The Arrogance of Unstudied Certainty

I was talking someone yesterday that told me that World War II was what got us out of the Great Depression and that that could work today, although he hoped we didn't go down that road. This man is very intelligent. He holds a doctorate and has extensive experience. But he has absolutely no training in either economics or history. So it seems rather presumptuous to me that he could make that claim so matter-of-factly. How does he know? There are lots of real economic historians that would disagree with him. Many have stated that without FDR's New Deal, not only would we have never gotten out of the Great Depression, but we may very well have lost the war because we would have been ill-prepared to fight such a protracted and extensive war. Other historians agree that it was the war that did it. Others say it was a combination of factors, of which the war and FDR' New Deal played a part. The point here is that the professionals don't agree. So on what basis does someone that has never actually studied the problem presume to claim they know the right answer?

I see this sort of thing all the time. Probably the biggest example of this is with evolution. There are millions of people that tell biologists and paleontologists that have spent their lives studying life on earth that they don't know what they are talking about, the evolution couldn't possibly work. It does not seem to matter to these people that they have no idea what they are talking about, they are certain they are right, even though they have not studied the problem even briefly, much less spent decades looking at the evidence. No, because their preacher told them evolution is wrong, it must be so. I find this particularly sad that these same people often don't even understand the basic tenets of their own religion (see this Pew survey), which is the biggest reason they claim to disagree with evolution. My opinion? If atheists on average know more about your religion than you do, you have no business judging something else based on your supposed religious beliefs because you are too ignorant of your own basis of opinion to make any statement with any credence whatsoever.

Another example of this are the true nutcases that refuse to accept that people have actually visited the moon. They disregard the evidence of the pictures, the word of the people that actually went there, the samples brought back. Nothing convinces them. They instead continue to promote ideas they claim disprove the moon landing, ideas in which a passing familiarity with physics completely discredits and the rest of the ideas are destroyed with either a stronger knowledge of physics or common sense. No, they would rather believe their conspiracy ideas, which don't hold up to any serious examination. Fox television even ran a show supporting such nonsense (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/). It doesn't see to matter that lots of physicists have demonstrated that it was indeed possible, but done and that the reasons given to "disprove" it are all fallacious. Nope, they know better, despite not having ever taken a science class in their lives.

And let's not forget the Flat Earth Society (actually, I am pretty sure, at least I hope, this particular site is a parody, but it pretty accurately displays the mindset and arguments used by many flat earthers). Despite overwhelming evidence, they still believe the earth is flat. To believe this, you have to throw out pretty much all of known physics. You have to disbelieve in cell phones or satellites. You have to disbelieve any chance at weather forecasting. You have to have no reasonable explanation for tides. You have to believe every pilot in the world is lying, not to mention just ignoring the evidence of your own eyes every day. In short, the universe has to be run by magic with a lot of really odd quirks that give the illusion of a spherical earth. Still, they know better than people who have actually flown around the earth and all the physicists and scientists over 2000 years that have said the earth is round. The Greek Eratosthenes figured this out more than 200 years before Christ. But hey, millions of people the world over for millennia are obviously wrong according to these people. They, who apparently have never opened a physics book, know better.

Does this sound insulting to other people's beliefs? There comes a point in which the sheer combined arrogance and ignorance of people drives me to frenzy. Sorry, but I can't be polite about the utter gall of these people. When you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes to hold on to your beliefs, when the cognitive dissonance builds to the point that it is impossible to have rational conversation, sorry, but I can't give that opinion even polite forbearance. If you are going to disagree with an idea, that's fine, but make sure you have some idea of what you are talking about before you pretend certainty.

Body Language

Been a while since I’ve posted. I’ve been busy trying to write stuff I actually get paid for. So much to talk about, so many things I’ve seen that make me wonder just how irrational the human species can possibly be.

So let’s talk about strange things people think about perception and communication. Just for clarification, for the rest of this essay, whenever I say “you”, I am not referring to anyone in particular, so please don’t take offense. Unless you have said some of these things yourself, I am not talking about you in particular.

I was told recently that when I say, “I wish I could get you to understand my side of it,” it means I am criticizing them and saying they are not smart enough to understand. NO I AM NOT. I hate it when people put words into my mouth. What I meant was precisely what I said. I wish they could understand my point of view. My frustration is that I can’t figure out a way to communicate what I want. It does not mean you are too stupid, it means I am failing to communicate properly. This is a basic point of communication that many people don’t seem to understand. When two people are trying to communicate, if there is a failure to communicate, it is ALWAYS the failure of the person trying to communicate, not the communicate. It is the responsibility of the person trying to communicate to find a way that the other person understands. Some people are harder to communicate with than others, but since they can not be expected to be mindreaders, they can’t be held responsible for not understanding.

I have been told that the police, airport security, and others in the security business are specially trained in detecting and interpreting body language and “micro-expressions.” Too bad they aren’t qualified psychologists and even if they were, it wouldn’t mean anything. Example: a person who won’t look you in the eyes and keeps looking away is lying and trying to hide something, right? WRONG. It could mean that the person is simply shy, or perhaps they are nervous about being questioned by a cop, or maybe they’ve just had a really bad day, maybe they are distracted and worried about something else, or maybe they are somewhere on the autistic spectrum and they just aren’t comfortable looking anyone in the eyes. One last thing, if a person is perfectly comfortable lying, they are not going to be caught by this technique, because it assumes that a person will feel guilty about lying. So this wonderful technique only works on basically honest people that are caught not telling the truth, or maybe are just not having a good day, but it fails for the very people it is supposed to detect.

Another great one: a person crossing their arms in a conversation is supposed to be closed off and confrontational, not wanting to have an honest and open conversation. Or maybe they are just cold, or maybe they are socially insecure and don’t know what to do with their hands. There are any number of reasons they could be crossing their arms that have nothing to do with how “open” they are to the conversation.

Perhaps they are frowning when they are listening to you. They must be angry, right? Or, perhaps they just do that when they are concentrating and they are just concentrating on hearing what you have to say. Certainly that is what is going on with me most of the time.

When they are angry, when they sound irritated, that clearly means they are upset with you. Except when they are upset with themselves, or they have a headache, or maybe they just don’t hear tonal inflections well and don’t even realize they sound angry.

I could go on and on, but I’m tired and depressed that so many people believe this obvious fallacy that body language is so great. If it was so clear, people wouldn’t have all the miscommunication that occurs every day, all around us, all the time.

I had someone tell me that they hated having conversations in writing because the possibility was so much greater for miscommunication when all you could see were their words, they couldn’t read tonal inflections and the nonverbal communications. What is so difficult about just reading what words are written and taking them at face value without all the baggage of trying to read body language that is so vague and inaccurate? The written word allows you to say, “this is what you said, is this not what you meant.” Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you say things like, “your hip is turned this way, so you really meant this.” No, actually, it didn’t mean a damned thing that related to our conversation. It only meant I happened to be standing that way. You want to know what I think? Ask me and listen to what I actually say, don’t try to interpret my body language, because most likely you will be wrong.

Fashion Faux Paus

It seems that a lot of people don't think about the activities they plan on participating in when they plan their wardrobe for the day, despite a great deal of planning about how they look, which seems to me to be rather backward. Mostly, it seems to be women, although guys do it sometimes too. Let me illustrate just a few things that I have seen that made me go hmm.

A woman at a local waterpark was wearing a string bikini. That in and of itself is not unusual. Women with the right form look great in them. Then again, it really doesn't matter what they wear if they can make a string bikini look good, so it is rather moot. No, what made this a seriously bad choice was that she was a mother with a little boy trailing along behind her. A little boy that saw interesting dangling strings within arm reach and, being a curious little boy, kept pulling on them. Needless to say, his mom was not too happy about her swim suit constantly being taken off in public. This could have been prevented quite easily if she had simply worn any other type of swimsuit. String bikinis are not the greatest choice for any woman that actually intends on swimming anyway as they have a tendency of slipping off in the type of activities that occur in water parks, say, on slides or in the wave pool. While this may be greatly amusing to all the guys there, I am not so sure it is that amusing to the women, or girls. Why anyone would send their 6 year old daughters to a water park in a string bikini is beyond me, but I see it all the time. No, string bikinis really only have one purpose, to make guys imagine pulling those strings. Seriously girls, if you aren't planning on guys doing that so you can have a wild bout of sex, you might want to rethink making your swimsuit the one second to naked variety.

Another thing I see women do on a regular basis is wearing miniskirts and a light blouse no matter how cold it is, then of course they complain about being cold. If this is not a ploy to get guys to invite them into their room, I don't know what is. You might as well be putting a sign on yourself saying you are available and ready for sex. Unless it is hot outside, miniskirts are designed to make men think of women as purely sex objects. No woman can expect to be taken seriously while wearing them, unless by seriously one means with serious intent to screw. Women dress like this to indicate they are sexy, but in reality it mostly indicates they are stupid and desperate. Miniskirts certainly have their place and are quite appropriate in the right circumstance, but that circumstance is not when the temperature is below freezing.

High heels are another thing that seems rather ill thought out. They seem to be designed by sadistic podiatrists to drum up business because they are about the worst thing a person can do to their feet. This is not exactly news to women, yet they still insist on wearing them. Don't get me wrong, I like to see a good looking woman in high heels as much as the next guy, they certainly have their place. One such place is when the woman is trying to look sexy with the intent to carry out that implied intent at some point in the near future. However, if a woman is trying to be taken seriously as a person with a brain and not just a nice ass, and/or they are on their feet for extended periods, high heels are just plain dumb. If women want to be taken seriously, dressing like they are advertising sex is probably not the way to do it. I am not saying women have to dress frumpy, which is the typical complaint women make when people bring this up, but when one dresses to highlight certain physical characteristics, they have no justification for complaining when people assume intent behind that mode of dress. There are lots of ways to dress and look nice without advertising sexual availability. Women may also bring up the height differential. In some cases, this may be a valid point, height does confer a social advantage in our society. But this social pressure is not as high on women as it is on men. Not to say it isn't there, it is just not as strong. But mostly, my disagreement here is on the type of shoe chosen. The stiletto heels with pointed toes are not designed to promote a height advantage, they are designed solely for appearance. That appearance to me says look, I am a ditz that is willing to permanently damage my feet in the hopes of attracting a guy to take care of me because I am incapable of doing so for myself, unless of course, the social situation is one in which people are expected to make oneself attractive for the opposite gender. At parties or social gathering outside of work, a woman can dress in such a way without any statements made about their intelligence or ability. At work though, it just says ditzy. On the other hand, a wider heel with a broader toe indicates that a woman feels the need to be taller (which, there are plenty of times in which this is a valid concern, both physically and socially) but has some thought about her feet. This type of woman can be taken seriously in a work environment.

To sum this section up, if a woman walks into my office to talk about her grade and she is dressed modestly, I am going to assume she is willing to conversely intelligently about her grade and I will be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. If she comes in wearing a lowcut blouse with no bra and a miniskirt, I am going to assume she is going to try to sway my opinion with sex appeal, or an implicit offer of sex (because yes, this is a not uncommon tactic in universities). This is going to make me want to get away from her as fast as possible (as I don't want to lose my job) and will certainly result in no improvement of her grade. There are plenty of instructors on whom this behavior works, but that helps no one and the instructors really should be canned as that sort of behavior is damaging to the goal of school for all concerned.

I should point out that men also wear high heels upon occasion. This usually takes the form of cowboy boots. In the country, there are good reasons for them. If one is actually riding horses, the heel is a utilitarian device. In an urban landscape, the only benefit is to be taller and look masculine. Mostly it makes them look like stupid posers. Look guys, everyone knows you're not a cowboy and wouldn't be able to ride a horse if your life depended on it, so cut the charade, alright? Unless you're going to a country bar and dressing for the occasion, you just look dumb.

The other big mistake that men and women make in the shoe department is to wear nice shoes even when they are going someplace that requires them to walk in the mud. I have seen so many people go on field trips in which they know they are going to be walking around in the muck wearing expensive shoes that get ruined. The women have it even worse, because stiletto heels just don't work in mud. Every time I see that, I just have to wonder why they even bothered to show up. The rest of the class that dressed appropriately are just laughing at them. Here's a tip, if you are going hiking, miniskirts and high heels? Not such a good idea. Try jeans and comfortable shoes. The women who dress appropriately get much more respect from the guys (the guys who don't dress appropriately are just hopeless twits, the less said about the better).

One final fashion faux paus. If you are in a place in which there is a decent chance of dropping something on your toes or spilling something on your clothes, you might want to consider wearing appropriate clothing. Sandals and shorts are not good things to wear in a machine shop, or a lab, or similar places. Playing with children dressed in expensive clothes just means a huge cleaning bill. Don't try your hand at painting or cooking while wearing designer duds.

All this seems common sense, but as we all know, common sense is not so common. A tip to those that might still have some brain matter between their ears: try to dress like you mean it. Think about what you will be doing, then dress appropriately for the occasion. How hard is that?

Glen Beck is a Con

I have never understood why people support Glen Beck. He is the worst kind of con artist, an obvious one.

Beck spends a lot of his time telling us just how bad the Democrats are ruining the country. According to him, the economy is due to catastrophically collapse any minute. His solution for people is for them to buy gold, because when the economy collapses and money is worthless, gold will be the only thing that will hold its value. So of course he is in the business of selling gold. he is making a fortune off convincing people the economy is tanking when he doesn't believe it himself.

Why is it obvious he doesn't believe it? Several reasons. First and foremost, if he really believed it, he would not be selling his gold. He would be keeping it for himself. Moreover, he would not be taking currency for his gold because, according to him, all that currency that he is working so hard to collect, is going to soon be worthless.

Continuing on, a little basic economy research indicates that gold is a good investment when the market is low, but a very bad investment when the market is going up. The gold brokers know this, so when they are pushing gold, that should be a sign that they think the economy is going to improve. The thing is, you want to buy gold when the economy is good, because the price of gold tends to be low, so when the economy tanks, you can sell it for a great price. This is what the gold brokers are doing. They are trying to get people to buy it now because they, NOT YOU, are going to make a killing. Gold is really high right now, the brokers like Beck will make a fortune if you buy it now.

The other thing I fail to see why people don't question, is if the economy tanks and currency becomes worthless, why do people think gold is going to be any better? When people are desperate, they are interested in food, clothing, shelter, and power. Gold will do none of these things. It is no better than currency when it comes down to it. If you really thought the economy was going to collapse, gold would not be what you would be stocking up on. You would find a place that you could grow your own food, buy some goats (easier to take care of than cows) or sheep, and invest in ways to take your home off the electrical grid. You would be adding solar power, geothermal, and/or other green energy sources that would supply you with all the power you need. You would be learning medical skills and engineering.

What you would NOT be doing is amassing a hoard of worthless yellow minerals. Obtain knowledge, don't waste your time on worthless bling. You can't eat gold, it won't keep you warm at night, it won't even keep the rain off your head. Gold has worth only because people are willing to buy it to show how wealthy they are. But that wealth only has worth in a functioning economy.

Glen Beck obviously really thinks the economy is doing ok, ar at least well enough that your money will still buy him lots of stuff and that it will continue to do so in the forseeable future. Don't be an idiot. Keep your money.

ADDENDUM: I actually forgot the other huge thing that points to Beck being a liar in this situation. He doesn't want people to gold bullion. He wants people to buy rare gold coins that are vastly overpriced. How much overpriced? As much as 10x the real value of the gold. Here is a great infographic that shows just how badly Beck is lying: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/glenn-beck-goldline/

Recall Sanity

UPDATE: When I wrote this, I was suffering from sleep deprivation. There is a serious logical flaw in it that does a wonderful job of pretty much demolishing my point. I thought a good while about simply taking down the post, but I decided to leave it up for a few reasons. 1) It is a shining example of how sleep deprivation does indeed negatively affect performance, 2) it illustrates why one should not think statistics when tired, 3) the main idea is still valid, I think, even if there is a serious flaw in the example, and 4) it will be interesting to see if anyone reading this will pick up on the mistake other than me. I will say again though, the main idea of the post is still valid in today's overly fear-driven society and is something we all need to think about. Are the fears we panic about really significant compared to dangers we ignore? Just how messed up are our priorities?  

The United States has decided to recall sanity. What am I talking about? The decision to recall 380 million eggs from all across the country because "hundreds" of people in a four state area have gotten sick due to salmonella. No one has died, just gotten sick.
Why do I think this is an overreaction? Consider the odds of getting salmonella from one of these possibly infected eggs. The number of salmonella cases in the country that has been attributed to this particular outbreak number less than 300. Consider that according to the CDC, the total number of salmonella cases every year from all sources is about 4000, I hardly think this qualifies as something to worry about. But if we take the 300 cases, that means that there is less than a 1 in a million chance of getting salmonella from the eggs being recalled.

Let's compare this to a few other facts, shall we? According to Eggsafety.org, the chances of getting exposed to salmonella in eggs just normally is 1:20,000, which, they estimate, means you should eat an egg with salmonella, on average, once every 84 years. Seems to me the chances of getting salmonella from the NON-recalled eggs is certainly no worse than getting it from the recalled eggs.Now admittedly, we are comparing numbers of people who actually got sick, supposedly from contaminated eggs, to the number of people who get exposed to the salmonella bacteria, which are not at all the same. Still, it is clear that the recalled eggs are not exactly posing a major health hazard.

Let's compare this with some other statistics. The national Weather Service estimates your chances of being struck by lightning this year are between 1/500,000 to 1/750,000. Being struck by lightning in your entire life runs you a risk of about 1/6250. Most people don't panic overly much about being struck by lightning because it is a real, but very rare event. But it is MUCH MORE LIKELY than getting salmonella from these recalled eggs.

Now, suppose you beat the astronomical odds and actually get an egg with salmonella. How dangerous is it? If you bother to cook it and don't eat it raw, the chances of actually contracting salmonella is approximately, um...uh...ZERO because cooking the egg kills the bacteria. Turns out these particular bacteria are not that resistant to heat.

Suppose you really beat the odds and get an infected egg AND you eat it raw AND you get sick. How dangerous is it? The answer? Not all that much. You will get nauseous, you may vomit, get a fever, diarrhea, and in general feel sicker than a dog, but you will be fine in a few days with no, ahem, ill effects. Most likely, you will simply feel a little queasy like you ate something that didn't agree with you and you won't miss a lick of work. Sorry bout that. It is possible you may get so sick that you could die if completely cut off from any sort of health care, but that is really, really, really unlikely unless you are a) very young, b) very old, or c) already sick as a dog from something else, in which case you may die if your neighbor sneezes in your general direction.

All in all, I'm not seeing the threat here, certainly not one worth spending millions of dollars and scaring lots of people about. So apparently, we are not recalling eggs per se, but any shred of sanity.