Just a few items I’ve been meaning to link to for a while now, but never could find the right context:

• Priests to Purify Site After Bush’s Visit – President Bush has apparently lost the Mayan vote.
• Germany GenWeb Project Map List – Here’s another collection of cool historical maps.
• ABC Plans Show Based on GEICO Caveman – It was entertaining for thirty seconds. Let’s try it for a season or two.
• D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y.com – Just in case you were wondering how to spell it.

Via The Media Dude:

500 Years of Women in Art. Check it out!

Not only is it mesmerizing to watch the paintings morph, but after a few viewings it becomes really fascinating to see the progression of different styles of art, from the early Renaissance masters through to the abstract art of the 20th century. In some cases, the changes seem gradual, but in other cases, they seem wild and revolutionary. I think I have some serious research to do before I can fully appreciate this video. But let me just watch it one more time…

When I first started this blog, one of my very first posts suggested that almost all of the current natives of Mongolia and China were probably descendants of Genghis Khan. I literally had no readers at the time – I hadn’t yet told anyone about the blog – and so there was nobody to challenge my sweeping statement. I didn’t even make an argument. I’d like to give my argument now, and reopen the question as a Conundrum.

The idea was based on a National Geographic article about the biological legacy of Genghis Khan:

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

I went on to note:

16 million descendants. And that’s only men descended from Khan directly through the male line, father to son, for the past 800 years. The total number of Khan’s descendants living today is truly incalculable.

If you figure an average of four generations per century, that’s 32 generations between Genghis and his living descendants. Each person living today should have around 2 to the power of 32, or roughly 4.3 billion, living ancestors that are contemporary with Khan. Obviously, many individuals will have to be counted more than once, so let’s take a different tack.

Let’s pick a year somewhere between 1200 and 2000, say 1500. The total population of mainland Asia in 1500 was 268,400,000. Each living person today would have approximately 2 to the power of 20, or about a million, ancestors who were around in 1500 (and that’s if we don’t count anyone with a living parent).

So how many of the 268,400,000 around in 1500 were Khan’s descendants? Well, there are 16 million men living today that share the Y chomosome. If Khan and his direct male heirs had an average of 1.68 sons over 32 generations, that would give us our 16 million. That would only account for 505 men carrying that Y chromosome in 1500. But that calcuation leaves out two factors.

First, by 1500, Khan’s seed had been pretty well spread. The factors that account for his prevalence today came mostly into play during Khan’s life and the few generations following (see the article for details). So the distribution was a lot more top-heavy than the calculation above would suggest.

Second, we’re only counting direct male-line heirs. Passing a Y chromosome down from father to son over 32 generations is only one of 4.3 billion different permutations of inheritance. Each of those 16 million Y chromosome carriers alive today probably has an average of at least one sister or daughter. That doubles the known descendants right there. Extend that back over 32 generations, then consider all of their descendants, and you get the idea. If we change “average of 1.68 sons over 32 generations” (which we know is true) to “average of 2 children of either sex over 32 generations” (which doesn’t seem like too great of a leap from there), then 16 million becomes 4.3 billion, greater than the population of mainland Asia today.

It seems to me that today’s ethnic Mongolians and Chinese would almost all have to be descended from Khan, some many times over.

Now I am no math expert. I’m a Shakespeare Teacher. It’s very possible I could be wrong about this. I’d be interested to hear what other people think, particularly people with more professional experience with statistical analysis.

And I should also point out that I pin no political, moral, or judgmental significance to being a descendant of Genghis Khan. This is simply a math, history, and logistical Conundrum. I truly hope no offense is taken (though if you read my original post and the Economist article it is based on, it actually seems to be a point of pride for both Mongolia and China to be the descendants of Khan). And my family comes from Belarus, so this would mean I’m probably a descendant of Khan as well. So don’t screw with me.

Now, with all that in mind, for this week’s Conundrum, I hereby submit my original conclusion up for public scrutiny:

So, China and Mongolia should probably stop arguing over which of their people are the true heirs of Genghis Khan. My guess is, almost all of them are.

I gave a workshop today on incorporating Web 2.0 technologies into literacy instruction to improve student writing in the one-to-one classroom. A one-to-one classroom is one in which every student has a laptop with Internet access. That means that each learner has the ability to interact personally with a dynamic network of learners, both within the classroom and in the larger community.

This workshop was done in the shadow of a short-sighted article in the New York Times that dealt only with the problems of the one-to-one classroom, and none of the potential.

What these educators seem to be missing is that this is the world our students are living in right now. Case in point: FanFiction.net. This is a website where people can go and post original fan fiction. Thousands of our students are there right now, posting original stories, getting feedback from peers, and revising their work to make it more effective. Nobody’s asking them to do this; but there they are, using 21rst century tools to hone their writing skills. And if these are the skills we want students to learn in school, how can we not take advantage of every opportunity to bring the same tools into the classroom?

Anyway, I usually enjoy these workshops, but I was sick all day, so I was eager to come home, take some cold medicine, and go to sleep.

In my sleep, I had a dream that I was in France, around the turn of the nineteenth century. It was just after the Revolution, but before Napoleon was installed as Emperor. My guide was showing me around, and – in typical dream-like anachronistic fashion – he wanted me to see his radio. There was an earpiece and a microphone, both in the style of the period (if you can imagine what that would look like).

I put on the earpiece and heard a radio host talking about John Locke. I repeated the last line of what he said to indicate to my guide that I could hear what was being played, and suddenly the voice said “Is someone there?” I froze for a moment, unsure if he was talking to me, and the voice said “I think someone’s there. What’s your name?” “My name is Bill,” I said, into what I now realized was a microphone. The voice responded, “Welcome, Bill.”

My guide said that there were similar radios in homes all over the country and anyone could participate. I was impressed, but a little nervous about being put on the spot. “This is my first time doing this,” I stammered, and the voice said “Well, I’m glad you’re here. We no longer depend on the government and its puppets to provide our radio content. This is the radio of the people, and we can say anything we want.”

And that’s when I realized that this guy wasn’t the host of the radio show. He was another guy like me with a microphone. And if more people joined up, we could have an extended conversation, and that would be the show. This would truly be a new paradigm.

I woke up, still woozy from the cold medication, but I rushed to the computer to record my dream. My subconscious mind had conflated the changes in Europe during the Enlightenment with the current evolution of Internet technologies. During the Enlightenment, people started to perceive government less as an absolutist top-down sovereign who rules by divine right, and more as a function of citizens who can actually take part in shaping their own polity. Right now, a similar transformation is taking place in the way we think about the Internet – less as a one-way, top-down source of information, and more as an interactive community of which we all can be a part. Nice analysis, subconscious mind!

As we think about these new technologies, and how they might reshape education, if not society as a whole, we should remember that they are more than just fun new toys. They are a revolution.

Researchers in Germany are working on a way to predict the intentions of human subjects by observing their brain activity. Damn!

For some reason it’s a little disturbing to me that something as personal and ephemeral as an intention can have a physiological manifestation that can be measured. Or maybe I’m just disturbed that they are now starting to measure it. What new “mind reading” technologies might be developed from this science? Could it become prosecutable to merely intend to commit a crime? Intent is already used as a legal concept, and attempted murder is considered a crime, even if nobody is hurt as a result. Could market researchers measure the intent of potential consumers? Will we one day have little handheld devices that can measure intent at a poker table or when our daughter’s date arrives to pick her up?

It all reminds me of a thought experiment made popular by Robert Nozick, which will be this week’s Conundrum. Before we get to it, though, it might be helpful to consider another thought experiment known as Kavka’s Toxin.

Let’s say I offer you $100,000 if you can form an intention to drink a particular toxin. This toxin will make you violently ill for about five or six hours, after which you will be perfectly fine. You’d drink it for the money, but you’re not being asked to drink it. You’re being asked to intend to drink it. After you have the money, you are free to change your mind and not drink it. The question is, can you actually form a genuine intention of doing something unpleasant that you will have no motivation to do?

Turn that one over in your mind for a few moments before moving on to this week’s Conundrum, Newcomb’s Problem.

Imagine there are two boxes, Box A and Box B. You will have the option of choosing to take both boxes, or to take Box B alone. You will keep what you find inside. Box A is transparent and contains one thousand dollars. Box B is opaque. A super-intelligent alien scientist with a proven track record of accurately predicting human behavior has analyzed you and has secretly made a prediction about which you will choose. If he believes you will choose Box B alone, he has put one million dollars inside. If he believes you will take both boxes, then he has left Box B empty. Which do you choose?

The super-intelligent scientist has run this trial with several hundred other humans, and has made a correct prediction each time. The only people who have ended up with the million are the ones who chose Box B alone. On the other hand, our alien friend has already made his prediction and left. Your choice can no longer affect the amounts that are in the boxes. You may as well take them both, right?

Fans of game theory might recognize this as a variation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Game theory would likely suggest that you flip a coin, so we’re going to disallow that option. You must rely on reasoning alone.

Unlike last week’s math puzzler, this one doesn’t have a right or wrong answer. It’s a thought experiment designed to test your conceptions of free will vs. determinism.

Or as Nozick put it:

To almost everyone, it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly.

It will be interesting to hear how people answer this.

Will you take both boxes, or Box B alone?

Feel free to answer the question, or continue the discussion of any of the topics covered above.

Speaking of Samuel Johnson, you can read the Preface to his landmark 1755 dictionary at this Rutgers English professor’s university page.

It’s worth checking out, if not to gain a deeper insight into this unique moment in the art of lexicography and the development of the English language, then at least to enjoy Dr. Johnson’s wry prose style.

The last episode of Slings & Arrows airs on Sundance tonight at 8pm. It will also be repeated throughout the week.

Use the comments section of this post to discuss the episode. Any comments I may have will be posted in the comments section as well.

You can view the archives to discuss past episodes and seasons.

WARNING: Comments may contain further discussion of the show, including potential spoilers. Click through only after viewing the episode. Commenters may discuss this episode as freely as they like, including Canadian readers!

By the way, did you know that the part of the same creative team behind Slings & Arrows wrote a musical called The Drowsy Chaperone? That’s hot.

While I was away, the Shakespeare Geek has been blogging up a storm. He always manages to find such great nuggets of Shakespearia in the digital forest. A few notable items that either I got from him, or he beat me to:

• There’s a new Showtime series on The Tudors with the first two episodes posted online. If this looks like it’s going to be any good, perhaps we will discuss it here, replacing the soon-to-be-retired Slings & Arrows thread each Sunday. What do you think?
• A map of almost all the places quoted in Shakespeare available in both Google Maps and Google Earth versions. This has some nice classroom applications, particularly in teaching history. Compare, for example, the relative locations of Pericles and Antony and Cleopatra around the eastern Mediterranean. Pericles takes place in the Hellenistic period, which came to an end with the events of Antony and Cleopatra, so comparing their relative locations can be useful. You know, for those times when you’re studying Pericles and Antony and Cleopatra. It was just an example.
• A somewhat new Shakespeare wiki. This looks like it’s going to be able to go much more in depth into Shakespeare than Wikipedia allows. I have to use the future tense, because right now it looks like the giant hole in the ground that is dug before a majestic building is erected. Can’t wait to see the view.
• Hamlet on trial for the murder of Polonius, presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, as part of the six month Shakespeare in Washington festival. I was in DC on Thursday, but missed the trial in favor of Richard III at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. But it caught my eye because my grad students have been talking about using the trial as a classroom activity. We’ve discussed the activity in connection with Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Othello, The Merchant of Venice, King Lear, and Measure for Measure.

There’s more stuff over there if you want to check it out. I like to link to him every now and then because I know there are some who come to this site looking for lots of cool Shakespeare stuff, and instead find postings about Venn diagrams, killer robots, and Charlie the Unicorn. His is the site you were looking for. But do come back tomorrow for the Thursday Morning Riddle.

The fifth episode of Season Three of Slings & Arrows airs on Sundance tonight at 8pm. It will also be repeated throughout the week.

Use the comments section of this post to discuss the episode. Any comments I may have will be posted in the comments section as well.

You can view the archives to discuss past episodes and seasons. A discussion thread for the final episode of Season 3 will be posted next week, when it airs on Sundance.

WARNING: Comments may contain further discussion of the show, including potential spoilers. Click through only after viewing the episode. Commenters may discuss this episode as freely as they like, though Canadian readers are asked not to post spoilers for any later episodes.

By the way, did you know that I just saw Geraint Wyn Davies (Henry Breedlove from Season Two) play Richard III this past Thursday? That’s hot.

The fourth episode of Season Three of Slings & Arrows airs on Sundance tonight at 8pm. It will also be repeated throughout the week.

Use the comments section of this post to discuss the episode. Any comments I may have will be posted in the comments section as well.

You can view the archives to discuss past episodes and seasons. Future episodes for Season 3 will be posted as they air on Sundance.

WARNING: Comments may contain further discussion of the show, including potential spoilers. Click through only after viewing the episode. Commenters may discuss this episode as freely as they like, though Canadian readers are asked not to post spoilers for any later episodes.

By the way, did you know that the show is co-created and co-written by Susan Coyne (Anna), Mark McKinney (Richard), and Bob Martin (Terry from Accounting in Season One)? That’s hot.