|
Where Web-Bot Misses, EGG Picks Up
Posted March 25, 2009 by Indoles Eastlund
While outside watching contractors place my new Planet-X Shelter underground, I thought to myself: how are ol' Web-Bot's predictions holding up since we last posted about our favorite Bot predictor?
Web-bot doesn't seem to be doing too great this year; I'm thinking my 16-person Planet-X shelter was overkill.
Not to second guess the sage advice of Web-Bot, but I did double check with The Global Consciousness Project (also known as the EGG Project). I've been a steadfast follower of this project since their inception in 1998, back when I had AOL and a super fast 28.8kbps modem. For those not familiar, the EGG project is
...an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others. This website introduces methods, technology, and empirical results under the "Scientific Work" menu below, and gives background and interpretation under "Aesthetic View".
...
Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world.
While Web-bot is a single computer making predictions based on our internet usage, EGG computes "human consciousness" from random-number-generating nodes around the world, using a two-inch wide old computer part. Still confused? Well then you'd better check out this YouTube video for definitive proof of its awesomeness! Not only is EGG a Princeton University project, but NBC did a news spot! Can you be more legit?? After all the data is compiled, it's displayed in a very simple, 'aesthetic dot', which very scientifically shows us the world's consciousness, in real time.
Thankfully, it's green now. The world is normal and Web-Bot concurs.
Dubious Data Awards 2008
Posted January 07, 2009 by Shakti Sombrero
STATS has compiled their list of the worst abuses of science and statistics over the past year. Highlights include...
Give them a visit for more, including finger-growing pixie dust, midget Dubliners, and women "saying no" to science.
Is This A Joke?
Posted September 05, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
 Mothers who undergo Caesarean sections may bond less well with their babies immediately after birth, concludes a study of 12 women published this week.
But the researchers stress that because the study is so small, and the differences not "whopping", women contemplating C-sections shouldn't panic.
If even one mother endangers herself and her child by demanding a natural birth because of this story, the authors should be kicked squarely in the groin. 12 people? Are you kidding me?
The study found that women who had C-sections had about 5% lower levels of "empathetic brain activity" than mothers who had undergone natural births. The researchers retested the same mothers a few months later and found no differences in brain activity, leading them to believe that the bad-mother vibes were only temporary. Could it also show that a study of 12 people with very small differences could perhaps be a case of random statistical variation? Dear god.
Panicology
Posted March 06, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
If you're looking for a high quality portable guide to media panic (and who the hell isn't?) check out Panicology, a new book by statisticians Simon Briscoe and Hugh Aldersey-Williams. The book takes a hard look at over forty of today's latest and greatest scare stories and cuts through the nonsense with critical thinking and a bit of wit. In places the book is a tad UK-centric but most of the topics apply to us all--because they're the same damn ones that fill newspapers the world over on a daily basis. Superbugs. Crime. Nanotechnology. Frankenfoods. Overpopulation and alien invaders. It's all here folks.
The book also examines why we, as humans, can't seem to get enough of this stuff and want to blame ourselves for all of it.
We live in a complex world and we don't want to die. And in general we are winning the battle - we are living longer and more healthily than ever. Every year, death comes a year closer for all of us, meanwhile life gets a little better for many people. So why are we happy to panic about the silliest things?
...
It's almost as if we have to be afraid of something, as if we carry about in our heads a bucket of worry that we are compelled to fill with whatever's available. Clearly, different individuals have different sized buckets.
The media doesn't get a free ride either.
Journalism is industrialized gossip... Once a newspaper's story about something extraordinary, say a killer-bee, has gone down well, others follow, rooting out killer-bee-related items that would otherwise have gone unreported, or building up killer-bee near-misses into full-blown dramas in their own right. The fact is that we love to be scared - which is why many of the topics we examine (and the bees) have their own disaster movies.
Even if you don't agree with every conclusion they draw, the authors are straight shooters with a good sense of humor. From the cover art featuring a spacesuit-clad man feeding pigeons, to a "panic scale" for each topic consisting of headless blood-squirting chickens, if you like Panic Watch! I'm pretty sure you'll like Panicology too.
We all know some people with pretty big buckets (many of them overflowing). So the next time one of them runs into the office waving the latest headline, sit them down with the appropriate chapter of this book and start that poor soul down the road of recovery.
Spanking Leads to Sexual Deviants?
Posted March 04, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
It's always fun when the media gets hold of a juicy-sounding study and runs with it, regardless of the source. Take for example, Spanking Kids Increases Risk Of Sexual Problems As Adults.
Professor Murray Straus claims that children who are spanked are more likely to eventually force sex from their partners, to not use condoms, and to have masochistic sex.
According to the article, Murray Straus is "co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire". Sounds like an unbiased, reputable researcher. But Straus is actually a devout anti-spanking activist who has written articles for over a decade trying to scare parents away from spanking. Another article even quotes him admitting it:
"My underlying motive was to bring this to the attention of parents and of more people," Straus said, "in the hope it will help continue the decrease in the use of corporal punishment."
Yes, it's always good to come into a study with "underlying motives."
According to him, spanking will make your children violent, antisocial, stupid...and now sadomasochistic and condom-hating as well. As you'd imagine his work is a nothing too intensive; passing out surveys to college students about their childhood punishments and current sexual habits does not a great study make. And even then the statistical risk increases are insignificant.
Finally, correlation does not equal causation. There may be some link between spanked kids and questionable sexual practices, but why does it have to be the former causing the latter? Might not kids who are irresponsible and misbehave (and therefore get spanked a lot) continue to be irresponsible and misbehave as they move through adolescence and on to college? Seems plausible to me.
Posted in Junk Statistics, Media Panic
Read It How You Want
Posted March 03, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
Here's a good example of two very different media interpretations of the same study.
The scenario: 118 elderly people were given either Ginkgo Biloba or a placebo. 14 placebo people and 7 Ginkgo people developed memory problems. 7 Ginkgo people also had "mini-strokes" while no placebo people did (it should be noted here that Ginkgo has been reported to cause bleeding problems but the mini-strokes observed were from blood clotting, not excessive bleeding).
The numbers don't seem too impressive but let's see what the media has to say:
Jury out on Memory Benefits of Ginkgo Biloba
Older people who believe the supplement ginkgo biloba will keep their memories from declining do not as yet have solid scientific evidence to support that assumption.
Researchers studied 118 people age 85 and older who took either ginkgo biloba three times a day or a placebo. After the study, researchers could find no clear-cut benefit to taking the supplement.
Similar conclusions were drawn for a potential downside to ginkgo. Specifically, the supplement is known to cause bleeding problems, and in this study people who took it were more likely to have a stroke. But their strokes were mainly due to blood clots (not bleeding), so again, the researchers aren't certain about the role ginkgo may have played.
Now check out this version from Foodconsumer.org:
Ginkgo biloba helps memory, but may raise stroke risk
A study published online Wednesday Feb 27 in the journal Neurology suggests taking a ginkgo biloba extract may help maintain memory in elderly people.
But the same study also showed that the users of ginkgo biloba extract were at higher risk of mini-strokes or mild strokes.
WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE? Which is it? It is bad for me or good for me? The problem here (as usual) is that the study conclusions are weak to none.
The researchers found both: "In unadjusted analyses, ginkgo biloba extract (GBE) neither altered the risk of progression from normal to Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) = 0.5, nor protected against a decline in memory function." So article #1 is technically correct. "Secondary analysis taking into account medication adherence showed a protective effect of GBE on the progression to CDR = 0.5 and memory decline." So article #2 is also technically correct.
Final conclusion? "Results of larger prevention trials taking into account medication adherence may clarify the effectiveness of GBE. More stroke and TIA cases observed among the GBE group requires further study to confirm."
Nothing definite here, so you're free to read into it whatever you want.
Posted in Junk Statistics, Health Scares
Your Mattress Is Out To Get You
Posted February 23, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
STATS has been following the slow spread of a new hysteria on local TV news stations--that flame retardant chemicals added to mattresses may hurt or kill millions of people. 300 million, to be exact.
Where is this huge death toll coming from? A group called People for Clean Beds. Hey, I like clean beds! Who the hell doesn't? These guys sound legit!
STATS, being the suckers for facts and truth that they are, discovered that People for Clean Beds is actually Mark Strobel, a mattress maker who sells "all natural" mattresses and obviously has a vested interest in making you scared of yours. They also make a good point about the laughably apocalyptic body count from these supposedly poisonous mattresses:
The worst-case scenario of 300 million dead was roughly equal to the combined toll from Black Death, AIDS, and the number of people worldwide who will die from cancer over the next forty years.
STATS has thoroughly investigated the claims and finds nothing but anecdotes, misrepresentations, absurd statistics, and mind bogglingly low risks. And of course very little scrutiny by any of the reporters broadcasting this drivel.
Annoying news coverage aside, the worst part about all of this is that the chemicals added by new mattress regulations are vital to saving lives--they can delay spontaneous "flashover" combustion by up to 30 minutes. But if we listen to greed-driven paranoia from activists, we risk losing such life saving advances.
Baby Boys Cause Severe Depression?
Posted February 14, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
Another worthless study turned into a scary headline and lead-in:
Boy babies 'worse for depression'
Giving birth to a boy can increase the likelihood of severe postnatal depression, a study suggests.
This story has already been picked up by a hundred news sites on Google News, delivering yet another scare to new and expectant mothers. So how comprehensive was this study?
French researchers examined 181 mothers, and found 9% had severe depression - three-quarters of these had delivered a male child.
That's it. Nothing else to see here. 181 people studied, 17 diagnosed with severe postnatal depression, 13 of these had male babies; nobody's going to win any awards for this one. And on top of that, "a majority of the mothers with mild depression were more likely to have given birth to girls."
If this seems like a bit of a stretch for such paltry numbers and conflicting evidence, go ahead and scan to the very last line on the page.
"It's probably a statistical quirk."
Yeah, I don't see that at the top of the article.
Posted in Junk Statistics, Media Panic
Big Breasts and Diabetes
Posted January 31, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
Besides giving hundreds of newspapers an excuse to print photos of women's chests, a new study supposedly links cup size and diabetes risk:
Girls with big breasts have a 68 percent higher chance of developing diabetes by middle age than their small-breasted counterparts, according to a new study by Canadian scientists.
The decade-long study to find the link between big breasts and diabetes development among nurses in the US shows that those with bigger breasts at the age of 20 are at a higher risk of developing the disease in later years.
Examining the study itself reveals weak statistical "links" and no biological causality between big boobs and diabetes. Once weight (a much stronger risk factor) was taken out of the equation the result was similar to every other weak epidemiological study out there. Also C cups had a higher "risk" than D cups--something that doesn't exactly correlate with bigger boobies = more diabetes. The researchers themselves say it best:
"Obesity remains a big factor. Obese women tend to have larger breasts, thereby becoming more prone to diabetes," he said.
No shit. Like most of these studies, we're learning nothing new here--the media just twists the words and numbers into a big scary pretzel. A disclaimer gets tossed into a few other articles:
Experts called the finding extremely preliminary. "No one should be looking at breast size and worrying about diabetes," said Dr. Alexander Sorisky, professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa and director of the chronic disease program at the Ottawa Health Research Institute.
Hell of course they will with headlines like "Big-breasted girls prone to diabetes", "Breast size a predictor of diabetes", and "DIABETES FEAR FOR WOMEN WITH BIG BREASTS". Scaremongering at its finest.
Fight With Your Spouse...or Die
Posted January 27, 2008 by Shakti Sombrero
From the never ending annals of scary epidemiology:
After almost two decades of marriage, those who kept their anger in were twice as likely to die earlier than those who let their tempers explode.
The leaps of faith taken with this study of 192 couples are almost mind blowing;
The study itself hasn't even been published yet so we can't get the dirty details; it will appear in the next quarterly issue of the Journal of Family Communication. I'm sure the reporters who plastered this fun, watercooler story to hell and back will take the time to go back and investigate the methodology once it's revealed.
While we wait, let's all take a few moments to be verbally abusive towards our significant others...it does ya' both good! You can trust us! We're statisticians!
|
Top Threats!
Jan 25 - Mar 8, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||
© 2008 Panicwatch.org