It is sometimes said that the past is uncertain. Here’s a classic example. Louisa Lim, a correspondent for US National Public Radio in Beijing, showed 100 Chinese students the image above in 2013. Only 15 of the 100 students could identify it correctly.

Psycho what? Psychological neotency is a theory developed by Professor Bruce Charlton at the University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne (UK) that says that the increased level of immaturity among adults is an evolutionary response to increased change and uncertainty. This initially sounds like a ridiculous suggestion, but it does make a certain amount of sense if you stop to consider the argument. Humanity has long held youth in high esteem, originally because it was a sign of fertility and health, which were important prerequisites for hunting and reproduction. In ‘fixed’ environments, psychological maturity was useful because it indicated experience and wisdom.

However, sometime in the latter part of the past century, child-like youthfulness started to have a new function which was to remain adaptive to a changing environment. In other words, if jobs, skills, and technology are all in a state of flux it is important to remain open-minded about learning new skills – and the best way to do this is to retain a child-like state of receptivity and cognitive flexibility.

Previously the phenomenon of adults behaving like children has been seen as a negative trend, but it may not be such a bad thing after all. For example, retaining the adolescent attitudes and behaviour of youth (for example, short attention spans or novelty seeking) could be seen as essential prerequisites for innovators. Equally, there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that the most creative thinkers in modern society are ‘immature’ compared to historical precedents.

Of course this theory also justifies lying around doing nothing, so perhaps more research is required. The only problem is who should do it – immature professors or immature students?

Or, perhaps, dream drunk, implement sober.

Just been playing around with a scenario matrix for the future of 3D printing. The vertical axis seems obvious – whether control remains closed or opens up (i.e. is the copyright of designs vigorously defended or opened up). The horizontal axis is much less clear and currently seems to close to the vertical (you could argue that both are identical, which is useless). Anyway, it’s a start.

Just finishing off something on 3D printing (bigger than the internet or just a load of plastic junk?) and thought I’d share this with you. As you can see, consumer 3D printing is at the top of the hype cycle and about to plunge into the trough of disillusionment. Not sure if Gartner have done a 2014 update yet, but it doesn’t appear so.

A report called ‘It’s a Man’s (Celluloid) World’, looking at the 100 biggest grossing US movies of 2013, found that men played around 70% of onscreen speaking roles, 71% of major characters were men and 85% of characters deriving the plot were male.

A copy of the report can be found here.

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” – Winston Churchill

You did not exist for 99.999999997 per cent of the Earth’s history. Now, what are you doing that’s so important again?