What's your formula/equation/algorithm? asks Brockman

Always interesting, Brockman's question to his coterie of intellectuals this year on his World Question Center is "What's your formula? Your equation? Your algorithm?" The answers are, predictably, a mixed bag. The same criticism applies as before: these "big" thinkers rarely have much to offer outside of their domain of expertise that is extraordinary. As if conscious of this, many stay within their chosen playground and even reiterate points they have made dramatically, well, and repetitiously in the past (Dawkins, Baron-Cohen, and Kurzweil - I'm looking at you) (though kudos to Kurzweil for technical obscurantism and therefore impressiveness). It's John Brockman's rules so I suppose can get away with something a bit simplistic. The best ones for me were: William Poundstone almost succeeds in making a dramatic point, Ernst Poeppel is more fundamental than most (and more interesting for it), John Tooby is nearly as fundamental (and nearly as interesting)David Gelernter over-extends the metaphor for an interestingly idiosyncratic view of intelligence, Greg Benford doesn't quite match the maths to his excellent point about public debate on science, Judith Rich Harris neatly encapsulates her career's work but need to put weightings on those arrows please, Susan Blackmore shoots for universality from the hip, Max Tegmark draws a thought-provoking map of the outlyingest outlying regions of the multiverse, Paul Bloom does a pithy summary but is a bit inconclusive, Timothy Taylor probably needs a 50-slide presentation and a handwriting lesson to explain what the hell his isSamuel Barondes gets a prize because his is as interesting as, but rhymes more than, any other offering but Jordan Pollack wins for me because his algorithm is neat, beautiful, practical, and non-obvious