♪ >> welcome to live compare us. annette: it is 1:00 p.m. in the french capital so let's look at headlines. good -- syria taken on by a thread after the convoy is targeted by airstrikes, leaving at least 12 people dead. the you and says it will suspend further eight. suspendn. says it will further aid. an afghan born american has been charged with attempted murder in
connection with the bombings in new york and new jersey. -- read leave 50 people debiting opposition and police. least two people were dead and four others wounded after the main opposition party was torched. ♪ to our top story, the u.s. government has expressed outrage over an attack on an aid convoy did the syrian city of aleppo that reportedly left 12 people dead. was hit but ant activist says in hit hours after they declared that the
russian-u.s. broker truth was over. as a result, the u.n. will now suspend future aid convoys. this as washington says they will also reassess the future product dress -- the future process. what remains of that aid convoy attacked by warplanes on monday near aleppo. it contained lead, winter close and medical supplies for a thousand people, destroyed. they were in route to deliver resistant -- humanitarian assistance. several people were killed in the attacks, including a senior official of the syrian-arabic press and. >> for tragedies and devastating . he succumbed to his injuries and died. occurred hours after the syrian army declared the u.s.-russian broker truth. hadrding to the u.n., they
received the proper permits and all parties, including russia and the u.s., had been notified. shortly after the deadly air raid, the u.n. announced they will suspend all aids in syria for now. securityimmediate measure, other convoy movements in syria have been suspended for the time being, pending further assessments of the security situation. however, we remain committed to stay and deliver to everybody in need in syria. >> washington expressed outrage over the attack and will reassess the future prospects for cooperation with russia. according to the syrian observatory for human rights, a u k-based monitoring group, the strikes were carried out by syrian aggression or crafts. moscow has not denied the accusation but did renounce --
announced they are investigating the case. joining the -- annette: joining me in the studio, the former chief of u.n. general, thank you. this truce is clearly hanging on by a thread. do you think it can survive? truce is difficult to survive. it survived roughly one week with different incidents and the aim on the truce is to first go aid to provide humanitarian and you have seen on the screen to humanitarian aid has been threatened. the problem of this truce is that the truce was made interestingly enough between the u.s. and russia. the syrians were not involved, they were just committed by the u.s. and russian, so it is very difficult to know where the coordination is going and where you are sure that the truce will
be a success, so it will be morecult to have this tomorrow than yesterday. annette: tell me about this, it erodes trust on both sides. >> yes, but there is no trust on both sides, so the aim of the truce is to provide trust, so you need to improve the coordination when you say they will not be bombed by anyone, so really, i think the problem is more a problem of tactical coordination in order to provide a wider trust that the strategic level. annette: what do think happened in terms of this instance? was it breakdown into medication and the right people not getting the right information? >> as you said, nobody trust there wereuse several incidents and suddenly, the russians and syrians say that is the end of the truce,
and probably, the coordination was badly established at that time and that is probably why the talks were bombed -- the trucks were bombed because one party said there was no longer could truce and the other said they truce was surviving. annette: are we back at square one? >> it will really depend on what is the aim of the russian and americans? it is interesting to see the russians have succeeded in one thing and it is that they are back at the strategic table and able to discuss directly with the u.s., which is not the case a few years ago, so they succeed on that. position, there must be built confidence between to pair thetry people on the ground that the syrians in order to obey what they are saying. annette: this is on the back drop of the u.n. general
assembly later today in new york. how effective can get u.n. be in terms of restocking the whole process in getting this truce up and running? >> what is very amazing in new york during this week is that everybody is meeting, so when you went to have a meeting, it cannot -- you do not have to call people around the world. they are in new york and at the table that 3:00 in the morning or 10:00 in the afternoon, and to establishable something around the table, so i think that is where the u.n. place the major wall. during two weeks, everybody is in new york and able to talk to each other. annette: and that personal interaction makes a difference. people normally who communicate by diplomat or telecommunication and to actually be there in the room -- onlyactly and not
diplomats but head of states. all are there or ministers, so they are able to discuss together and at the right level. the actual terms of situation on the ground with the syrian government, clearly, it is going to be very difficult to resume aid convoys without getting some sort of agreement that they are not going to be targeted, especially by the syrian government. how hard is that, to actually get that confirmation from damascus that we will not and we will be abiding and not targeting the convoy? >> i think damascus once to establish it is the real government in syria, so when you have agreements, you need to go through damascus and the syrian government, which means that the position is difficult and for the americans, it is difficult. they must realize that you need to discuss with that government,
and when you recognize that, i guess the syrian will have to play the game. aleppo is a bit difficult because everybody is talking doing one third of aleppo if your position and no one is talking about the two thirds, which has been under the government of syria and has no problem, so we must take into perspective that there is not only position in syria, but you have people supporting the government, only because they are usually the minority and they do not want to get a talk by islamists, so this is a reality also. i think damascus at this stage is still having a presence in syria and you need to discuss with those governments. annette: we will have to leave it there. thank you so much. as we were talking about the
other war in syria, u.n. general assembly is today, 135 governments are meeting at the global body headquarters in new york. the latest developments in syria clearly placing an importance while the national support group, which surprises -- which involves some 20 countries, and the meeting will be led by john kerry and russian leaders. for more on that meeting and the general assembly, let's go to our international colleague covering. the bombing of that aid convoy is going to loom large over the staff of this assembly when it says this afternoon, isn't it? >> yes, absolutely. thatkesperson told me there was outrage at the u.n. at
the attack on that humanitarian aid convoy. he said, this is a blatant violation of international law, but he stopped short of blaming anybody and we tried to press the french foreign minister under was to blame and he also stopped laming anyone. he would not say that on this specific incident that it was the syrians or the russians, so that really sets the tone today. we can expect western diplomats to stay away from explicitly blaming anybody. why? because they need to try to andscitate this cease-fire, that means working with the russians and getting them on board. that is an important bilateral meeting before that meeting of the international and syrian support group. annette: what else is set to dominate at this year's assembly? >> today, refugees will be a big
theme. this was already mentioned yesterday. the u.n. members called something of the new york declaration, which fell far short of human rights organizations and they criticized them for not doing enough to protect the rights of refugees and migrants, so, perhaps, a somewhat lowered expectations going into the second day of that discussion with this meeting on refugees, hosted by u.s. president barack obama, certainly ngos that have spoken and not expecting a huge amount to come out of that particular discussion. annette: reporting from new york, thank you. america, one of the country's most wanted man was found asleep in the doorway of the new jersey bar. , an afghanrahami born american, has been charged
with attempted murder after being shot and captured in connection with both bombings in new york and new jersey after the weekend. the attacks hundred 29 people in manhattan and caused the cancellation of the u.s. marine corps charity race in new jersey. catherine has more. catherine: a community in shock after one of its own is arrested after a gun battle with police. 28-year-old ahmad khan rahami, d to his friends, was arrested for the bombings in new york and new jersey. he came to the u.s. as a child with his family. he worked at his family's american fried chicken in new jersey. neighbors say he was a friendly guy, obsessed with cars. >> he would hours talk about his cars. that is what he did. recent years, they
say they noticed a change after he returned from troops from afghanistan and pakistan. -- from trips from afghanistan and pakistan. >> he never gave attitude or anything. he got more malicious. that is the only -- he got more religious, that is the only change i had seen. catherine: he grew a beard and more traditional robes. he was known to law enforcement and was arrested two years ago after allegedly stabbing someone in the leg during a domestic incident, and his family has been in litigation with the city of elizabeth over noise complaints at the restaurant. the family said they had been singled out because of their religions. on in theoving democratic republic of the congo, at least 50 people have now been killed in the violent
clashes between opposition supporters and police. the government has confirmed 17 deaths, including three policemen. this has a protest against the president to extend the picture. his office legally ends in december. a correspondent on the ground says at least two people are dead and four others wounded after headquarters for the main opposition party torched. business news now, and named joint now by david and carol. in the u.s., federal authorities have issued their first guidelines for self driving cars. david: federal regulators say their roads will be safer when driven by machines or not people. authorities are officially endorsing the fast evolving technology. it is governed by rules decided at state level and the official regulations for the sector but
they will help in developing the systems. regulating the car of the future, u.s. authorities have promised strong safety oversight process driving vehicles, saying they should comply with nationwide guidelines. touber is the first testdrive of this cause, president barack obama expressed support for the new technology in a local newspaper. automated vehicles have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives each year, but we have to get it right. americans deserve to know they will be safe, even though we deploy and develop the technologies of tomorrow. automated vehicles face the patrick of regulations in the u.s. and new safety standards will apply to self driving cars, as well as advanced driver systems like those developed by tesla. the safety assessment was put forth and covers a range of issues, including not the
vehicle responds to surroundings and how cars react if the technology fails. technology companies and carmakers, including google, tesla, forward and uber, have begun testing the own self driving cars, raising concerns about the safety of the new technology. a man was killed in may, when his tesla in autopilot mode, crashed after it failed to detect a truck. and lastly, chinese authorities of thed the crash driverless system. most hope to launch the fully automated vehicles by 2020. david: we are not expecting the u.s. federal reserve to raise interest rates, but there is always the chance that janet yellen will surprise us. they have repeatedly signaled that plans to raise interest rates this year, but weaker economic data in recent weeks has reduced expectations that
the meeting will be the one to see that decision made. we also have the bank of japan for theto be considered two-day meeting in tokyo. ofres are trading ahead those meetings in europe and pretty much treading water at this midpoint in the trading day. some gains across london, frankfurt and paris. over 2% after they announced an independent review of their working practice since the company has been under pressure from union and mp about how the company has been run. strike in canada's motor industry. the auto workers reached a deal at general motors over new contact -- contracts. [indiscernible] also, they will give a rises to some workers. two of china's biggest dealer
makers plan to merge in an effort to cut in the industry. the second-largest producer will take on the iron and steel groups and the merger comes at the need to speed up measures in certain industries. regulators in the united states confirmed more than $9 million for getting too close to the clients. they saw that they had inappropriate connections to the firms they were working with, including one that was in a romantic relationship with the head of accounts. it met with -- they claim the misrepresented the independence of the audit. finally, to follow up on the iphone 7, the technology giant has been granted a patent further shopping bag that contains 60% recycled material and it is made out of paper fibers to be more flexible. it is part of an effort to be
environmentally friendly. i am sure people be rushing out to get those alex. annette: i am sure there will be a line around the block. that wraps up the business news today and it is time for the press review. time to take a look at what is making headlines around the world. i am joined in the studio by flow militant. -- i am joined now. after a shootout on the streets of new jersey, the suspect was found in the doorway of a bar, a slave. >> incredible details coming in from the arrest and this is the top story in the u.s., on the front page of a lot of papers. you can see the suspect there on the ground and authorities found him sleeping in the doorway and then there was this shootout,
which ended a dramatic manhunt and it is getting attention outside the u.s. in several parts of the world. this is the front page of the he has been identified as 28-year-old, born in afghanistan, naturalized u.s. citizen, and now papers are combing through his past, trying to figure out when he became radicalized and who you might be leaned too. annette: the weekend attacks coming as the presidential campaign is in full swing, and both hillary clinton and donald trump are quick to respond. no surprise. were both trying to seize the political upper hand, and this while the suspect had not even been arrested get. you can read the details of that in the new york times, and clinton called trump the recruiting sergeant for terrorists and offered herself as a seasoned warrior against terrorism. trump called for the use of
racial profiling of people essentially from the muslim domesticcombat terrorism. he said that law enforcement in the united states was too afraid of political correctness, controversial remarks, and who came across as most presidential? depends on who you ask. liberal papers say hillary clinton did and that is what you can read and editorial of "the washington post" today. clinton acted like a leader, trump did not. this editorial is critical of .rump for not being cautious before we really knew what was going on, he proclaimed a bomb had gone off. "the washington post" said he might have been right in his guest but that was a reckless way to do business. if he does make it to the oval office, indeed. factsn wanted to know the and was more calm and cautious, something that according to "the washington post," we should expect from a leader. annette: moving on, a lot of media attention on the u.n.
general meeting. >> let's start with this cartoon, it is a panera-based paper in london and you can see the u.n. getting ready for this general assembly and you can see the records. seems like the message we here in sunny 16 is similar to the one in 2014 and 2015. essentially, the same message that puts united nation to sleep. the french president will give a speech later today that is getting a lot of attention. it seems like they get a little bit ahead of themselves and they say this of be the last time be orresses the united nations at least the last time for this residency. there has been a goodbye tour hollandef, but ulo -- has not said whether or not he will run for reelection, so he could give another speech at the united nations.
this is part of his unofficial campaign, and he would take advantage of this opportunity to assess his international track record, so you can see that the headline says his diplomatic legacy will be on display new york. annette: staying with french politics, the public party here in france will hold their primary in november. i have to say that they changed the name, which sounds like the american republic and now, the ondidates will debate it national tv, which >> sounds american style. >>french politics are changing in the world of tv, and you can .ead about that debate they will be eight candidates participating in round one of the primary, so it is an organizational nightmare to organize the debate, a logistic headache. you can see this diagram of how they will be positioned on stage.
aming out with that was quite headache. yesterday, representatives from the eight candidates lost themselves at the station, where the base -- right the debate will take place to figure out the whole thing. the two-hour discussion established who was going to speak first and last and this in what ordertant the profiles will appear and how they will be positioned on stage. candidates are going to have 15 minutes each to speak, and they can only speak one minute at a time, so they will have to be and one question that has come up is how much of the debate will it be? annette: absolutely. they are focusing on what will be taking place for the first time in november, a celebration of motherhood. what is that? >> this is a concept we are familiar with in france, part of the national motto.
freedom, equality and brotherhood, and you hear about it all the time, but what is it? this is kind of abstract and can but seen kind of empty, especially in the wake of the recent terror attacks, it is an essential value to france, and when we need to be reminded of, and that is why this celebration will be organized from the second of november 2 the 10th of november and it will be offered citizen events to promote the idea and to fight against fear and promote tolerance. annette: interesting coming on the first anniversary on november 13 last year. >> this story caught my eye and you can read about it in "independent." this is a store on the island nova scotia and it comes at the unique way to reverse population
announcer: this is a production of china central television america. mike: a genius is defined as one who has exceptional intellect or creative power or another natural ability. this week on "full frame," we'll introduce you to some of the world's 21st-century geniuses, from one of the youngest to one of the oldest. one man is being called the next albert einstein, and one was a child prodigigy. they each offer their own unique gift of high intellect. i'm mike walter coming to you from the heart of new york city's times square. let's take it t full frame.
nima arkani-hamed is a 21st-century genius. he is considered one of the top minds at the forefront of theoretical physics. known for being a disruptive force in science over the course of his career, his revolutionary theories about the functioning of the universe openly push boundaries. recently, arkani-hamed agreed to serve as the inaugural director of a controversial proposal to build the world's largest particle accelerator in china. the hope is that this powerful machine will find particles that europe's large hadron collider cannot, propelling science into a new erara of physics research. joining us to talk more about his research, the project, and understanding the universe is nima arkani-hamed. welcome to "full frame." arkani-hamed: wonderful pleasure to be here. mike: so both of your parents, uh, were in this field. uh, what was dinner like as a kid? was it, "pass the potatoes"?
"what do you think about quantum mechanics" or...? arkani-hamed: well, uh, it was-- it was-- of course, wonderful that my-- that my parents were both scientists. i had a--i had a very early interest in, uh, in science, but actually, it was--it was natural history. it was, uh, catctching frogs, a, uh, salamanders and toads and--snakes, and, uh, freaking out my parents by, uh, keeping them in my bedroom and studying their behavior and things--like that. um, i actually like to say that becoming a physicist was my act of teenage rebellion, uh, because my parents didn't want me to be a--to be a--to follow in--in their footsteps, , but... mike: why is that? arkani-hamed: uh, well, i mean, i think just they're-- they were interesteded in--in the variety. um... and--but i think--i realized pretty young that--i, of course, i was--i loved the natural world, um, like almost all kids do. uh, and... i came to--pretty early on to also love mathematics. and, uh,
when i realized that there was-- there was--there was such a thing that you could do with your life that, uh, that use mathematics to understand simple things about the world around you, um, that was absolutely thrilling. and--at around, you know, 13, 14 years old, i decided to be a theoeoretical physicisist. mike: it's interesting. i-- read somewhere that you said, uh, your mission was to understand the universe and, uh, which sounds-- arkani-hamed: i'm not sure i said that. mike: well, ok. well, i'm gonna say you said it. uh... arkani-hamed: sure. sure. mike: you can disagree with me. but--while that sounds simple, it--it's really quite difficult, isn't it? i mean, one could spend their entire life working on that, couldn't they? arkani-hamed: : well, i think, , there are many different aspects to understanding, uh, the universe. scscience is a--is a humungous, enormous field with all sorts of different things going on. uh, the p--the particular part of science that, uh, my-- my colleagues and i focus on-- fundamental physics--is in many w ways, uh, the oldest
and most mature part of science. in a sense, the questions that we are talking about people first started posing, uh, in a somewhat ill-posed way but still first started vaguely talking about was the ancient greeks 2,000 years ago. and then in a more--in a more modern form, people like kepler and galileo and newton, uh... really had this basic realization that-- that physical laws are governed, uh, by, uh... by simple and deep ideas that are best formulated in the language of mathematics. and that sent us down a trajectory that we've been really following for, uh, 4 centuries since. and what we're doing now isn't really qualitatively different than what they were doing, uh, 400 years ago. we're just much further along this, uh, the process. um... so this is a--it's a very small part of science, uh... but it's, of course, for those of us doing it, we t think it's a very singular and very important part of science to try to understand, uh, this basic mathematical character of the laws of nature
at the simplest and deepest possible level. and that's the big surprise. that's--so when you ask, what is it you do when you wake up in the morning and you're trying to understand the laws of nature or understand the universe, um-- the, uh, fascinating thing is that, uh, we--we've understood over this 400-year process that the seeming, uh, dizzying variety and array of different phenomena that we see in the universe around us, uh, turn out to be-- as we study things more and more deeply, uh, differing aspects of--of something that's more unified and, uh, described by, uh, often more alien--and stranger but simple and deep, uh, mathematical equations. and, uh, because of this fact-- because of the fact that things seem to be getting simpler, uh, and deeper as-- as time goes on, um, we have something concrete to do when we wake up in the morning because we can try to latch on to one aspect of the problems, uh, and the mysteries that are confronting us and try to see if we can make some--some
progress on them by monkeying with the rules a little bit. and we are tremendously constrained by the 400 years of success that we've had so far because almost every idea you have for how to change things to deal with some of the current paradoxes or mysteries is going to be wrong. it's going to be wrong because we understand so much about the way that the world works already that if you monkey around with things a little bit, you're almost immediately going to be ruled out by things--just things that we've known for a long time already. mike: well, that's the interesting thing g is, uh, you know, when i do a show, i'm searching for answswers. but--but much of your life is searching for questions and the right questions. isn't it, i-- arkani-hamed: that's absolutely true. i mean, it's the, um--it's the most interesting aspect of the-- of the transition between being an enthusiastic youngster in, uh, in this part of science-- and becoming a professional researcher. um, you spent a lot of your--a lot of your life when you were in high school when you were an undergraduate learning how to solve problems that are well-posed. you solve problems on exams, you solve problems on problem
sets. you sharpen the skill for--for once a problem becomes well-defined, being able to go and solve it. and then-- then y you realize thahat 99.99f life, uh, when you're trying to do research is t to figure out what the correct questions are to ask. and, uh, and everyrythig is, uh, much more chaotic than the sort of cookie-cutter picture of the way, uh, science works that, uh, we, unfortunately, sometimes, uh--teach--or--or tell people. um, the cart comems before the horse all the time. sometimes, you're in the possession of the right answer, uh, to some set of questions before you quite know what the question is, and then the-- and because you have the right answer, you sort of back figure out what the question was that this right answer is answering. very often, especially--in this part of theoretical physics, you're in possession of the correct equations before you know exactly what they mean. and, um... mike: is that maddening? arkani-hamed: well, it's not maddening. it's--this is--this is part of the--o-of the gift f from naturf you like, that--that it seems s to be described by mathehematical law,
is that while human language, um, and our grammar and these things that are hard-wired intoo our brains, uh, aren't perfectly suited to, uh, describing the world and it leads us to paradoxes and confusions. uh... the--equations have this perfection t to them. and they know much more about what's going on, um, in the world than we do. mike: i want you to go back over something you saidid before we-e started the broadcast, which was this ocean of ignorance, this analogy that you talked about. uh, describe it for us. arkani-hamed: well, this is--this is not my--my analogy, as--i was describing to you earlier. my--one of my favorite, uh, nobel laureates in physics, in our--in our field is--uh, won the nobel prize back in 2004--david gross--likes to use this, uh, analogy--that we now know a fair amount about the way the world works. um... but one of the--one of the things this analogy is supposed to explain is what may seem like a mysterious fact, that the
more we learn about the world, uh, the more it seems--the more questions we get to ask. it's not that we get to ask fewer questions or that we come closer to a feeling of finality. uh, in fact, as--time goes on, we learn more and we get to ask more and more questions. and this--and there--there's a nice picture for this which is to imagine that there are some part--or there's this vast ocean of ignorance out there: dark, uh, things that we don't understand. um... and there's a little space in this big world that we have carved out. uh, spatial things we do understand. it's like the inside of-- a sphere or a ball. um... and, of course, deep in the center of this ball, the things that we've understood for hundreds and hundreds of years and that are in textbooks and wewe teach the kids in, uh, junior higigh school, u, but, uh, as we get, uh, closer-- toto the cutting edge of, uh, science, uh, as researchchers, we're close to the--to the edge of this ball, and our purpose in life is to try to push the edge a little further out--a little further out into
the...take out-- take some of the-- uh, this, uh, ocean of ignorance out and replace it with things that we understand. soso, this ball is getting biggr as time goes on, if we're successful. right? but, you see, there's something interesting becau--as the-- as the ball gets bigger-- of course, the, sort of, volume of the ball is getting bigger, we know more things. but the surface area of the ball is also getting bigger, which means that there is more and more, uh, new kinds of questions that we get to ask that we didn't even, um, know we could ask before. and, um, so that's--that's a nice analogy. it is a deep fact. it is a deep fact that, um, the more we understand about the way the world works, uh, the more questions we get to ask. and, uh, what makes it deep is that some of the questions we get to ask we didn't even know were questions before we had the new understanding. mike: let me get back to the-- sphere, this--this circle that you described and this ocean of ignorance. it's gonna grow because of what you're gonna be doing in china.
there's no doubt about it. arkani-hamed: absolutely, yeah. mike: so talk to me about, uh, that. how did it come about? and what's the hope there for you? arkani-hamed: uh, well, you know, physics is an experimental science. it's a science, so, so we have a lot of mysteries. we have a lot of puzzles, but we need to--we need to make measurements and-- observations, uh, in order to give us clues about what the right answers are to--to some of the big questions facing us. and, um--this part of physics-- fundamental physics-- the experiments that are involved are at the extremes of, uh, our--sort of frontiers of what we see in the world. uh, we have to do observations and measurements on the largest possible scales, look at the-- the structure of the universe-- cosmology, ultimately, on the very largest possible scales. that's one class of experiments. and another class of experiments, um, is to probe the shortest possible distances to probe what the laws of nature are like and what they're doing at the tiniest possible scales. now, uh, there is--there is--
there's an extra layer of importance associated, u uh, wih this idea of probing things at the tiniest possible scales. because we've learned over the last hundred years that it's when we study nature at the shortest possible distances that the fundamental simplicity, unity, and the--sort of deepest aspects of the physical laws are--revealed there. uh, the expererimentsts that are being done at the large hadron collider today are probing distances at around a hundred times smaller than the nucleus of the atom. and the nucleus of the atom is itself a million times smaller than--than the atom itself. uh,, so we're--we're really lookoking at things in incredibly tiny distances. that's why this machine is 27 kilometers around in--in geneva. it--it smashes, uh, particles into each other--uh, two sets of particles going around this 27-kilometer ring, one going around this way, one going around the other way. they're going at 0.9999999 times the speed of light. and we do all of that in order to--when they smash into each other reveal something about what's going on at this distance around a hundred times smaller than the nucleus of
the atom. now, it turns out that, uh, the large hadron collider made an incredible discovery, uh, back on july 4, 2012. it discovered, uh, the famous higgs particle. um... and this is a classic example of a discovery that opens up many, many more questions than it resolves. because while from one point of view, uh, theoretical physicists had expected the higgs particle to exist for something, like, 50 years. from a more sophisticated, more advanced point of view, it's utterly mystifying that it exists and it has the properties that it has. in fact, uh, it--it's sort of insane that something like the higgs exists. um...and...and-- it calls into question some very fundamental things that we believe about, uh, the two foundational principles of early 20th-century physics, the principles of relativity that einstein gave us, and the laws of, uh, quantum mechanics. these principles are shockingly successful. we see nothing wrong with them. they work over every kind of
experiment we've done, every-- every, uh, question ththat we've asked. every way tt we've hit these principles, they have e survived,, and yet these very principles would seem to make something like the higgs particle impossible. and yet there it is. it exists. um...so what we need to do is-- so the large hadron collider was 30 years in the planning. uh, you know, it--it ran for quite a while until it finally discovered the higgs. um, but, uh, it just brought us to the point of, uh, maximal confusion from the theoretical point of view. there's something deeply wrong. not a little bit wrong. not, uh, not approximately wrong. there's something deeply wrong about our understanding of nature, which is associated with the higgs particle. so we need to study it better. mike: so where is the collider in china today? arkani-hamed: yeah. so...so... the purpose of the collider in china is to study the higgs, and to study it--to put it under a much more powerful microscope than we've managed, uh, to do or we--we e will evero
with the, uh, large hadron collider. uh... you need to build a machine that's going to produce millions and millions of higgs particles and--study those--study them in--in detail, uh, look at them. uh, look at how the higgs interacts with--with, uh, other particles. ultimately, look to see how the--the higgs particle interacts with itself. and only by looking at these-- uh, only by looking at these properties can we, uh, settle some of these, uh, profound questions about--ultimately, uh, deeper aspects of, uh, quantum mechanics and--space-time. and, um, what happened a couple--what happened a couple of years agogo--you see, these large accelerator projects take roughly three decades from when they're first the twinkle in someone's eye, uh, to when they're fully operational and they give you all the results that you're interested in. it took roughly 25 years with the--with the--with the lhc itself. so, uh, right after the higgs
discovery inin, uh, 2012, it wa- itit was obvbvious to all of us in the field--certainly obvious to me and certainly obvious to many people--that this was the ideal time to start-- we knew what the next step was. we have to study this damn thing in tremendous--we have to put it under this 10, 20, 30 times higher, uh, resolution. uh... but because these things take so long to plan, the--the time to start thinking about doing something about it was--was now. um, and i heard from a number of my friends t that there wawas a proposal in china for--for doing this. and, uh, and i went, uh, to beijing, and i talk to-- yifang wang, who's the--head of the instititute for high erey physics in beijing. and it became very clear to me that they were extremely serious. and, uh, they had vision; they had ambition. um... and they--they wanted to try to pull something like this off. now, this is not an incremental step for china. it's a--it's a-- it's a humongous leap compared to anything that they've done
before. it's really ambitious. it's really big. and, uh... that's, of course, what makes it so exciting. it's a-- it's s really big as a scientific project. it's really--it would be really big anywhere as a scientific project. it's a-- it's an especially ambitious undertaking because right now the largest accelerator that china has is a 250-meter...around accelerator in beijing, where the ththing tt we're talking about might be as large as a hundred kilometers around. so it's a humongous leap. um... but we know how to do it. the technology for how to build this machine exists. um...and-- mike: and it's a win-win, as you say. you know, and it's-- the importance of that--that connection between us-- peoplele like yourself going over there and, kind of, the sharing of, uh, it's cross-pollination in a sense. i mean, it's a--it's a larger step in many respects, isn't it? arkani-hamed: the reason i'm personally so excited about, uh, about this machine, specifically in china, and-- my friends in europe are
thinking about--many of my friends in europe are... thinking about, uh-- about building the next-generation machine like this there. i mean, right--a machine, uh, larger than--the lhc and around the same site where the--where the large hadron collider is now. but i think there is something extra special and great about doing this in, uh, in china. and there's--there's one aspect of it that's purely totally, uh, idealistic. um... it's hard to imagine, uh, taking this next big step. and, you know, this--this experiment is gonna take roughly 10,000 people working on it, uh, in order to, uh--in order to get all the results out of it we want. right now at the large hadron collider, we have two teams of 3,000 people each working on two experiments. uh... this is gonna be even bigger and, uh, is gonna take, uh, more cooperation, more thought, more dedication. that's the-- it's a--it's around 10,000 people that we're talking about. it's gonna be a large international community of people, uh, working on this--on
this, uh, sort of thing. it's hard to imagine that, , uh, we're gonna be able to pull it off without engaging--really actively engaging--a billion of the world's most talented and interesting, uh, people, uh, into fundamental phyhysics. so.. uh, so that's one aspect why i think it--it would just be incredible to, uh, to get china involved just so we can have access--purely, selfishly, as far as physics is concerned--to that ocean of, uh--of, uh, talent. um... but i think as far as china's concerned, there is, uh, obvious positives as well. first of all, there's--there's gonna be a fascinating-- as you were referring to-- there's gonna be, i think, a fascinating, uh, merge of-- east and west being, uh, brought together for--a common purpose. and, uh, just as a--just the-- the cultural aspects of that are extremely interesting. it'll be--it'll be an--a very important way of--fostering at
a very high level, um, deep friendships between--deep, important friendships between, uh, , east and west. that's one aspect. uh... another aspect--uh, purely selfishly from the chinese point of view is that, uh, while this machines--these projects are indeed--they're-- they're expensive, they cost billions of dollars, um, it's a sort of investment you can make where unlike any other field of science--it's not possible to do this in any other field of science. but if you make this large investment in this field of science, you're guaranteed to be the leader of the world in that field by the time--by the time you're done. and that's because we're not gonna have 12 of these machines, uh, lying around all over the world. and the physics community will go where the machine is. and, uh, and i think that's... the cultural challenge associated with that-- how it will work, international cooperation-- all these things are--are yet to be worked out. and it's going to be very interesting to see how they are
worked out. bubut i think.k... mike: let meme ask one final question. i think you hit on this earlier before we had a chance to just kind of visit. you were talking about bold leadership of--of countries and back in n the sixties, uh, john f. kennedy saying, "we're gonna put a man on the moon." the importance of that-- obviously, it's important to put a man on the moon. but the importance of that commitment to the science community. uh, china's government is doing that with this. talk to me about--and it's cost an enormous amount of money, but the payoff, while it may not be apparent today, over the long term is huge, right? arkani-hamed: yeah. i--i think, um, we live in a world with increasingly difficult challenges. um... and d a lot of these challenges, uh, facece us, and we have t tol with them on--not on a time scale of six months or a year, but we have to think ahead. we have to plan for a year, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. um, the world is increase-- increasingly tecechnical. uh... we need to--we need to have
a large group of talented people who know what it's like, uh, to be technically trained and to think about problems that are going to not be solved in two weeks or three months based on some small incremental iteration of what the guy previously did but which might take radically new ideas but which might also take five or ten or twenty years to germinate. the importance of fundamental physics is we are that field that have been doingng exactly that for 4 centuries now. uh... it's a small group of people. we don't--we're not a huge part ofof the, you know, we don't-- even with these very big, expensive machines, you know, we're talking about one part in 10,000 or one part in 100,000 of gdp depending on how you--on how you count. um... we're a small perturbation on-- on the economy, but it's something that we do. we train people, um, just by osmosis. you don't learn this in books. you have to be around people who
know how to do it. uh... what it's like to tackle questions, which seem impossible at first. you don't even know remotely how you're gonna start, uh, thinking about them, and yet we've doing this for 400 years. you gradually start chipping away. uh, the power of the scientific method to weed out wrong ideas and slightly push forward ideas that have something correct about them even if they're not the-- the right answer until you gradually converge on-- on the right way of thinking about things. um... this is a--this is just as a--as a practical thing. uh... we are that part of science, i think, which we've beeeen doing this the longest and who have this long-term vision, um... and infuse this in the way of people think abobout things. anand it's finally related. i think the ultimate benefit to--the deepest benenefit to society as a--as a whole is to live in a--is to live--to be part of a people, to be part of a country, um, where you do things like this. and it's not just--not just fundamental physics. we want to go to space. we want to do all kinds of, uh, other
things which push us to the very limits, start as singular as possible or--but have a purity of purpose, a certain nobility to them. and it's important to feel that you live in a country which does really big things. and i think, uh--this machine would... be one element of, uh, making something like that happen in, uh, china. mike: nima, thank you so much for stopping by. i really appreciate it. arkani-hamed: thank you. mike: coming up next, we speak with one of the world's oldest and most inventive inventors. yoshiro nakamatsu is one of the world's most famous inventors. he likes to be called by his nickname, sir dr. nakamats. but admirers call him japan's edison. but he's evenen got thomas edisn beat, running circles around
him with at least 3,000 patents. in case you're wondering, edison, who invented the light bulb and the phonograph, lags far behind with the second most patetents in the world. the 87-year-old human dynamo has also written dozens of books, and he's repeatedly run for political office in japan. perhaps his best-known invention is the floppy disk. while many of his creations are serious, he's also come up with some amusing gadgets, like a musical golf putter. i recently spoke with dr. nakamats, who jojoined me fm tokyo in our washington, d.c., studios. let me start by talking to you about edison. you know, you're compared to him so often, uh, you're--this renowned inventor. what do you think the differences are between you and edison? nakamatsu: i think edison has no--has no education. and i think the real--real invention should be three element. first--theory,
second--the pika, third--the practicality. these three element is important. and, unfortunately, in case of edison, the first, theory, is--he--made by experiment, not by knowledge because he is not educated. this is a difference. mike: but what's interesting is your first invention came at such an early age, didn't it? mean, you u were--you u were jut a little kid when you made your first invention. correct? nakamatsu: yes, age of five. that is automatic airplane, adjusting center of lift and center of gravity automatically. mike: u--unbelievable. um, now, uh, talk to me about, uh, you know, your nurturing that you had as a child growing up. uh, do you think it was that-- that environment? eh, were your parents, uh, nurturing and they--and they brought out that
instinctct in you? nakamatsu: i think dna is very important. my mother was very creative, and grandfather. that is my mother's father, also very creative. he was a doctor--military doctor--and he opened hospital in america and japan. and he made many inventions, including color film. mike: i want to get into some of your inventions in just a minute. but--but i want to get, uh, an inventor's world view. i mean, does an inventor look at the world differently than the--rest of us in--in that--perhaps they look at it and say, "well, this is the way it looks like now. but let me think about how it could be much better," and that's where they come up with inventions. i mean, how do you think differently than a--than a regular person, do you think? nakamatsu: i think, uh, as i said before, three element-- first--theory, second--flash,
and the third--practicality. these three elements is very difficult to make by, uh, normal people. mike: which invention brbrought you the most joy? nakamatsu: my answer is, do you have children? mike: ha ha! yes, i do. i see where yoyou'reoioing with ththi. ha ha! that is the answer, isn't it? nakamatsu: that's right. mike: ok. well, then i won't make you choose. but, uh, i think the one that most of us think about is the floppy disk. when you came up with the floppy disk, uh, did you think that it would just revolutionize things? i mean, can you see how it's going to change the world? nakamats: it was invented in 1947. and, uh, it was completed uh, 1952, when i was, uh, in university, the university of tokyo. then after 25 years from my
invention, ibm started production and marketing. so i wasn't a student. so, you know, invention takes time, such as 25 years in case of floppy disk. mike: so 25 years later, there-- it's in production. uh, what was the feeling like when you started to see it popping up everywhere? i mean, itit--it became such a--part of the world. nakamatsu: yes, i think by the--by my invention, computer revolutionized and the i.t. industry started. so i think really invention is--changed the world. but not for money. my spirit of invention is love. mike: can you talk to me a little bit about your creative process because i think it's fascinating? i've seen video of you, uhuh, where you're--
you're swimming underwater, you've got a notepad and a pen. uh, it's--it's a little bit different than how most of us, uh, work, and how we kind of tinker with our ideas. talk to us about how you--how you came up with the idea, first of all, and what it is that you do? nakamatsu: well, if we have oxygen, we can make only normal idea. therefore, i shall die under the water; there is no oxygen. then my brain need oxygen. then my brain must work very hard. that is my theory to create excellent inventions under the water. mike: there are some other things that are interesting about, uh, your practices, uh, and i've, uh, i've--[laughs] seen some video about this as well. uh, eating one meal a day, taking pictures of the meal. uh, you don't sleep as much as
the rest of us. walk us through some of these different things that are, uh-- that you've kind of adopted over time and--why you've done that. nakamatsu: because two--excuse me. three meals per day is too much. and i think--according in my experience, only one meal per day means we're b--we're bringing best condition of brain, and not only taking one meal but also you must select quality of meal. therefore, i took all my pictures every day--still continuing, period of time--44 years continuing, taking all my mealals and then analyze
and then take my blood, compare blood conditions and meal. mike: if there's a 5 year old, uh, wawatching this out therered they're saying, "i want to follow in his footsteps. i want to create something right now and continue to do so throughout the rest of my life," any advice you'd give them? nakamatsu: i think, uh, mother is very important in my case. mother--very--my mother was very intellectual mother, and she taught me at my age of three physics, chemistry, mathematics, many things from age of three. this is the reason i could invent at age of five. so mother's power is very important.
mike: we've spent a lot of time talking about your brain, your mind. you've c created so many tngngs. one thing we haven't spent a lot of time talking about but i do want to ask you a question about it, and that's your nose. um, you--you love cameras, and you don't pick them with just your eyes. your nose is also involved in the process. explain for our viewers how you go about, uh, selecting cameras. nakamatsu: yes. usually, in order to select camera, usually looks lens or a body mechanism or these things. but in my case, of course, i still do check, but in addition to this, my method is smell camera. this is a very good test because smell express all quality of a camera process. please try. [mike laughing] mike: wh--what should i be
looking for when i'm smelling the camera? nakamatsu: now i'm smelling. mike: what do-- is that a good one? nakamatsu: yeah, that's a good one. [mike laughing] mike: whwh it's s smell like? nakamatsu: very good smell. this is latest camera. mike: ha ha! well, we'll leave it there. thank you so much for visiting with us.. certainly y appreciate it. nakamatsu: ok. all right. very good. mike: so long. coming up next, meet a young student who is ahead of her class. way ahead. most young girls her age were attending sleepovers and playing video games, but not thessalonika arzu-embry.
instead of being a typical kid, she was busy graduating high school at the age of-- get this--11. by 14, she completed a bachelor of arts degree in psychology. home schooled by her mother from a young age, her high iq is only one part of her laundry list of talents. she's also determined, ambitious, and curious. last year at the age of 16, arzu-embry received her master's degree. and now at 17, she is working on her doctoral degree in aviation psychology. along the way, she also managed to author five books covering topics from expediting the completion of college, securing justice, to financial investing. she also created a program called jump that helps students complete college as quickly as possible so they can enter society and do the most good. in the midst of her busy academic life, arzu-embry has made time to join us to talk about her unique journey and how she's accomplished so much in so very little time. um, thank you for coming in and
making me feel so insignificant, uh...ha ha! which i guess everybody kind of has that feeling when you start measuring you, even albert einstein. i was just reading this. your iq is 199. einstein's was determined to be about--you're 30 point--you're 30 points higher than einstein. um, how did you feel when somebody told you that? what was that like? arzu-embry: uh, well, i was, uh, really--well, first i want to say thanks for inviting me here. i'm really glad to be on the show, and i look forward to encouraging the audience. uh, i was very excited about the, uh, the iq being 199. but, um, i feel glad because i--it's placed in a position to help society in--deep ways and as many ways as possible. mike: so let me ask you about learning. um...was i it--was it evident earlrly on that, uh, that brain was racing at a much higher level than the rest of us? arzu-embry: ha ha! well, uh, yes, because, uh, i think it's a matter of applying, uh, what a person has learned to the
general society. so for example when i was four years old and i went to the doctor's office, i remember checking out their license online and, um, making sure the medicines they prescribed were the correct medicines to take for whatever issue i went in there for. mike: you know, i was reading-- it was interesting. i started reading--you--you've sparked a lot of interest in me. i started reading about child geniuses, um, which, clearly, you fall into that category-- and--one person put it this way: ththey say, "most of us have a beginning, middle, and end. not child geniuses." it's almost zero to sixty. um, and i would think in some respects, that's fantastic, but in some respects, maybe it's tough, uh, for a young kid. can you talk to me about, uh, that duality? were there difficulties, uh, given the fact that a lot of other kids probably weren't at your level? arzu-embry: well, uh, i think it gives an edge because i'm able to communicate with people at different ages and, uh, not just people of the same age and, uh, being able to communicate on different levels
has been very helpful because it--it's--i'm able to relate to people and get things done, like business. mike: "the genius race." there's-- there's a question in here,, and i i want you to talk t to me a little bit about it. it's question 15. "are you a genius for a limited time period?" um...is that something you've struggled with or thought about? because, obviously, i think of you as being a genius forever, but is that something a genius thinks about? arzu-embry: well, a lot of people ask that because when they get at a certain age, they feel like--as they get in their middle age that their cognition level changes and they may not react to certain things, like, fast enough. so, for example, when you're sitting at a stoplight and, uh, the--light changes from red to green, it takes, l like, a few seconds longer to react that the light changed to green before they drive off. anand so some peoplele feel liks their, uh, like, reaction time waning, and then they consider themselves less--intelligent or less intelligent as they get
older. and so, um, in my opopinion, i don't think that peoeople have to be subjecected to the fact that their intelligence determines if they're a genius. mike: you--you've done so much, and you've written all of these books. um, do you know how to goof off? arzu-embry: ha ha! yes. mike: you do? arzu-embry: : yes. mike: because i'm not sure. do you have time for it? arzu-embry: yes. uh, comedy is my favorite genre of f movie. yeah. mike: so you do find time for it. what about the pressure, uh, having excelled and been so succesessful at such a young g age? do you feel like, you know, "how do i--how do i top this?" i mean, does that ever enter your mind or is that even a concern of yours? arzu-embry: no, that's not a concern because, uh, achihievement is not necessarily the biggest priority. ththe priority is to, uh, help sociciety and, uh, create businenesses that would, uh, create more, um, like, inventions and things that will strengngthen the big--the bigger part of societety. so that's mymy main goal. so i'm not just thinking,
i want--i want to top it. i'm justst thinking of more e ws i could help society. mike: but you're s so young. uh, look into your crystal ball. i mean, what--what do you hope to be successful at age 35 or 45? because i think--the other thing that--that must happen is--you know, you have all this curiosity and this knowledge, but you're continuing to try and expand on that. i mean, do you see yourself as doing maybe this "until i'm 30 and then i'm gonna start doing this from 30 to 40"? i mean, how do you view the horizon? arzu-embry: uh, yes. i still have--working on my life plan, and i see that--my bigger goal right now is to start working, developing a company that will be, , uh, as large as blackstone investment company and directly compete with it and become a "fortune" 50 company. [mike laughshs] don't dreaeam small. dream big. arzu-embry: right. mike: thank you so much for cocoming on the broadcasast. it's been great fun. arzu-embry: thank you. mike: we'llll be right baback wh the woman named d in the "guinns book of world records" as the person with the highest iq in
the world, and she achieved that by the age of 10. marilyn vos savant is a national columnist, author, company executive, and, by the way, a genius. tested at 10 years old, her record iq score of 228 was shrouded in secrecy. but in 1986, word got out, so she landed at the top of the "guinness book of world records'" smartest people in the world list for both child and adult iq scores. since then, her super genius status has kept her in the news and given her international fame. while her iq is more than double that of a normal person, she is much more than a score. savant has been writing a-- a a question and answer column called "ask marilyn" for "parade" magazine for 30 yearsr.
the syndicated sunday magazine is read by roughly 80 million people in the u.s. when she's not entertaining questions, she's also a wife, a mother, a grandmother, and an avid ballroom dancer. joining us now to talk about her extraordinary life is marilyn. and thank you so much fofor coming in. vos savant: oh, thank you. mike: so i mentioned shrouded in secrecy. do you think it was right that your parents didn't tell you right off the bat, "hey, you're off the charts with this number?" vos savant: well, actually, that wasn'n't shroududed in sec. you mean from the world, not from me. back when i was a kid, i was tested back when i was, uh, 8, 9, 10, 11 and--oh, into adulthood, i've t taken a lot of tests throughout my life. but back then when i was, uh, 10 years old--that was the score that you mentioned-- there have been scores since then--it wasn't anany-- anything n new to me. my parents k knew; my friends knknew; my teachers knew; i kne. i just thought--i thouought thee were a few more people like me in the wororld. you know, i knew what it was like, uh, but it turns out that
there weren't. that was the onlyly odd thihing, i suppose,et people didn't tell me at the time--that it was really a rare score. i thought t that there we quite a few people like that. and, actually, i still do. but, you know, at the time, it wouldn't have mattered much if i had paid more attention to that because at that time, it wasn''t thought that womenen were suited to do ananything in particularar with their intelligence. so i wasn't encouraged in any way whatsoever. mike: you know, one--i saw an intererview witith you whereu said, uh, you hahad a permissive upbringing. you parents were--in a sense, uh, you'd go to them with a question: "well, you go find it out." uh, they kind of sparked, uh, that, uh, interest in you to-- seek out knowledge and curiosity. uh...can you talk to me about the difficulty of parenting--a super genius, and how did they respond to it, do you think? vos savant: well, i don't really think they paid d a lot of attention to that. you have toto understand my background. my grandparents were coal miners. one of my, uh, grarandfathers
was killed in the mines. another grandfather was injured so badly in the mines, he could only walk with a cane afterward. my parents were immigrants from germany and italy, and they weren't thinking about focusing on the kids s at all. the whole idea was to just be independent, earn a living. and no one really paid much attention to me actually. as-- as i said, mostly bebecause i ws a girl, and i acceptpted that. mike: did you fe d differentnt t all, though? vos savant: you know, i think we all feel a little bit differenet at timeses. uh, but i--i felt different in the sense that we all have this u--these uniqique qualitie. i felt that i had mine. and everyone--people like that. they respected me for that the way we respect people for their particular skills and abilities. uh, one thing that i noticed in particular, though, that at the time and then later throughout life, especially, people that we think are very smart are not
necessarily very smart. they are more likely to be educated in their particular field or very experienced in their career, so we confuse that with smartrtness. so when we call upon experts, we hear them say whatever it is they have to say, but that doesn't mean they have any analytical ability. that doesn't mean they have the ability to process the informatioion at hand. that's really more what intelligence is. mike: i've even heard you say, uh, that phahaps you shohouldn't pair the two words "best" and "brightest" because they aren't necessarily the same thing. vos savantnt: hmm, well, i suppose that's true, too. you know, when you think of, u , scientists, for example, people tend to think that scientists are the smartest people in the world and the smartest people inin the world s should become scientists. i disagree witith that complete. when i look back at my old life, uh, when i wasas a kid--i had mentioned to you that no one gave me any encouragement, which
is--this is not a complaint. it's a fact of life. uh, it was not a big deal. it didn't bother me then-then. and i don't really think it bothers me now. uh... but at the time, as i said, uh, womemen weren't t thought to be suited to dodo anything in particular withth their-- their intelligence, but the one possible exception would be, if you were smart, you'd go into a scientific field, naturally. and no one said that to me. but looking back, that was really the--only option if i had options. and, uh, i-- back then, i couldn't imagine looking through the world-- lookoking at the world thrhrough a microscope or even-- or a telescope. that was anathema to me. i just don't feel t that i coululd--thi could have focused that tightly on something all of the time. fine for school, fine for-r--for certain limited tasks, but not as--not as a world view. i wanted something much broader
than that. if i had--you know, looking back, if i had it all to do over again or if i could just somehow had some, um, s--some maturity when i was, you know, 13 or 17 or whahaver, i'd have become a politician. now, politicians are not synonymous with h smarts, , i k. [mike laughing] vos savant: they--i know, right? mike: well, i was gonna say, we're seeing a couple of candidatates out there that t 'm not surere are at your iq level. vos savant: yeah, right. ha ha! uhuh, but wouldn't you rarathere a really smart person in front of a microphone instead of, as i said, looking at the world through a microscope or a telescope? mike: that's genius. uh, let me ask about, uh, finding your way as a genius because, uh, i--i can count, uh, amongst my friends, most of them, uh, i've had the conversation where they were, like, "oh, my god. my boss is an idiot."
so--uh, and we're just regular people. so, i can... vos savant: that could be. mike: well, and, uh, yeah... i'm not sure i'd argue with them, but i'm just wondering, as a genius, how difficult it must be to go to work each day and just not have, you know, mental gymnasts making the decisions and you're kind of the worker bee under them. vos savant: oh, i see what you mean. well,l, the world isn't--isn't like that. we don't necessarily have, uh, smart people running the show because they may not be social people, they may not be organized people. there are all different kinds ofof skills. we all have this--have this, uh, mixes--mix of skills. i noticed, in particular, that, uh, sometimes i feel pretty alone.e. and sometetimes, like,u know, that can especially happen when i''m alalone, you know,w, n a--oh, excuse me, that could happen when i'm in a room full of people. that's one of the times thatat i actually feel alone. but as far as, uh, being-- mike: why is that, do you think?
vos savant: well, there's this feeling that if-- if i need answers, if i want to turn to someone, i really y do't have anyone to turn to. i do the best i can. i have to accept that. maybe-- maybe it's a fact that we-- that we all need to do that. mike: so having a high iq, is it a burden or a gift or both? vos savant: oh, it's an absolute blessing. it's never a burden. i take it back. if you're on an airline seat next to someone who knows your name, then-- then it's a burden. believe me, it's--it's a real burden, but you pretend to, you know, go to sleep. but other than that, it is a blessing. it is a blessing privately, personally, professionally in every way. mike: let me ask you about, uh, your mararriage because i think it--it's this unique marriage where it's--the heart and the head. i mean, you're--and you know why i'm
saying that. i mean, your-- your husband, uh, clearly ha-- has made his mark in the world, too, with the--jarvik device, which is, obviously, keeping people alive. um, so clearly, a very--a bright man. um, did he feel intimidated, uh, dating you? i mean, what was the relationship like and--what was it like finding somebody who you felt comfortable with, uh, on an intellectual basis? vos savant: uh, well, he is intimidated by nothing, by no one. i can't possibly intimidate him. i would enjoy doing that. i think it would teach him a lesson now and then, but--but, no, ,, he can't be intimidated. uh, that's something that we have enjojoyed very much--very much together--the intetellectual gie and take. however, i have that with a lot of people. i hahave communicacation with people all over the world, really, through the column that i write for "parade" magazine, which is--its reach is vast.
but i have this communication with so many different types of people. people who are--who think emotionally, people who think rationally, people who are looking for advice, suggestions, inspiration, support. i hope i provide that. i think i do to a lot of people--people with very little position and people with significant positions. and so this is a very rich intellectual life that i enjoy, and i hope i'm doing some good with it. i do the best i can. mike: let me ask you about that. how did it start, the column? vos savant: oh, "parade" was writing an article about me. and so when they did that, the editor, or someone there-- i thinink it was the editor-- just had t the idea, uh, "well, let's ask--let's ask marilylyn some classic questions..." of the-- i don't know--how many angels can dance on the head of a pin variety. uh, these are questions
that have--that have per-- perplexed and confounded, uh, scholars and philosophers for centuries. "we're going to ask you thosose questions, marilyn." i said, "excuse me, but how much of an ego do you think i have thahat i'm going to be able to just spin off a paragraph anand answer something that people have pondered since socrates? no, i'm not going totoe able too do that. but if the readers would like to ask some questions, fine, let's do that. let's just see what happens." and so it turns out they got a flood of questions. and they were ple--very pleased with that and said, "well, maybe we could tiptoe into writing a column. would you like to try it again?" so i i did, and that slowly turd ininto something. and so it--turned into a column whereby now, as i said, through--through "parade's"... "pararade's" saturation of the--
of the people here in the united states--plus, as i said seeing this throughout the world, i hear from people everywhere about all kinds of things. so it's great fun for me. mike: you mentioned there are problems that need to bebe solv. so let me--let me pose this question to you, and i want to get your thoughts on it. let's say, uh, you weren't born when you were born. let's say you were born three or four years ago. do you think that a--smart girl growing up today has--because you talked about how much wasn't expected of you-- because you are a girl, you know, growing up. do you think that dynamic has changed--or does--there still need to be more of an evolution? are smart girls now treated differently than smart girls when you were a little girl, do you think? vos savant: oh, absolutely. they're treated-- they're treated better. uh, but women--the women now--you mentioned being born three or four years ago, so--that's a-- you don't know what's gonna be
happening in 25 years. mike: but is there a--difference still between--are smart men or smart boys still perhaps on a pedestal above girls, or is there more of a parity now, would you say? vos savant: hmm, i think they're still on a pedestal. and i can understand that in some ways. uh... mike: but you don't agree with it. who would? right? vos savant: well, one of the bad things is that women are their-- own worst enemy in some ways. in other words, uh, when women play up sex appeal, which they virtually all do, uh, it's terribly damaging to them. now, in certain fields, fine. of course, entertainment, uh, if one's going to be a singer, a model, an actress. there are lots of places where sex appeal--in other words, attractiveness is part of the package. that's fine. they do that, and--the men do that, too. but in--business, in, let's say, politics a and lots of othther areas when the women are
attempting to wear a great deal of makeup, there's the hairstyle, and we all know what, you know, what that means. when it's--when it's done in a way to look physically appealing, it makes them look lightweight. and a huge number of women are doing that. and until they cut that out, they're not going to have parity with men, who arare sitting-- they're looking the way you do. you know, you look like your real self, uh, presumably. well, i, yeah, i realize that-- mike: but i have zero sex appeal. thanks a lot. ha h! vos savant: well, of course-- men on the air are wearing a little bit of makeup, too. but the point is just to smooth it out--and look natural. uh, but ththe women are doing that. they're--they're appealing, you know. they're attempting to look physically attractive. mike: let me ask you one final question because we got to go. but, uh, i tend to every once in a while lose my keys, and then i walk around the house saying, "i'm such an idiot." you know, "where did i put those?" have you ever once uttered those words because, obviously,
in your case, it would be a lie? vos savant: oh. ha ha! i-- i do that all the time. perfectly normal. nobody should worry about it. but i realale that as s soon as you're sometething, lilike, 50 s old, the first time you lose your keys, afterwards, you think, "oh, my gosh. i'm going downhill." don't worry about it. just get as much mental exercise as you get physical exercise-- oh, wait. maybe a whole lot more ththan that--and everyththing will be fine. mike: marilyn, what a delight. thanks so much for coming in. really appreciate it. vos savant: thank you. mike: that's it for this week. join the conversation with us on social media. we are cctctv america on twitte, facebook, and youtube. and now you can watch "full frame" on our mobile app, available worldwide on any smartphone for free. get the latest news headlines and connect to us on facebook, twitter, youtube, and weibo. search cctv america on your app store to download today. all of our interviews can still also be found online at cctv-america.com. and let us know what you'd like us to take full frame nenext.
>> they use 40% of the world's energygy, emit 50% of its greenhouse gases. they are not the cars we drive. they are the buildings where we work, live, and grow. buildings designed with an unconscious disregard for nature. adopting sustainable alternatives is not only a matter of progress, it's a matter of survival. "design: e2, the economies of being environmentally conscious." buckminster fuller once said, "i look for what needs to be done. aafter all, that's how the universe designs itself." wwith more people living on earh than ever before, the planet has never been under such stress.