Facebook and Twitter as marshmallow dispensers

I’ve previously written about a fascinating marshmallow experiment here and here. To set the stage, keep in mind that marshmallows are the equivalent of crack cocaine for young children. In the experiment, numerous four-year olds were each left alone with a marshmallow and told that they could eat it if they wanted. They were also told that if they could wait until the experimenter returned (which would happen 15 minutes later), they could have two marshmallows. Only about 30% of the children had the discipline to wait for the experimenter to return. When the psychologists followed up on these children fourteen years later, they found some startling things. Those four-year-olds who exerted the willpower to wait for two marshmallows scored an average of more than 200 points higher on the SAT than those who couldn’t wait. Those who could wait also show themselves to be more cooperative, more able to work under pressure and more self-reliant. In sum, they were dramatically more able to achieve their goals than those who couldn’t wait. Which leads me to this thought: Are Internet social sites the cyber-equivalent of marshmallow dispensers? Since reading of the marshmallow experiment, I have repeatedly thought of inability of many people to resist spending hours on social sites such as Facebook and Twitter. I also think of those who burn long hours on MySpace and those who are non-stop texters. Perhaps Internet news junkies belong in the same category. I don’t know the exact numbers, but there are numerous folks who aren’t getting nearly enough important things done in their lives (things THEY consider to be important) who are spending immense numbers of hours chatting and gossiping. I personally know some of these people. If these were retired people without any daily obligations, it would be one thing. Many of them, however, are blowing countless chances to make significant progress on goals that they themselves have set.

Continue ReadingFacebook and Twitter as marshmallow dispensers

Nothing about our economic system has really been fixed, or even diagnosed, and time is running out.

According to SANDY B. LEWIS and WILLIAM D. COHAN, nothing about our economic system has really been fixed or even diagnosed, and time is running out. This is the theme of a powerfully and clearly written Op-ed piece in today's New York Times, entitled "The Economy Is Still at the Brink":

We’re concerned that nothing has really been fixed. We’re doubly concerned that people appear to feel the worst of the storm is over — and in this, they are aided and abetted by a hugely popular and charismatic president and by the fact that the Dow has increased by 35 percent or so since Mr. Obama started to lay out his economic plans in March. But wishing for improvement and managing by the Dow’s swings are a fool’s game . . .The storm is not over, not by a long shot.

Lewis, who owns a brokerage house and Cohan, a Wall Street banker, succinctly present the problem and some solutions:

Six months ago, nobody believed that our banking system was well designed, functioning smoothly or properly regulated — so why then are we so desperately anxious to restore that model as the status quo? . . . Instead of hauling out the new drywall to cover up the existing studs, let’s seriously consider ripping down the entire structure, dynamiting the foundation and building a new system that rewards taking prudent risks, allocates capital where it is needed, allows all investors to get accurate and timely financial information and increases value to shareholders and creditors.

The authors lay out numerous areas of concern, many of them in the form of pointed questions. Why, indeed, haven't we taken steps to change the system? As Einstein once said, insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Lewis and Cohan urge President Obama to take these real steps, to get serious about the faux solution so far imposed (the massive injection of federal money in the absence of any systematic fix).

Instead of promising the imminent return of good times, why isn’t Mr. Obama talking more about the importance of living within our means and not spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need? . . . We are 139 days into his presidency, and while there is still plenty of hope that Mr. Obama will fulfill his mandate, his record on searching out the causes of the financial crisis has not been reassuring.

Lewis and Cohan's Op-ed is must-reading and disturbing reading.

Continue ReadingNothing about our economic system has really been fixed, or even diagnosed, and time is running out.

Statistical illiteracy afflicts health care professionals and their patients

Over at Scientific American Mind Gerd Gigerenzer and his colleagues have published a terrific article documenting the statistical illiteracy that sometimes runs rampant in health care fields. The article, "Knowing Your Chances," appears in the April/May/June 2009 edition. The authors point out numerous medical care fallacies caused by statistical illiteracy , including Rudy Giuliani's 2007claim that because 82% of Americans survived prostate cancer, compared to only 44% in England, that he was lucky to be living in the United States and not in England. This sort of claim is based on Giuliani's failure to understand statistics. Yes, in the United States, men will be more quickly diagnosed as having prostate cancer (because many more of them are given PSA tests), and then many more of them will be treated. Despite the stark differences in survival rates (the percentage of patients who survive the cancer for a least five years, "mortality rates in the two countries are close to the same: about 26 prostate cancer deaths per 100,000 American men versus 27 per 100,000 in Britain. That fact suggests the PSA test

has needlessly flagged prostate cancer in many American men, resulting in a lot of unnecessary surgery and radiation treatment, which often leads to impotence or incontinence. Because of overdiagnosis and lead-time bias, changes in five-year survival rates have no reliable relation to changes in mortality when patterns of diagnoses differ. And yet many official agencies continue to talk about five-year survival rates.

Gigerenzer and his colleagues give a highly disturbing as example regarding mammogram results. Assume that a woman just received a positive test result (suggesting breast cancer) and asks her doctor "What are the chances that I have breast cancer?" In a dramatic study researchers asked 160 gynecologists taking a continuing education course to give their best estimate based upon the following facts:

A.) the probability that a woman has breast cancer (prevalence) is 1% B.) if a woman has breast cancer the probability that she tests positive (sensitivity) is 90% C) if a woman does not have breast cancer, the probability that she nonetheless tests positive (false-positive rate) is 9% The best answer can be quickly derived from the above three statements. Only about one out of 10 women who test positive actually has breast cancer. The other 9/10 have been falsely diagnosed. Only 21% of physicians picked the right answer. 60% of the gynecologists believed that there was either an 81% or 90% chance that a woman with a positive test result actually had cancer, suggesting that they routinely cause horrific and needless fear in their patients. What I found amazing is that you can quickly and easily determine that 10% is a correct answer based upon the above three statements--simply assume that there are 100 patients, that one of them (1%) actually has breast cancer and that nine of them (9%) test false positive. This is grade school mathematics: only about 10% of the women testing positive actually have breast cancer. As the article describes, false diagnosis and bad interpretations often combine (e.g., in the case of HIV tests) to result in suicides, needless treatment and immense disruption in the lives of the patients. The authors also discuss the (tiny) increased risk of blood clots caused by taking third-generation oral contraceptives. Because the news media and consumers so often exhibit innumeracy, this news about the risk was communicated in a way that caused great anxiety. People learned that the third-generation pill increased the risk of blood clots by "100%." The media should have pack is aged the risk in a more meaningful way: whereas one out of 7000 women who took the second-generation pill had a blood clot, this increased to two in 7000 women who took the new bill. The "absolute risk increase" should have been more clearly communicated. Check out the full article for additional reasons to be concerned about statistical illiteracy.

Continue ReadingStatistical illiteracy afflicts health care professionals and their patients

Are you the same person you were several years ago?

Are you the same person you were several years ago? You think so, of course, because you are you. But think about the fact that virtually every atom in your body has changed over the years. Are you still you? A similar question was asked with regard to the Ship of Theseus, reported by Plutarch:

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

Many philosophers, ancient and contemporary, have weighed in on this fundamental question of ontology and flux, as reported by Wikipedia.

Continue ReadingAre you the same person you were several years ago?

Short dramatization of the Bible story of Lot and his daughters

I attended Catholic Church for many years as a child. I don't remember even once hearing any priest feature the story of Lot, the angels, and Lot's wife and daughters at Mass. Now I know why, of course. It's just so much easier to pretend that this story doesn't even exist in the Bible. It's much easier to cherry pick in order to maintain that every word in "the Bible" is the inspired literal teaching of God. Question: Do any of readers remember ever hearing any sort of priest, preacher or minister presenting the details of the story of Lot during any worship service? Here's the animated version of the story: Now maybe you're not into kinky sex. But maybe the Bible still has something for you. For instance, are you pro-slavery? So is God:

Continue ReadingShort dramatization of the Bible story of Lot and his daughters