John Nash wins Abel Prize from the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters

John Nash

Princeton University mathematician, John Nash, has won one of the highest honors in the field, an Abel Prize from the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Nash will share the prize with colleague Louis Nirenberg. The academy stated, “Their impact can be felt in all branches of the theory…[T]he widespread impact of both Nash and Nirenberg on the modern toolbox of nonlinear partial differential equations cannot be fully covered here.”

Read more about Nash’s work and the award, which includes an $800,000 prize, here.

Davidson student hangs onto 97 percent March Madness ranking

Are you still mourning the loss of your perfect bracket after the multiple upsets this March Madness season? Even before the Villanova and NC State match up on Saturday, 99.3 percent of brackets were busted. As experts deem a perfect March Madness bracket impossible, having a nearly perfect bracket is something to brag about. Today, we hear from David College student Nathan Argueta, who argues that knowing a thing or two about math can help with March Madness strategy.


March Mathness: Calculating the Best Bracket

First and foremost… I am far from a Math Major and, prior to this class, the notion that math and sports going hand in hand seemed much more theoretical than based in reality. Now, 48 games later and a 97.2% ranking percentage on ESPN’s Bracket Contest has me thinking otherwise.

In Finite Math, we have explored the realms of creating rankings for teams based on multiple factors (win percentage, quality wins, etc.). Personally, I also take into account teams’ prior experience in the NCAA Tournament. Coaches with experience in the Sweet 16, Final Four, and Championship Game (like Rick Pitino out of Louisville) also factored into my decisions when deciding close games. Rick Pitino has made the Sweet Sixteen for each of the past four years. With a roster whose minutes are primarily distributed amongst second and third year players (players who have had success in the NCAA tournament in the past couple of years) I found it difficult to picture Louisville losing to either UCI, UNI, or even the upcoming battle against upstart NC State (who have successfully busted the majority of brackets in our class’s circuit by topping off Villanova).

In theory, the quest to picking the best bracket on ESPN begins and ends with establishing rankings for each team in the contest. Sure there are four of each seeding (1’s, 2’s, etc.), yet these rankings are very discombobulating when attempting to decide which team will win between a 5th seed and a 12th seed or a 4th seed and a 13th seed. One particular matchup that I found extremely interesting was the one between 13th seeded Harvard and 4th seeded UNC. Gut reaction call—pick UNC. UNC boasts a higher ranking and has ritual success in the postseason. But hold on—Harvard had a terrific record this year (much better than UNC’s, albeit in an easier conference). The difficult thing about comparing Harvard and UNC, however, became this establishment of difficulty of schedule. I nearly chose Harvard, were it not for the fact that Harvard got beaten by about 40 points against UVA while UNC put up more of a fight and only lost by 10 points.

In order to pick the perfect bracket (which mind you, will never happen), categorizing and ranking teams based on their wins against common opponents with prior sports knowledge is imperative. My school pride got the better of me when I chose Davidson to advance out of the Round of 64 against Iowa simply because I disregarded factors like momentum, size, and location. Looking back, it is no wonder that Davidson lost by over 30 points in what many pundits were looking to be a potential upset match. While mathematically our team’s chances could have more than competed against Iowa, in reality our season was spiraling downwards out of control since the second round of the Atlantic 10 Tournament in which we hardly beat out a surprising La Salle team and got annihilated by an injury plagued VCU team that we shut-out just nine days before. Moral of the story… brackets will be brackets and while math can certainly guide you towards a higher ranking in your class pool, you can kiss perfection good-bye. This is March Madness.

Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani mentions LOST ENLIGHTENMENT before Congress

Last night, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah were honored at a dinner held in the Ben Franklin Room. President Ashraf Ghani addressed the attendants of the dinner and stated, “[I]f there’s one book that you want to read please do read LOST ENLIGHTENMENT. [T]he story that Fred tells is not the story of the past. Its good news is that it’s the story of the future.” Read the transcript of the event, here.

LOST ENLIGHTENMENT is available in hardcover and will be released in paperback this June. Read the first chapter of this must-read for free, here.



Lost Enlightenment:
Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane

S. Frederick Starr


Books released during the week of March 16, 2015

k10451[1]The Enlightenment: History of an Idea
Updated edition
Vincenzo Ferrone
With a new afterword by the author
Translated by Elisabetta Tarantino
“Ferrone’s compelling and courageous effort to disentangle the conceptions of the Enlightenment advanced by historians and philosophers since the eighteenth century results in a volume indispensable to historians and philosophers alike-and especially all those interested in how the late Enlightenment’s ‘laboratory of modernity’ gave rise to and continues to shape our understanding of humanism today.”-Ryan Patrick Hanley, author of Adam Smith and the Character of Virtue

k10415[1]How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction
Beth Shapiro

“[Shapiro] goes to great lengths to demystify the art and science of cloning.” –Kirkus Reviews

k10530[1]Mathematical Methods in Elasticity Imaging
Habib Ammari, Elie Bretin, Josselin Garnier, Hyeonbae Kang, Hyundae Lee & Abdul Wahab
“This book covers recent mathematical, numerical, and statistical approaches for elasticity imaging of inclusions and cracks. A precise and timely book, it is easy to follow and will interest readers.” – Yanyan Li, Rutgers University


Books released during the week of March 23, 2015

k10470[1] Britain’s Hoverflies: A Field Guide
Revised and Updated Second edition
Stuart Ball & Roger Morris
Praise for the previous edition: “[W]onderfully informative….[T]he book is billed on the front cover as An introduction to the Hoverflies of Britain.But it’s rather better than a simple introduction-in fact it is quite complete, covering each of the 70 genera to occur in Britain and 165 of the commoner species that one is likely to find within our shores, giving the prospective reader more than enough material to go and thus proving quite brilliant for the mere mortals of hoverfly identification such as me….This particular group of insects has been crying out for a modern and comprehensive field guide of high quality for years, and finally it is here. Go and buy it-it’s essential!”-Josh Jones, BirdGuides

k10366[1]The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 14: The Berlin Years: Writing & Correspondence, April 1923-May 1925
Documentary edition
Albert Einstein
Edited by Diana Kormos Buchwald, József Illy, Ze’ev Rosenkranz, Tilman Sauer & Osik Moses
The more than one thousand letters and several dozen writings included in this volume cover the years immediately before the final formulation of new quantum mechanics. The discovery of the Compton effect in 1923 vindicates Einstein’s light quantum hypothesis. Niels Bohr still criticizes Einstein’s conception of light quanta and advances an alternative theory, but Walther Bothe and Hans Geiger perform a difficult experiment that decides in favor of Einstein’s theory. At the same time, Satyendranath Bose sends a new quantum theoretical derivation of Planck’s law to Einstein and he discovers what is now known as Bose-Einstein condensation. Einstein attempts to reformulate a unified theory of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

k10441[1]Efficiently Inefficient: How Smart Money Invests and Market Prices are Determined
Lasse Heje Pedersen
“This valuable and intriguing book provides a contemporary survey of investments across a wide spectrum of assets classes and strategies. Combining a wonderful narrative with a rigorous analytical structure, Efficiently Inefficient serves the needs of students, serious investors, and professionals. It is an important contribution to the investment literature.” -Gary P. Brinson, CFA, GP Brinson Investments

k10430[1]Skies of Parchment, Seas of Ink:
Jewish Illuminated Manuscripts

Edited by Marc Michael Epstein
With contributions by Eva Frojmovic, Jenna Siman Jacobs, Hartley Lachter, Shalom Sabar, Raymond P. Scheindlin, Ágnes Vető, Susan Vick, Barbara Wolff & Diane Wolfthal
“There is simply no other book like this. Enlightening, accessible, and superbly written in a clear and jargon-free style, it makes a much-needed contribution to our knowledge of Jewish visual and literary cultures. It will no doubt be a coveted volume.” -Maya Balakirsky Katz, Touro College

Michael Lewis reads “Fortune Tellers” by Walter Friedman

Michael Lewis, author of The Blind Side & Flash Boys, was recently interviewed by The Boston Globe. To prepare for an upcoming TV pilot, Lewis read Fortune Tellers by Walter Friedman. Lewis said, “I read a book in a day on Saturday, which I haven’t done in ages – ‘Fortune Tellers’ by Walter Friedman…It’s a history of early 20th-century economic and stock market forecasting.” Read the rest of Michael Lewis’ interview, here. Be sure to check out the introduction to Fortune Tellers for free, here.



Fortune Tellers:
The Story of America’s First Economic Forecasters
Walter A. Friedman

Sunny, Spring Book List

The Bee
Say goodbye to cold, dreary winter and hello to spring. Welcome the season by checking out Princeton University Press’s selection of natural history books. Wondering what bird you hear chirping? Download BirdGenie Backyard Birds East and West and find out. Some choices to get you out of the house and into nature:


The Bee:
A Natural History

Noah Wilson-Rich
With contributions from Kelly Allin, Norman Carreck & Andrea Quigley
“The natural history of solitary, bumble, honey and stingless bees is as gripping as our lengthy alliance, as urban beekeeper Noah Wilson-Rich and contributors show in this charming compilation. They cover evolution, biology (including a unique proboscis made of two organs), behaviours (such as honey bee ‘quacking’), the causes of catastrophic die-offs, and more.”–Barbara Kiser, Nature



Birds of Australia:
A Photographic Guide

Iain Campbell, Sam Woods & Nick Leseberg
With photography by Geoff Jones
“Written primarily for the visiting birder, reading a copy of this book will fire up anyone’s desire to get out into the field to see more of our fabulous birds.”–Sean Dooley, Australian Bird Life


bookjacket Britain’s Butterflies:
A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Ireland

Fully Revised and Updated Third edition
David Newland, Robert Still, Andy Swash & David Tomlinson
“The images in this pocket-sized photo-guide are excellent and include pictures of eggs, chrysalids and caterpillars of all breeding species. Comparing very similar species can be difficult, but computer mock-ups helpful place specimen in situ. Clear text and page design make the book easy and fun to use.”BBC Wildlife magazine


bookjacket Britain’s Hoverflies:
A Field Guide

Revised and Updated Second edition
Stuart Ball & Roger Morris
Praise for the previous edition: “The latest field guild from the excellent Wildguides. . . . Beautifully and clearly laid out.”–Charlie Moores, Talking Naturally


Q&A with Ian Morris, author of Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve

Princeton University Press recently had the opportunity to talk with Ian Morris about his new book, Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve.

Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels

In your book you look at the evolution of human values over tens of thousands of years. Can you briefly say why and how values change? Isn’t morality universal and unchanging?

The answer to the last part of this question is easy: yes and no. I say yes because in one sense, morality certainly is universal and unchanging. Our human values are the outcome of millions of years of evolution. Animals that were born with genes that predisposed them to value fairness, love, honor, decency, and a host of related virtues tended to flourish, while animals that did not value fairness, etc., tended not to flourish. As a result, a disposition toward these prosocial attitudes spread through the gene pool, and almost all humans share these same core values. The reason I also say no, though, is because the ways people have interpreted fairness, etc., have varied wildly through time. Few historians dispute this; but fewer still have seen that what causes values to change is not the deep thoughts of philosophers but the most basic force of all–energy. As humanity has moved from foraging through farming to fossil-fuel use, we have found that different levels of energy capture call for different kinds of social organization, and that these different kinds of organization favor very different interpretations of human values. To foragers, fairness often means that everyone should receive equal shares of food, respect, and other good things, but to people in farming society, fairness often means that people should receive very different shares, because they are felt to deserve different shares. Men deserve more than women, the rich deserve more than the poor, the free deserve more than the enslaved, and so on through too many categories to count. Foragers and farmers feel the ways they do not because the former are all saints and the latter all sinners, but because it would be almost impossible to run a foraging society like a feudal monarchy and almost impossible to run a farming society as a band of equals. Foragers who lean toward equality and farmers who lean toward hierarchy itend to outperform and replace foragers and farmers who do not. In our own age of fossil fuels, values have continued to mutate. We tend to believe that fairness means that everyone should receive somewhat equal–but not too equal–shares of food, respect, and other good things. Anthropologists who spend time in foraging or farming societies often feel as if they have stepped into alien worlds, where values are upside-down; and people from most periods in the past would have felt exactly the same way about us.

In our current Fossil Fuel age of values, you argue that violence and inequality have diminished greatly from past periods. That seems very counter-intuitive. Can you elaborate?

A lot of people today are nostalgic for a simpler, vanished, preindustrial world, and there are ways in which they are right to be so; but not if they value peace, prosperity, or (on the whole) equality. Across the last fifty years, social scientists have accumulated data that allow us to measure wealth, inequality, and rates of violence in the past. The results are surprising–so much so that they can seem, as you suggest, counterintuitive. Foraging societies tended to be quite equal in wealth, if only because almost everyone was desperately poor (by one calculation, the average income was the equivalent of about $1.10 per day). They also tended to be very violent (by many calculations, more than 10 percent of foragers died violently). Farming societies tended to be less violent than foraging societies (5 percent rates of violent death were probably not uncommon) and not quite so poor (average incomes above $2.00 per day were common); but they were also massively unequal, regularly having tiny elites that owned thousands of times more than the ordinary peasant Fossil fuel societies, by contrast, are the safest and richest the world has ever seen, and are also more equal than all but the simplest foraging groups. Globally, the average person earns $25 per day and stands a 0.7 percent chance of dying violently, and in some countries progressive taxation has pushed income inequality down close to levels not seen since the simplest foraging societies (even if it is now again on the rise). In every era before AD 1800, life expectancy at birth averaged less than 25 years; now it is 63 years. Despite all the things we might not like about our own age, it would have seemed like a magical kingdom to people in the past.

What are some of the ways our values might change as we move away from a reliance on fossil fuels?

No one knows what the future will bring, but there are plenty of signs that we are rapidly moving beyond fossil fuels. I argue in this book that changes in the amount of energy humans harvest from the world pushes them into new kinds of organizations which in turn favor different interpretations of core human values; if this is right, we might expect the 21st century to see the biggest and profoundest transformation in values in history. The industrial revolution released a flood of energy in the 19th and 20th centuries, which favored societies that evolved toward democracy, rule of law, peace, freedom, and gender equality; the big question is whether the 21st century will see these trends going even further, or whether it will see them going into reverse. The answer, I suggest, is that it all depends. There are signs that in the short term–roughly the next generation–we will see increasing inequality and increasing acceptance that such inequality is right, along with increasing instability and violence. In the medium term–the next two or three generations–we may see the values of the fossil-fuel age go into overdrive; but in the longer term–say the next century or so–the transformations may become so massive that it no longer makes much sense to speak of human values at all, because what it means to be a human being might change more in the next 100 years than it has done in the previous 100,000.

bookjacket Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels:
How Human Values Evolve

Updated edition
Ian Morris


Cinderella stories? A College of Charleston student examines March Madness upsets through math

Drew Passarello, a student at the College of Charleston, takes a closer look at how math relates to upsets and predictability in March Madness.


The Madness is coming. In a way, it is here! With the first round of the March Madness tournament announced, the craziness of filling out the tournament brackets is upon us! Can math help us get a better handle on where we might see upsets in March Madness? In this post, I will detail how math helps us get a handle on what level of madness we expect in the tournament. Said another way, how many upsets do we expect? Will there be a lot? We call that a bad year as that leads to brackets having lower accuracy in their predictions. By the end of the article, you will see how math can earmark teams that might be on the cusp of upsets in the games that will capture national attention.

Where am I learning this math? I am taking a sports analytics class at the College of Charleston under the supervision of Dr. Tim Chartier and Dr. Amy Langville. Part of our work has been researching new results and insights in bracketology. My research uses the Massey and Colley ranking methods. Part of my research deals with the following question: What are good years and bad years in terms of March Madness? In other words, before the tournament begins, what can we infer about how predictable the tournament will be?

One way of answering this question is to see how accurate one is at predicting the winners of the tournaments coupled with how high one’s ESPN score is. However, I also wanted to account for the variability of the level of competition going into the tournament, which is why I also looked at the standard deviation of the ratings of those in March Madness. A higher standard deviation implies the more spread out the playing level is. Ultimately, a good year will have a high tournament accuracy, high ESPN score, and a high standard deviation of ratings for those competing in March Madness. Similarly, a bad year will have low tournament accuracy, low ESPN score, and a low standard deviation of the ratings. This assessment will be relative to the ranking method itself and only defines good years and bad years solely in terms of past March Madness data.

I focused on ratings from uniformly weighted Massey and Colley ranking methods as the weighting might add some bias. However, my simple assessment can be applied for other variations of weighting Massey and Colley. I found the mean accuracy, mean ESPN score, and mean standard deviation of ratings of the teams in March Madness for years 2001 – 2014, and I then looked at the years which rested below or above these corresponding means. Years overlapping were those deemed to be good or bad, and the remaining years were labeled neutral. The good years for Massey were 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2009, and the bad years were 2006, 2010 – 2014. Neutral years were 2002, 2003, and 2007. Also, for Colley, the good years were 2005, 2007 – 2009; bad years were 2001, 2006, and 2010 – 2014; neutral years were 2002 – 2004. A very interesting trend I noticed from both Massey and Colley was that the standard deviation of the ratings of those in March Madness from 2010 to 2014 were significantly lower than the years before. This leads me to believe that basketball has recently become more competitive in terms of March Madness, which would also partially explain why 2010 – 2014 were bad years for both methods. However, this does not necessarily imply 2015 will be a bad year.

In order to get a feel for how accurate the ranking methods will be for this year, I created a regression line based on years 2001 – 2014 that had tournament accuracy as the dependent variable and standard deviation of the ratings of those in March Madness as the independent variable. Massey is predicted to have 65.81% accuracy for predicting winners this year whereas Colley is predicted to have 64.19%accuracy. The standard deviation of the ratings for those expected to be in the tournament was 8.0451 for Massey and 0.1528 for Colley, and these mostly resemble the standard deviation of the ratings of the March Madness teams in 2002 and 2007.

After this assessment, I wanted to figure out what defines an upset relative to the ratings. To answer this, I looked at season data and focused on uniform Massey. Specifically for this year, I used the first half of the season ratings to predict the first week of the second half of the season and then updated the ratings. After this, I would use these to predict the next week and update the ratings again and so on until now. For games incorrectly predicted, the median in the difference of ratings was 2.2727, and the mean was 3.0284. I defined an upset for this year to be those games in which the absolute difference in the ratings is greater than or equal to three. This definition of an upset is relative to this particular year. I then kept track of the upsets for those teams expected to be in the tournament. I looked at the number of upsets each team had and the number of times each team gets upset, along with the score differential and rating differences for these games. From comparing these trends, I determined the following teams to be upset teams to look for in the tournament: Indiana, NC State, Notre Dame, and Georgetown. These teams had a higher ratio of upsets over getting upset when compared to the other teams. Also, these teams had games in which the score differences and rating differences were larger than those from the other teams in March Madness.

I am still working on ways to weight these upset games from the second half of the season, and one of the approaches relies on the score differential of the game. Essentially, teams who upset teams by a lot of points should benefit more in the ratings. Similarly, teams who get upset by a lot of points should be penalized more in the ratings. For a fun and easy bracket, I am going to weight upset games heavily on the week before conference tournament play and a week into conference tournament play. These two weeks gave the best correlation coefficient in terms of accuracy from these weeks and the accuracy from March Madness for both uniform Massey and Colley. Let the madness begin!


Christopher Bail talks to Salon about “Terrified”

Christopher Bail, author of Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, recently spoke with Paul Rosenberg for a feature in Salon on how anti-Muslim sentiment is fostered by the broader cultural landscape, and the innovative new methodology he has used to study that process. Paul Rosenberg at Salon writes:

It may be hard to fathom or remember, but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the American public responded with an increased level of acceptance and support for Muslims. President Bush—who had successfully courted the Muslim vote in 2000—went out of his way to praise American Muslims on numerous occasions in 2001 and 2002. However, the seeds were already being planted that would change that drastically over time.  Within a few short years, a small handful of fringe anti-Muslim organizations—almost entirely devoid of any real knowledge or expertise, some drawing on age-old ethno-religious conflicts—managed to hijack the public discourse about Islam, first by stoking fears, grabbing attention with their emotional messaging, then by consolidating their newfound social capital, forging ties with established elite organizations, and ultimately building their own organizational and media infrastructure.

How this all happened is the subject of a fascinating new book, “Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream,” by sociologist Christopher Bail, of the University of North Carolina.  The book not only lays bare the behind-the-scenes story of a momentous shift in public opinion, it employs cutting-edge computer analysis techniques applied to large archives of data to develop a new theoretical outlook, capable of making sense of the whole field of competing organizations struggling to shape public opinion, not just studying one or two the most successful ones. The result is not only a detailed account of a specific, significant, and also very pernicious example of cultural evolution, but also a case study in how to more rigorously study cultural evolution more generally in the future. In the process, it sheds considerable light on the struggles involved, and the difficulties faced by those trying to fight back against this rising tide of misdirected fear, anger and hatred.

Read the full interview with Christopher Bail that follows here.

Terrified, by Christopher Bail

Emilie M. Hafner-Burton – Making Human Rights a Reality, Winner of the 2015 ISA Annual Best Book Award

Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, author of Making Human Rights a Reality, is a winner of the 2015 ISA Annual Best Book Award. The award was presented at the International Studies Association’s annual meeting in February in New Orleans.

The ISA shared the award committee comments with us. “Global concern for human rights has grown since the end of World War II and the Holocaust, and remains high in the aftermath of genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and newly emergent crises in South Sudan and elsewhere. Numerous treaties and agreements have been enacted to protect and define human rights, forming a prominent feature of contemporary international law. And yet the incidence of violations of human rights seems only to increase. In this groundbreaking book, Professor Hafner-Burton takes up the challenge of understanding what has gone wrong with the enforcement of human rights and what we can do about it. After a survey of human rights abuses and treaties, she proposes a ‘stewardship strategy’ and outlines a series of changes to the human rights regime to improve their overall efficacy. She argues for a serious commitment to the enforcement of human rights combined with a recognition that the resources that can be committed are limited and must be deployed where they are likely to be most effective. Applying insights from the enforcement of criminal law, Hafner-Burton looks at strategies that are more likely to produce the desired results, and proposes new policies that will change the incentives of people who would violate human rights, and for the policy makers, lawyers, and activists who seek to contain and stop them. Ambitious, thought-provoking, comprehensive, and controversial, Making Human Rights a Reality is an important contribution to international law and human rights, and international relations theory.”

Congratulations to Emilie M. Hafner-Burton! Read the first chapter of Making Human Rights a Reality for free, here.



Making Human Rights a Reality
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton

May the odds be in your favor — March Mathness begins

Let the games begin! After the excitement of Selection Sunday, brackets are ready for “the picking.” Have you started making your picks?

Check out the full schedule of teams selected yesterday, and join the fun by submitting a bracket to the official Princeton University Press March Madness tournament pool.

Before you do, we recommend that you brush up on your bracketology by checking out PUP author Tim Chartier’s strategy:



For more on the math behind the madness, head over to Dr. Chartier’s March Mathness video page. Learn three popular sport ranking methods and how to create March Madness brackets with them. Let math make the picks!

Be sure to follow along with our March Mathness coverage on our blog, and comment below with your favorite strategy for making March Madness picks.

Win an Autographed Copy of Story/Time by Bill T. Jones

Coinciding with the 20th season of Dancing with the Stars, premiering tonight, we are giving away three autographed copies of dancer, choreographer, and director Bill T. Jones’s Story/Time.

How to win? There are three ways to enter: visit Story/Time’s Facebook page; email us at; or follow @PrincetonUPress on Twitter. Just follow the steps in the Rafflecopter box below. The winner will be selected on or around March 23, 2015.

a Rafflecopter giveaway

[Update: This giveaway has ended and the winner has been notified]


The Life of an Idea
Bill T. Jones