THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Brainiac

The pay is $8.57 million an hour, but bulls are involved

Recent highlights from the Ideas blog

(Timothy A. Clary/Getty Images )
By Samuel Arbesman
October 24, 2010

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

Text size +

David Biderman at The Wall Street Journal examined the amount of money made per hour in various “unique” sports, including bull riding, playing scrabble, and competitive eating. For those at the top of their game in these activities, the cash flows easily, but there is still a matter of degree. Bull riding comes out on top, at $8.57 million per hour, while Scrabble is at the bottom, at only $62 per hour.

Of course, this is not entirely accurate. For example, a champion bull rider such as Kody Lostroh doesn’t need to stay on the bull for an entire hour; last year, he won by being on a bull for 11 minutes and 24 seconds. But still, taking in over one and a half million dollars for under 15 minutes of work is not too bad. It’s unclear how much practice is required to remain a top bull rider, as compared to a top Scrabble player, for example, where memorizing words helps pay the bills — or a champion competitive eater, where the practice food bill no doubt takes a slice out of the net win.

The new liberal arts
It all began when Jason Kottke described the topics covered on his well-regarded blog, Kottke.org, as liberal arts 2.0. Kottke used this term as a catchall for the kinds of things he thinks about; it had a nice ring to it, evoking a sense that it represented the new corpus of knowledge (and skills?) necessary to function in today’s complex world. Instead of linking to speeches by Cicero, Kottke links to videos about understanding orders of magnitude or dissections of modern typography. Then the blog Snarkmarket started using the term and ended up publishing a short book entitled “New Liberal Arts,” a slim volume with chapters on such topics as attention economics, marketing, and brevity. Now, Wired magazine has joined the game with its article “7 Essential Skills You Didn’t Learn in College,” which include such topics as statistical literacy and writing for new forms:

It’s the 21st century. Knowing how to read a novel, craft an essay, and derive the slope of a tangent isn’t enough anymore. You need to know how to swim through the data deluge, optimize your prose for Twitter, and expose statistics that lie.

I look forward to Liberal Arts 3.0, in which we learn how to best handle our role in the hivemind — and how to avoid the wrath of our squid overlords.

A robot smackdown
New Scientist had the following headline: ”Robot arm punches human to obey Asimov’s rules.” Apparently, some scientists are trying to understand ”human-robot pain thresholds.” This essentially means that they are trying to make sure that when robots (such as industrial robots) interact with humans, even accidentally, they do so in a way that does not injure people.

In order to solve this, the lead author persuaded six of his colleagues to be punched by a robot, specifically a production-line quality one. Each subject then rated the intensity of being smacked by a robot. And every time a beating was rated as causing any sort of pain, this robot was in clear violation of Isaac Asimov’s First Law of Robotics: ”A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”

Research aside, though, journalists are having a field day with this, because it is quite simply so bizarre and reads like something from The Onion. The headlines included: ”Robots Learning How Not to Hurt Humans, By Punching Them” and ”Robot Beats Up Volunteers.”

Samuel Arbesman is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School and is affiliated with the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. He is a regular contributor to Ideas.