rates. I want to study the correlation between suicide rates and employment rate.


Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 10.41.35 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 10.32.56 PM

Literature Review:


  • Suicide rates increase as income per capita increases.  




  • Suicide rates increase as urbanization increases.   




  • Suicide rates increase as employment rate decreases.  



Government 2.0: Democracy Without Secrets A Site for Doing Nothing

“I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” -Wayne Gretzky


Do Great Things

We have a greater capacity to change the world today than the kings and presidents of just 50 years ago. Whether you’re a programming prodigy or the office manager holding it all together, technology empowers small groups of passionate people with an astonishing degree of leverage to make the world a better place. Yet I fear that our industry is squandering its opportunity and its talent. In companies large and small, great minds are devoting their lives to endeavors that, even if wildly successful, fail to do great things.

We who work in technology have nurtured an especially rare gift: the opportunity to effect change at an unprecedented scale and rate. Technology, community, and capitalism combine to make Silicon Valley the potential epicenter of vast positive change. We can tackle the world’s biggest problems and take on bold missions like fixing education, re-imagining energy distribution, connecting people, or even democratizing democracy. And with increasingly severe threats to our survival — rapid climate change, an unstable international economy, and unsustainable energy consumption — it is more important than ever that we use these gifts to change the world, foster happiness and alleviate suffering, for us and our fellow beings.

But we are falling far short of our potential.

Within many large companies, brilliant engineers are convinced to toil away at ultimately-unimportant features. When the company was one-tenth its size, they would have worked on projects with ten times the long-term impact, but now measure success by the number of users they touch rather than the value they create. But do millions of eyeballs really make the work more meaningful? Our brightest minds are recklessly allocated to turf wars where winning is paramount above all else. When did beating the competition or protecting your existing business become more important than serving users?

It’s time to wake up! We’re all in this together: when we stop worrying about egos and focus on helping each other, the world will get better for everyone. The opportunity cost of not doing so is staggering. Asked why they stay, my friends respond with a combination of inertia, complacency, and attachment to seeing projects through that often limp along interminably.  I definitely empathize: it’s easy to hope things will get better any day now, or fear giving up comfortable compensation. But I’ve never regretted following my heart — and, in our industry more than any other, doing so is less financially risky than ever.

The startup world suffers from less bureaucracy, yet, as Sean Parker, Michael Arrington, and Peter Thiel have observed, there’s a proliferation of companies with smaller, less-impactful ideas. An abundance of angel capital and increasing fetishization of entrepreneurship has led more people to start companies for the sake of starting a company. But the 100th engineer at Facebook had a greater positive impact on the world — and a much better personal financial outcome — than most of the startup founders we see heroized.

The result is a massive talent dilution, one so acute that both of Facebook’s founders are doubtful they could have started Facebook in this environment. It’s good that starting a business is easier than ever, but the pendulum has swung too far from Silicon Valley’s hey-day when a handful of great companies were able to gather a critical mass of great people to do great things.

I do not doubt that services like social games and coupons bring delight to people’s lives, and I mean no disrespect to the hard work that has made them possible. But in the face of threats to humanity’s future on the one hand and the extraordinary potential of mankind on the other, at some point we must ask: are we capable of more?

I wrote this post from my heart to remind you, my peers, to look regularly and honestly into yours and reflect on your deepest values. Life is short, youth is finite, and opportunities endless. Have you found the intersection of your passion and the potential for world-shaping positive impact? If you don’t have a great idea of your own, there are plenty of great teams that need you — unknown startups and established teams in giant companies alike.

Don’t lose the fire you started with. If you’re going to devote the best years of your life to your work, have enough love for yourself and the world around you to work on something that matters to you deeply. Something that’s beating out of your chest and compels you to throw yourself at it completely. No one knows whether you and your teammates will realize your audacious visions, but in order to do great things, we must attempt great things.

Justin works at Asana. Asana builds collaborative software to help teams be more effective in contributing to the world, one step at a time.

Margaret Thatcher

Watch your thoughts, they become words.
Watch your words, they become actions.
Watch your actions, they become habits.
Watch your habits, they become your character.
Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.

“The role of human imagination is to conceive of all these delightful futures, and pull the present forward to meet it.”


Science 2.0: Disrupting the publication-grant model of scientific research and introducing the network effects of distributed, open-source, collaboration


Do you think Maurice Wilkins did the right thing in showing Watson the x ray diffraction image produced by Franklin? Why or why not?

It was ethically wrong, but it changed the world. Ultimately, it was Franklin’s intellectual property. It was her work and she had all the rights to its ownership. However, I have a greater concern than the ethical and property rights argument. To encourage participation and synergy across departments and universities, as Wilkins’ had hoped, one needs to fundamentally change the incentive system in science. Historically, science and scientists have depended on the publication-grant model to acquire funding and advance our understanding of the world. But why should publishers be the gatekeepers to drive innovation and invention? Why should scientists have to spend half the year writing a grant to acquire funding, when they could spend that time doing groundbreaking research? In the tech industry, and have become the repositories for open-source innovation. Engineers, scientists, designers and business leaders collaborate on this site to create meaningful change. Projects can be created spontaneously to solve specific problems and attracts talent from across the world. Some of the world’s most powerful and useful software has been generated in an open-source manner (e.j. Mozilla Firefox, one of the world’s most common web browser, Linux, a free operating system, osCommerce, an e-commerce platform repackaged as Magento, and PBX / Twilio, a call routing system used by almost all toll free automated phone services). If the same system was available to scientists, imagine the possibilities. The incentive system would be obvious: contribute to the project’s overall knowledge (in the form of imaging, lines of code, experimental data, etc), your time investments will be accounted, and when the project finds investment capital, the contributors will be paid appropriately (a factor of time invested and importance of individual contributions). I read an interesting article in the WSJ about this idea (

Venture capitalists get excited and fund Internet startups that are trying to crowdsource ice cream trucks and get them to right neighborhoods to find business. This stuff can get as much as $5 million in Series A funding. And it doesn’t change the world one bit. I look forward to the day scientists ditch their labs, join the DIY Biology Movement, get some 3D printers, a basic PCR machine, and start hacking some problems on their own. I have a feeling that much like computer programming became a decentralized activity with the advent of personal computers, synthetic biology, 3d printing UK and basic PCR machines will be the future of scientific research. Ultimately, individuals are far more capable of making transformative changes than bureaucratic organizations. Google was a couple of college kids on their thousand dollar laptops. Steve Jobs’ Apple Computers and Bill Gates’ Microsoft are the product of two college dropouts who built personal computers that everyone could use. The tools of innovation, of disruptive change are in everybody’s hands and they are not expensive. One just has to be courageous enough to give up a comfortable job and change the world.

More investors need to start thinking about creating technology accelerators to advance science and bring some major breakthroughs to market. There are some early entrants like Singularity University’s SynBio Launchpad (a Synthetic Biology Startup Accelerator –, Peter Theil’s Founders Fund, John Doerr’s Kleiner Perkins and Caulfield, and Steve Jurvetson’s Draper Fisher Jurvetson that are following this model and will, in my humble and honest opinion, find great success.

In what ways did competition between the scientists help or hinder the progress to understanding the structure of DNA?

Competition definitely helped progress the discovery of the structure of DNA. This is a highly philosophical argument, but when you bring together the best and brightest minds in any field, give them one of the world’s biggest challenges, and make them compete against each other, you add the key ingredient to making massive amounts of progress. That ingredient is momentum. Case in point was the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics competing to crack the order of the six billion base pairs that comprise the human genome. Competition is the key ingredient to get people to do a lot of work, very quickly. I realize this philosophy does not agree with the academia’s idealistic and utopian notions of sharing and collaboration, but it often works better than academic collaboration, because it incentivizes divergent thinking, speed of thought, ability to pivot and try something new. Competition is transformative; it is the intersection at which passion meets momentum. When you are competing against someone, you start to realize that you’re not the only one around the bend and that you’ve got to win the race before they do. If Watson and Crick collaborated with Franklin and Wilkins, their distinct methodology, their philosophy of the world, and the creative synergy between Watson and Crick would have been lost. Their free-spirited nature, their creative endeavors and interdisciplinary attitude towards learning and knowledge assimilation, would have been canceled out by the work ethic of Franklin and Wilkins. One needs to encourage divergent thinking rather than group think, because synergies between individuals who work well with each other creates an energy, a passion that will always outpace the often compromised output of group think. Companies like IDEO tap into this philosophy to continually bring innovative and game-changing products to market. It may be true that Franklin and Wilkins’ eagerly and painstakingly amassed the evidence for the DNA double helix, but their minds were not quick to assimilate the evidence and create meaningful information. They had all the data but they couldn’t imagine the structure, which is a key point that shouldn’t be overlooked.  Franklin was a great scientist, but she was too rigid to really break out the world of data accounting and analysis. Perhaps, if she had been open to synergistic collaboration, she would have cracked the code of life before Watson and Crick. Undoubtedly, Franklin was a mastermind and a very deliberate, analytical thinker. But, she was uncomfortable with the notion of being wrong. The key to being great is to overcome your own ego, to encourage divergent thinking, establish a creative synergy with your closest collaborators, not be affected by dogma, believe in your own ideas and change the world.

Who do you think should get the credit for solving the structure of DNA? Provide some evidence to support your answer.

I think Watson and Crick should get the credit because ultimately they were able to synthesize and assimilate the raw data and create meaningful information, faster than Franklin and Wilkins. Again, Franklin was extremely close and she may have cracked the code before Watson and Crick if she had a better collaborator.

Undoubtedly, Franklin was a mastermind and a very deliberate, analytical thinker. But, she was uncomfortable with the notion of being wrong. When Crick invited Franklin to come look at their early prototype of the DNA spiral, she laughed at them. They had got it inside out. Clearly, Watson’s inertia to take notes during Franklin’s department research meeting had let him down. They had very stupidly, not accounted for the water content in the structure. She laughed at them and their silly attempt to build a model before they had any idea what the data meant. But, it is precisely this exploratory, experimental and creative attitude that would finally allow Watson and Crick to figure out the structure. Franklin was a great scientist, but she was too rigid to really break out the world of data accounting and analysis. Perhaps, if she had been open to synergistic collaboration, she would have cracked the code of life before Watson and Crick. However, given that she was woman in the 1950s world of all-male scientists, one can imagine why she did not have this opportunity. There was a part in the movie when Franklin’s lab assistant says that Wilkins’ once commented that instead of “trotting along” trying to map the structure of DNA using the diffraction pattern, “we should try other things” because we “are in a race” and this is “a big problem.” Clearly, Wilkins’ had the right ideas to make progress but was in the wrong environment to give them any momentum. It was really a toxic environment for science and for creative thinking.

When Watson shared the picture he had gotten from Wilkins, Francis was immediately able to dissect the structure from the diffraction pattern. Because Crick was an interdisciplinary thinker, he knew just by looking at the picture that the X meant that it was a helix.  Fortunately, Chargaff had also shared that A and T, C and G are equal in concentration. They combined this knowledge and were able to imagine the structure much faster than Franklin. By combining multiple sources of knowledge, they established that the structure must a double helix composed of complimentary base pairs (A-T; G-C).

Larry Brilliant: Solve the Grand Challenges of Your Time

Like Steve Jobs, people who really know the undercurrent or the central theme of their lives, have experienced it in a place where it is least expected and gives meaning to all the patience, perseverance, and hard work that goes into solving the grand challenges of our times.


Brian Cox: Curiosity/Discovery Science In tough economic times, our exploratory science programs — from space probes to the LHC — are first to suffer budget cuts. Brian Cox explains how curiosity-driven science pays for itself, powering innovation and a profound appreciation of our existence.