I have a few projects in the works recently, on a skeptical line, that I wanted to share with all 1.5 of my regular readers. :-)
SkeptiCamp - I have volunteered my time to help plan, organize and maybe even present at the Ohio SkeptiCamp this coming may. If all works out I will be doing a workshop on Critical Thinking and Advertising. I've attended two planning meetings so far, and things seem to be coming along nicely. Once we get closer to the date, and the registration page is up, I will link to it here, so that anyone who wants to attend can do so. (Please do!)
Central Ohioans for Rational Inquiry - CORI is the local Skeptic's group, and a nice bunch of people to boot. I've enjoyed both meetings that I've attended with them so far, and there is much to do. It's nice to be in a group that thinks the same way you do about so many things. I feel much more relaxed with them than I do with some of the other groups I see on a regular basis. Nice people. I'm looking forward to getting more involved.
There is also talk of putting together a podcast for CORI as well. I've volunteered my time for that, too. Hope I'm not spreading myself too thin. :-) I have offered to do music for the podcast, and present on health / medicine topics for the show. Not that I'm an expert, but I do know how to do research, and analyze a claim. So here's hoping that pans out as well.
I have some other posts rattling around in my brain, but those must wait for the moment. I have a basement cabinet to clean out, and had better take the opportunity while my son naps.
Have a good week!
-D.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Monday, October 20, 2008
Time to speak up.
You know, I think I've come to a decision. What really makes me upset lately is not so much some people's ignorance. It's people's willful ignorance. Take for example, a certain person I know. (And you all know at least one, so don't pretend you don't relate.) This person has, apparently 'figured it all out'. In a less than 10 minute conversation with him, I found out that:
1. Barack Obama is a Muslim. (No he isn't.)
2. Atheists believe this world came from nothing. (No we don't.)
3. AT&T is evil. (No, just too bloated and scattered to be efficient.)
4. The Koran is a book about how to hate America. (I doubt that.)
I could go on, but I stopped actually listening to him at that point. Actually, I think I stopped listening to him right about the time he said...
Him: "The Koran is just a book to teach them how to hate America."
Me: "Really? I wouldn't know, I've never read the Koran."
Him: "Well, I've never read it either... but I read about it on the internet!"
I am not making this up. The fact is, the information is out there for those who want to actually check their facts. I'm certain he knows perfectly well that he could Google editions of the Koran if he wanted to. He just chooses not to.
Same for the various facts about Barack Obama. They are all well within checking, yet most people, like my inauspicious acquaintance, refuse to do so.
Why? Why is it so hard to just do a little fact checking? I think it boils down to a simple reason, that I feel compelled to reiterate again. Given what I just witnessed: As people, we tend to fear what we don't understand. That fear often turns into aggression, since we are threatened by our fears. Aggression becomes hatred, and ignorance feeds hatred like gasoline feeds fire. I suggest we all work backwards through that chain, towards some understanding. Now. Before we get burned.
Thanks.
-D.
1. Barack Obama is a Muslim. (No he isn't.)
2. Atheists believe this world came from nothing. (No we don't.)
3. AT&T is evil. (No, just too bloated and scattered to be efficient.)
4. The Koran is a book about how to hate America. (I doubt that.)
I could go on, but I stopped actually listening to him at that point. Actually, I think I stopped listening to him right about the time he said...
Him: "The Koran is just a book to teach them how to hate America."
Me: "Really? I wouldn't know, I've never read the Koran."
Him: "Well, I've never read it either... but I read about it on the internet!"
I am not making this up. The fact is, the information is out there for those who want to actually check their facts. I'm certain he knows perfectly well that he could Google editions of the Koran if he wanted to. He just chooses not to.
Same for the various facts about Barack Obama. They are all well within checking, yet most people, like my inauspicious acquaintance, refuse to do so.
Why? Why is it so hard to just do a little fact checking? I think it boils down to a simple reason, that I feel compelled to reiterate again. Given what I just witnessed: As people, we tend to fear what we don't understand. That fear often turns into aggression, since we are threatened by our fears. Aggression becomes hatred, and ignorance feeds hatred like gasoline feeds fire. I suggest we all work backwards through that chain, towards some understanding. Now. Before we get burned.
Thanks.
-D.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Training my sights on...
So I'm watching Curious George on PBS with my daughter. My son is milling around the room, trying to decide which corner he wants to hide the next toy in. The wife is out.
In this episode the 'man with the yellow hat' is sick, and George has been trying to take care of him, the help him recover. Good monkey. George brings him lots of fluids, goes to the pharmacy and 'talks' to the pharmacist who recommends some medicine... all good things to do. Unfortunately, George also takes just about everyone's advice, and on various recommendations, also attempts to follow folk wisdom such as "Feed a Cold, Starve a Fever." In one example, George is comparing the symptoms of the man with the yellow hat to ones described by a cat owner who's cat was sick. Due to the misapplication, George believes that the man will soon have kittens, and prepares the apartment for their arrival.
At the end of the animated episode, there is a live action sequence where a group of school-age children go to visit a doctor, to learn a little about sickness and medicine. My jaw hit the floor when I found out that the doctor was a Naturopath. Please read the article linked here on Naturopathy before proceeding.
In the segment with the Naturopath, the kids are shown various pills. I wondered briefly what was in those pills, until the man opened one up and asked the kids to attempt to identify the substance within. One child guessed it was rosemary, but was told it was actually oregano. I did a little searching around but honestly, it would seem that even Naturopaths are in disagreement as to what oregano is used for. I saw everything from 'pain killer' and 'immune system booster' all the way to treating Lyme disease and Autism. No description of mechanism, just "Trust us, we're doctors."
No, you're not.
So, basically, George believes just about everything he hears, and tries just about everything, when all the man needed was rest and something for his symptoms. Something any decent medical doctor would have told him, and what doctors have often told me for my colds. Instead George tries a few 'alternative therapies' and even misdiagnoses the illness, with comical effects, sure, but I can tell you from experience that diagnosis without medical training can lead to disaster. And the punch line is this friendly Naturopath, showing these kids his 'medicines'. I'm not sure whether I wanted to cry or throw up.
Well, I didn't hold back. I said exactly what was on my mind. My daughter agreed with me a little too quickly. I admonished her for that, and said she shouldn't believe something on someone's say so, even mine. She needs to learn how to look at the evidence, and think critically about things. I think she kind of got it. I'm sure we'll revisit this again in the near future. I plan to.
One other thing I want to make clear. The article I linked above is supposed to be an authoritative source. Wiki4CAM was started by CAM practitioners who got tired of the smackdown they were getting on WikiPedia. Here's the WikiPedia entry on Naturopathy, by the way. Note the differences and the similarities. What's mentioned in the Wiki4CAM article that doesn't show up in WikiPedia? (I'm not pointing it out here, because I want you to actually read it.)
Also note the abjuration to skeptics on Wiki4CAM. WikiPedia invites open debate on subjects, which is usually resolved in some way by citing references. Wiki4CAM basically says, and yes, I'm paraphrasing, "Don't argue with us here, just go away. We don't want to be challenged." Based on that alone, when the Wiki4CAM article on Naturopathy opens itself up with:
This article does not cite adequate references or sources.
I think that says it all.
Now I have two questions. First, how do I explain to my daughter why I was so upset with that segment and introduce critical thinking to her in a positive way? Second, what do I do about the show? Do I write WGBH? PBS? I'm open to suggestions.
In this episode the 'man with the yellow hat' is sick, and George has been trying to take care of him, the help him recover. Good monkey. George brings him lots of fluids, goes to the pharmacy and 'talks' to the pharmacist who recommends some medicine... all good things to do. Unfortunately, George also takes just about everyone's advice, and on various recommendations, also attempts to follow folk wisdom such as "Feed a Cold, Starve a Fever." In one example, George is comparing the symptoms of the man with the yellow hat to ones described by a cat owner who's cat was sick. Due to the misapplication, George believes that the man will soon have kittens, and prepares the apartment for their arrival.
At the end of the animated episode, there is a live action sequence where a group of school-age children go to visit a doctor, to learn a little about sickness and medicine. My jaw hit the floor when I found out that the doctor was a Naturopath. Please read the article linked here on Naturopathy before proceeding.
In the segment with the Naturopath, the kids are shown various pills. I wondered briefly what was in those pills, until the man opened one up and asked the kids to attempt to identify the substance within. One child guessed it was rosemary, but was told it was actually oregano. I did a little searching around but honestly, it would seem that even Naturopaths are in disagreement as to what oregano is used for. I saw everything from 'pain killer' and 'immune system booster' all the way to treating Lyme disease and Autism. No description of mechanism, just "Trust us, we're doctors."
No, you're not.
So, basically, George believes just about everything he hears, and tries just about everything, when all the man needed was rest and something for his symptoms. Something any decent medical doctor would have told him, and what doctors have often told me for my colds. Instead George tries a few 'alternative therapies' and even misdiagnoses the illness, with comical effects, sure, but I can tell you from experience that diagnosis without medical training can lead to disaster. And the punch line is this friendly Naturopath, showing these kids his 'medicines'. I'm not sure whether I wanted to cry or throw up.
Well, I didn't hold back. I said exactly what was on my mind. My daughter agreed with me a little too quickly. I admonished her for that, and said she shouldn't believe something on someone's say so, even mine. She needs to learn how to look at the evidence, and think critically about things. I think she kind of got it. I'm sure we'll revisit this again in the near future. I plan to.
One other thing I want to make clear. The article I linked above is supposed to be an authoritative source. Wiki4CAM was started by CAM practitioners who got tired of the smackdown they were getting on WikiPedia. Here's the WikiPedia entry on Naturopathy, by the way. Note the differences and the similarities. What's mentioned in the Wiki4CAM article that doesn't show up in WikiPedia? (I'm not pointing it out here, because I want you to actually read it.)
Also note the abjuration to skeptics on Wiki4CAM. WikiPedia invites open debate on subjects, which is usually resolved in some way by citing references. Wiki4CAM basically says, and yes, I'm paraphrasing, "Don't argue with us here, just go away. We don't want to be challenged." Based on that alone, when the Wiki4CAM article on Naturopathy opens itself up with:
This article does not cite adequate references or sources.
I think that says it all.
Now I have two questions. First, how do I explain to my daughter why I was so upset with that segment and introduce critical thinking to her in a positive way? Second, what do I do about the show? Do I write WGBH? PBS? I'm open to suggestions.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Deprogramming.
The term conjures up a lot of images of darkened rooms with men in black suits and a single light on a subject, who leaves the room truly believing that "... it never really happened." At least, it does for me.
But other kinds of deprogramming are essential for survival. We grow up with a lot of little beliefs that turn out to be factually incorrect, benign though they may be. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The Easter Bunny (who I got to be at a party a little while back, and had a blast.)
As we get older, we begin to cast off more illusions and delusions, but some, we cling to like there's no tomorrow. Yes, I'm an Atheist, and I count religion as a delusion, but it is so common a delusion that I won't bother treating it here at this time. I did say that I would talk about a couple of misconceptions I had, so let's get to that.
When I was in college I had a few odd beliefs here and there, mostly benign, but I also had some pretty clear convictions about other things. I was very down on Christianity at the time, but I had no problem believing in Pagan/Wicca or Eastern Religions. This eventually lead to Buddhism some time later, but in college, I thought that I was both a) clairvoyant, and b) could manipulate Ouija boards.
I had a great deal of fun exploring lesser used areas of the campus where I was at, and I found myself one night in a construction area where they were renovating the dean's house. Natural curiosity took over and having already heard that it was haunted, I decided to nose my way in, ignoring the barriers and caution tape. I opened the side door. (It may have been the front door, not sure.) and leaned in. At once I felt a hand on my chest that literally shoved me back out the door and a low voice saying "Out." That was just about all the invitation I needed and I beat a hasty retreat, lest the ghost who ejected me take stronger measures. As it was, the pain from the hit in my chest lasted about 3 days. I told nobody of this until years later.
A year or two later, I was on tour with the Jazz Choir there and we ended up spending the night in a very old monastery. Late at night, I decided to have some fun with a few of the more skittish ladies, and fashioned a Ouija board out of some slips of paper and a shot glass. It worked like a charm. Up until one of the tenors decided to hide in the closet and rattle the doors, scaring the living crap out of us.
So for a long time, I held on to these things as real. After all, I had no other explanations for these things. What other possible explanation was there? I really wasn't touching the shot glass, yet it moved from letter to letter without effort. That hand on my chest was quite powerful, and the voice was as clear as day.
Or was it?
As time went by and my education into things skeptical began, I started wondering about some of these events. Early on, I learned about the Ideomotor Effect, and how it can fool dowsers, pendulum psychics, and yes... even Ouija board users. Yes, you really are moving the planchette, you're just not aware that you're doing it. I thought about how I checked on the shot glass as it moved around and how it slowed down when I was seeing how far my finger was from the top of it. I also watched a few demonstrations of Ouija board users, where they were blindfolded or otherwise prevented from seeing the board. In one case, the board was even turned 180°. The resulting answers made no sense at all, and were composed entirely of random letters. That's one old belief down. But the hand and the voice, that was real, right?
A couple of years ago, I felt a bit of a popping sensation in my chest, followed by a dull pain that spread from the center of my chest outwards. A bit older now, and fearing a heart attack, I had a friend drive me to the emergency room, and was examined. No problems with my heart, but the doctor did explain to me how after a bout of upper respiratory illness or bronchitis, the cartilage between the breastbone and the sternum can 'crack' much like cracking your knuckles, and cause some chest pain. Later, I remembered vaguely of how I was leaning in through the door frame of the dean's house, with my chest pulled tight as I had both hands on either side of the frame. The pop would have caused me to pull everything back together, quickly sending my body back through the frame under my own power. That's the hand, but what about that voice.
It would be another year or so later until I learned about infrasound. The air handlers being used on the construction site, or the furnace of the house would have provided the perfect source of infrasound. A large fan starting up, with maybe a little less lubricant than it should have, could have easily provided the 'ooooooouuuuut' sound I had heard.
Having found much more reasonable explanations for these events, I could finally let them go. These days, I don't need to find the most reasonable explanation for everything that happens, but I'm content to believe that things have reasonable explanations, and it's not necessary to resort to paranormal beliefs.
Before you're going to believe that something is paranormal, make sure it isn't normal, first.
But other kinds of deprogramming are essential for survival. We grow up with a lot of little beliefs that turn out to be factually incorrect, benign though they may be. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The Easter Bunny (who I got to be at a party a little while back, and had a blast.)
As we get older, we begin to cast off more illusions and delusions, but some, we cling to like there's no tomorrow. Yes, I'm an Atheist, and I count religion as a delusion, but it is so common a delusion that I won't bother treating it here at this time. I did say that I would talk about a couple of misconceptions I had, so let's get to that.
When I was in college I had a few odd beliefs here and there, mostly benign, but I also had some pretty clear convictions about other things. I was very down on Christianity at the time, but I had no problem believing in Pagan/Wicca or Eastern Religions. This eventually lead to Buddhism some time later, but in college, I thought that I was both a) clairvoyant, and b) could manipulate Ouija boards.
I had a great deal of fun exploring lesser used areas of the campus where I was at, and I found myself one night in a construction area where they were renovating the dean's house. Natural curiosity took over and having already heard that it was haunted, I decided to nose my way in, ignoring the barriers and caution tape. I opened the side door. (It may have been the front door, not sure.) and leaned in. At once I felt a hand on my chest that literally shoved me back out the door and a low voice saying "Out." That was just about all the invitation I needed and I beat a hasty retreat, lest the ghost who ejected me take stronger measures. As it was, the pain from the hit in my chest lasted about 3 days. I told nobody of this until years later.
A year or two later, I was on tour with the Jazz Choir there and we ended up spending the night in a very old monastery. Late at night, I decided to have some fun with a few of the more skittish ladies, and fashioned a Ouija board out of some slips of paper and a shot glass. It worked like a charm. Up until one of the tenors decided to hide in the closet and rattle the doors, scaring the living crap out of us.
So for a long time, I held on to these things as real. After all, I had no other explanations for these things. What other possible explanation was there? I really wasn't touching the shot glass, yet it moved from letter to letter without effort. That hand on my chest was quite powerful, and the voice was as clear as day.
Or was it?
As time went by and my education into things skeptical began, I started wondering about some of these events. Early on, I learned about the Ideomotor Effect, and how it can fool dowsers, pendulum psychics, and yes... even Ouija board users. Yes, you really are moving the planchette, you're just not aware that you're doing it. I thought about how I checked on the shot glass as it moved around and how it slowed down when I was seeing how far my finger was from the top of it. I also watched a few demonstrations of Ouija board users, where they were blindfolded or otherwise prevented from seeing the board. In one case, the board was even turned 180°. The resulting answers made no sense at all, and were composed entirely of random letters. That's one old belief down. But the hand and the voice, that was real, right?
A couple of years ago, I felt a bit of a popping sensation in my chest, followed by a dull pain that spread from the center of my chest outwards. A bit older now, and fearing a heart attack, I had a friend drive me to the emergency room, and was examined. No problems with my heart, but the doctor did explain to me how after a bout of upper respiratory illness or bronchitis, the cartilage between the breastbone and the sternum can 'crack' much like cracking your knuckles, and cause some chest pain. Later, I remembered vaguely of how I was leaning in through the door frame of the dean's house, with my chest pulled tight as I had both hands on either side of the frame. The pop would have caused me to pull everything back together, quickly sending my body back through the frame under my own power. That's the hand, but what about that voice.
It would be another year or so later until I learned about infrasound. The air handlers being used on the construction site, or the furnace of the house would have provided the perfect source of infrasound. A large fan starting up, with maybe a little less lubricant than it should have, could have easily provided the 'ooooooouuuuut' sound I had heard.
Having found much more reasonable explanations for these events, I could finally let them go. These days, I don't need to find the most reasonable explanation for everything that happens, but I'm content to believe that things have reasonable explanations, and it's not necessary to resort to paranormal beliefs.
Before you're going to believe that something is paranormal, make sure it isn't normal, first.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
So much woo, so little time.
've been having some difficulty with this particular blog. Not with the lack of posting, since that's universal to all my blogs. No, the problem I have with this particular blog is what to post. There's so much out there I could talk about, that it's hard for me to decide what to cover. Here's some of the things I've been looking at, and will hopefully post more detail on at a later date:
1. Nano-stuff. There's a company called LifePak that sells vitamin supplements. They have supposedly somehow encapsulated the particular vitamins at the molecular level, thereby improving absorption. There is another company called Colorscience that markets a sunblock powder that has been similarly refined to be a 'nano-powder' This is to reduce absorption into the skin. I'm not too sure how any of this works, but this needs some research.
2. False authority. I received an email regarding a company health offering (not my company). In there, it mentioned several different available services, including counseling. Apparently, if I needed to and was a member of this company, I could speak to 'a Master's-Level Specialist' about my psychological concerns. What a Master's-Level Specialist is, is not defined. I have never heard of a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or psychologist referred to in this manner. The illusion of false authority isn't working for me here.
3. The Skeptologists. I will consider buying Cable TV service if this actually hits the air. It's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy meets Mythbusters. The Skeptologists is a group of scientists who attempt to clear up a particular type of pseudo-science for an individual. I'm in. I wish I was a physicist. I would audition for this in a heartbeat. If the pilot gets done, I'll let you know.
4. Mind Altering. Not in the way of substance abuse, but more along the lines of Logic Abuse. What have you changed your mind about? I used to believe a lot of very strange and interesting things. I wonder sometimes how I came to those beliefs. I have since dropped almost all of them. (Some are more difficult to get rid of than others.) I'll describe a couple of them, and what it was that changed my mind about them.
So, is there anything in particular you'd like to hear more about? I'm all ears. Feel free to request more on any of the above, and I'll prioritize it. Or, suggest your own topic, and I'll give it the skeptics treatment.
Later.
-D.
1. Nano-stuff. There's a company called LifePak that sells vitamin supplements. They have supposedly somehow encapsulated the particular vitamins at the molecular level, thereby improving absorption. There is another company called Colorscience that markets a sunblock powder that has been similarly refined to be a 'nano-powder' This is to reduce absorption into the skin. I'm not too sure how any of this works, but this needs some research.
2. False authority. I received an email regarding a company health offering (not my company). In there, it mentioned several different available services, including counseling. Apparently, if I needed to and was a member of this company, I could speak to 'a Master's-Level Specialist' about my psychological concerns. What a Master's-Level Specialist is, is not defined. I have never heard of a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or psychologist referred to in this manner. The illusion of false authority isn't working for me here.
3. The Skeptologists. I will consider buying Cable TV service if this actually hits the air. It's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy meets Mythbusters. The Skeptologists is a group of scientists who attempt to clear up a particular type of pseudo-science for an individual. I'm in. I wish I was a physicist. I would audition for this in a heartbeat. If the pilot gets done, I'll let you know.
4. Mind Altering. Not in the way of substance abuse, but more along the lines of Logic Abuse. What have you changed your mind about? I used to believe a lot of very strange and interesting things. I wonder sometimes how I came to those beliefs. I have since dropped almost all of them. (Some are more difficult to get rid of than others.) I'll describe a couple of them, and what it was that changed my mind about them.
So, is there anything in particular you'd like to hear more about? I'm all ears. Feel free to request more on any of the above, and I'll prioritize it. Or, suggest your own topic, and I'll give it the skeptics treatment.
Later.
-D.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
To Search Or Not To Search.
Update - 2008.01.21.0442: After reading this for the, oh, 123476th time or so, I noticed a flaw in my written logic. The mathematical logic still stood, but I explained it incorrectly. The updated portion is in bold, below. Sorry for any confusion.
Gee, I didn't think I'd be responding to comments with posts so quickly. This one is just too good to pass up, though, as it presents an excellent exercise in critical thinking and analysis.
Kt writes: I know this blog isn't a question answer thing, but I'm gonna ask you anyway. What's the point in searching for something you can never find? If you need me to elaborate I will, but I'm hoping not because I want the initial reaction.
Well... There are a couple ways to address that question. There is the philosophical way, and the scientific way. Let's take the philosophical first.
The question assumes that you are (a) already searching and (b) already know that you can't find it. This means that the search is the answer, rather than whatever it is you're searching for. The search is it's own result. Now, if we don't make any of those particular assumptions, then we assume that you have started searching, but are now in doubt of the result's existence. In this case, you have to make a determination as to whether or not you should continue your search. The most correct philosophical answer then, would probably be to respond with the question, "How do you know you can never find it, if you have never searched?"
But, this is a skeptical / science and critical thinking blog, so for the scientific answer, let's do it my way: With math.
Note to math gurus: This is a thought exercise and not meant to be a complete theory. Just roll with it, 'k?
First, I'm going to show you a matrix. (I love matrices.) This describes the best to worst result based on each assumption. Positive numbers are positive results, negative numbers are negative results.
The results, of course, are potential multiples, based on the value of the result in question, so the first thing we do is we decide how valuable the result is. Finding a dollar you carelessly left somewhere around the house is maybe a factor of 1. So your result range is somewhere between 2 and 2 Not a big change in value. Make that a one hundred dollar bill, and the factor becomes 100. Now your result range is between 200 and -200. So we see that the risk to reward ratio increases with the value of the goal. Now think about what this means when we change the goal from a one hundred dollar bill, to a cure for cancer. The reward and risk increase exponentially. For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a 100 dollar bill, and multiply the overall results by the value.
The next thing we do, or should do, is decide how probable It is that the result exists. I know I have my car keys somewhere in the house. The 20 carat diamond and stack of gold bars is a little less likely to be lying around here somewhere…
[EDIT 2008.01.21.0442 by D]
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being 'not probable at all', and 10 being 'almost definite', we can say how certain we are that the thing we're searching for either does or does not exist, then multiply that particular column by that factor. Let's say that the probability that a 100 dollar bill does not exist in my house is about a 3 out of 10. So we multiply the 'Does Not Exist' column by that factor.
[EDIT COMPLETE]
At this point, the answer is a bit clearer. The best possible action at this point is not to search, since the highest potential result is there. (Best Option = 200). There's one more factor to take into account in this case, and that is search cost. How much are we willing to dedicate to the search? This is often tempered by the existing results matrix, which is why these steps need to be taken in order. This one is actually a formula, which looks like this:
((Search Result / Don't Search Result ) + Search Cost ) * Search Column
Search cost is a scale of 1 to 10, just like the probability cost. Let's say, for example that we're just willing to keep our eyes open as we go about our normal daily duties, just in case a 100 dollar bill should be around here somewhere. This could be considered a search cost of 1.
Does Exist: ((-400 / 200) + 1) * 200 = -200
vs.
Does Not Exist = ((-400 / 200) + 1) * -600 = 600
Now the decision matrix looks like this:
Get that. Now the math tells us that it's a better idea to search for something that has a probability of NOT existing. How is that possible? Remember... the search cost is very low. Since the gain is high, and the search cost is low, it does actually make sense to expend the minimal energy and resources to make that kind of a search, even with a low probability of existence. Now, lets ratchet the investment up a bit, and see how it shakes out. If we make plans to go through drawers, move furniture, look in unlikely places, etc… the search cost goes up to 5.
Does Exist: ((-400 / 200) + 5) * 200 = 600
vs.
Does Not Exist = ((-400 / 200) + 5) * -600 = -1,800
Result:
Now the result is obvious. Given the likelihood of the object or goal's existence, and the cost we plan to expend in searching for it, the results are dramatic. Our mathematically best option is now most certainly not to tear the house apart looking for the money.
However...
I'm going to throw one last calculation at you. I call this "The Second Guess". Philosophically, it works this way: You may want to do your search anyway, since the fully positive results of finding the goal (Search / Does Exist) may outweigh the cost of a pointless search. Mathematically, we determine whether the absolute value of the Search/Does Exist result is higher than the difference between the Best Options. In this case...
[Search / Does Exist] = 600
vs.
[Search Option + Don't Search Option] = 1,000
The fully positive result (Search / Does Exist) is still less than the difference between the options. So the point stands. I'm not tearing my house up for this 100 dollar bill that probably isn't there.
So the final answer to all of this is, it comes down to what you consider to be the value of what you're searching for, what is the probability of it's existence, and to what extent you're willing to go to find it.
Make sense?
-D.
Gee, I didn't think I'd be responding to comments with posts so quickly. This one is just too good to pass up, though, as it presents an excellent exercise in critical thinking and analysis.
Kt writes: I know this blog isn't a question answer thing, but I'm gonna ask you anyway. What's the point in searching for something you can never find? If you need me to elaborate I will, but I'm hoping not because I want the initial reaction.
Well... There are a couple ways to address that question. There is the philosophical way, and the scientific way. Let's take the philosophical first.
The question assumes that you are (a) already searching and (b) already know that you can't find it. This means that the search is the answer, rather than whatever it is you're searching for. The search is it's own result. Now, if we don't make any of those particular assumptions, then we assume that you have started searching, but are now in doubt of the result's existence. In this case, you have to make a determination as to whether or not you should continue your search. The most correct philosophical answer then, would probably be to respond with the question, "How do you know you can never find it, if you have never searched?"
But, this is a skeptical / science and critical thinking blog, so for the scientific answer, let's do it my way: With math.
Note to math gurus: This is a thought exercise and not meant to be a complete theory. Just roll with it, 'k?
First, I'm going to show you a matrix. (I love matrices.) This describes the best to worst result based on each assumption. Positive numbers are positive results, negative numbers are negative results.
| Does Exist | Does Not Exist | Best Option | |
| Search | 2 | -2 | 0 |
| Don't Search | -1 | 1 | 0 |
The results, of course, are potential multiples, based on the value of the result in question, so the first thing we do is we decide how valuable the result is. Finding a dollar you carelessly left somewhere around the house is maybe a factor of 1. So your result range is somewhere between 2 and 2 Not a big change in value. Make that a one hundred dollar bill, and the factor becomes 100. Now your result range is between 200 and -200. So we see that the risk to reward ratio increases with the value of the goal. Now think about what this means when we change the goal from a one hundred dollar bill, to a cure for cancer. The reward and risk increase exponentially. For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a 100 dollar bill, and multiply the overall results by the value.
| Does Exist | Does Not Exist | Best Option | |
| Search | 200 | -200 | 0 |
| Don't Search | -100 | 100 | 0 |
The next thing we do, or should do, is decide how probable It is that the result exists. I know I have my car keys somewhere in the house. The 20 carat diamond and stack of gold bars is a little less likely to be lying around here somewhere…
[EDIT 2008.01.21.0442 by D]
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being 'not probable at all', and 10 being 'almost definite', we can say how certain we are that the thing we're searching for either does or does not exist, then multiply that particular column by that factor. Let's say that the probability that a 100 dollar bill does not exist in my house is about a 3 out of 10. So we multiply the 'Does Not Exist' column by that factor.
[EDIT COMPLETE]
| Does Exist | Does Not Exist | Best Option | |
| Search | 200 | -600 | -400 |
| Don't Search | -100 | 300 | 200 |
At this point, the answer is a bit clearer. The best possible action at this point is not to search, since the highest potential result is there. (Best Option = 200). There's one more factor to take into account in this case, and that is search cost. How much are we willing to dedicate to the search? This is often tempered by the existing results matrix, which is why these steps need to be taken in order. This one is actually a formula, which looks like this:
Search cost is a scale of 1 to 10, just like the probability cost. Let's say, for example that we're just willing to keep our eyes open as we go about our normal daily duties, just in case a 100 dollar bill should be around here somewhere. This could be considered a search cost of 1.
Does Exist: ((-400 / 200) + 1) * 200 = -200
vs.
Does Not Exist = ((-400 / 200) + 1) * -600 = 600
Now the decision matrix looks like this:
| Does Exist | Does Not Exist | Best Option | |
| Search | -200 | 600 | 400 |
| Don't Search | -100 | 300 | 200 |
Get that. Now the math tells us that it's a better idea to search for something that has a probability of NOT existing. How is that possible? Remember... the search cost is very low. Since the gain is high, and the search cost is low, it does actually make sense to expend the minimal energy and resources to make that kind of a search, even with a low probability of existence. Now, lets ratchet the investment up a bit, and see how it shakes out. If we make plans to go through drawers, move furniture, look in unlikely places, etc… the search cost goes up to 5.
Does Exist: ((-400 / 200) + 5) * 200 = 600
vs.
Does Not Exist = ((-400 / 200) + 5) * -600 = -1,800
Result:
| Does Exist | Does Not Exist | Best Option | |
| Search | 600 | -1,800 | -1,200 |
| Don't Search | -100 | 300 | 200 |
Now the result is obvious. Given the likelihood of the object or goal's existence, and the cost we plan to expend in searching for it, the results are dramatic. Our mathematically best option is now most certainly not to tear the house apart looking for the money.
However...
I'm going to throw one last calculation at you. I call this "The Second Guess". Philosophically, it works this way: You may want to do your search anyway, since the fully positive results of finding the goal (Search / Does Exist) may outweigh the cost of a pointless search. Mathematically, we determine whether the absolute value of the Search/Does Exist result is higher than the difference between the Best Options. In this case...
[Search / Does Exist] = 600
vs.
[Search Option + Don't Search Option] = 1,000
The fully positive result (Search / Does Exist) is still less than the difference between the options. So the point stands. I'm not tearing my house up for this 100 dollar bill that probably isn't there.
So the final answer to all of this is, it comes down to what you consider to be the value of what you're searching for, what is the probability of it's existence, and to what extent you're willing to go to find it.
Make sense?
-D.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wu-Yi Woo.
I have a custom Google home page set up, complete with a theme of a cute little fox going about his business as the day goes on. (He appears to live in Eastern Asia.) One of the items on my page is a Dictionary Search, set to use the Cambridge Dictionary. Little ads appear below it, which are easily ignored, though one of them caught my eye. "Amazing Weight Loss Secret!" or some such nonsense. So….
*Click*
What followed was a page describing the wonders of Wu-Yi Tea. Yet another in a long line of products which look promising, but really, promise nothing and deliver nothing. Let's see why.
Non-Claims / Use of the word "May". - Most products that are scams will make very vague claims about what they do. May promote weight loss. May boost the immune system. May promote better health. Sure, it may do any or all of those things, but does it? The use of the word 'may' means that the product claims to do… nothing. There is the possibility that the tea will have particular properties that have a certain effect, but the hard claim that it does, is simply not there. In short, the marketers of Wu-Yi Tea do not actually claim that it has any effect. There is no clinical evidence or controlled study supplied that shows a definite effect of any of this product, though there is a reference to a study by one doctor at one location. Not exactly what I would call definitive. I will do some research, though, of this doctor and institution, and see if I can dig up the study in question. I will update this post as necessary. (Gotta do your research, if you really want to be a skeptic.)
My scalp sweat may cure impotence. It doesn't. But it might. Wanna buy some?
Multiple Disclaimers. - First I want to say something about disclaimers in general. Note the word: Dis-Claim-Er. The word itself means that the following information will contradict, or at least contraindicate, the previously made claims. Disclaimers in general tend to follow similar patterns as displayed on the Wu-Yi website. If you read the disclaimer carefully, you will find that the product does not need to have any effect at all, in order for the disclaimer to apply. In other words, with the disclaimer provided, the product doesn't have to do anything. The net effect can be 0, and the product provider has an out. Think about this the next time you read a disclaimer.
Having said that, I want to point out a couple specific things about this particular product. Please notice that along the side of the page, where the various testimonials and before/after pictures are, each are followed by a disclaimer that says three very specific things. First, that the results are not typical. Again, the tea does not make a specific claim of fat or weight loss, so the weight loss results shown in the testimonials are not typical results of drinking the tea. Second, the disclaimer notes that in addition to drinking the tea, the people in the testimonials followed an exercise and diet regimen. The weight loss is easily attributable to this, rather than the tea. Third, the disclaimer states that "individuals have been remunerated." To save you the trouble of grabbing the dictionary, remunerated means 'paid'. These people were paid, quite well according to the website itself, which states that if you send in your success story, and pictures, then you can be paid up to $1,000 for your participation. I would also suggest that this would be a fairly significant motivator to lose weight, and probably a factor in the various success stories displayed on the website.
Marketing Tactics - When any health product is advertised, there is a certain amount of marketing involved. When marketing pharmaceuticals and other products to those of us who cannot buy them directly, a positive lifestyle or situation is often displayed, such as a happy couple on the beach, or a family gathering at the dinner table, with the assumption that we will want to identify with that lifestyle, and go to our doctors to ask for our prescriptions to be changed. Other products, such as traditional cold and cough medicines, are usually advertised by showing a transition between sickness and health. If you feel like this (sick), take our product and you will feel like this (well). It's simple, but effective advertising.
Wu-Yi Tea is non-prescription, so the first tactic does not apply. The second is applied in the testimonials and pictures of happy, athletic looking people. But there are other, more interesting tactics used, that I think bear significant mention.
First, is the appeal to act quickly. This is accomplished in several different ways. First, an offer is extended to obtain a sample of the tea at no cost. The offer is only for a limited time, of course. It only lasts for a few days, and you must act quickly to take advantage of it. I noticed when I visited the site for the first time, that the offer was two days old already, and today was the last day. I did nothing, of course, and went back to the site the next day. I noticed that they claimed to have a technological problem with the website, and that as a result, the offer was open for one more day. I found that interesting, so I went back the next day, and found the same result. The offer was open for one more day. In fact, after a month, I visited the site again, and found that it was still the 'last day' of this offer. The site no longer claimed a technical issue, but had reverted to the previous wording. It seems that no matter when you visit the site, it's always the LAST DAY of this offer.
Another way they attempt to ratchet up the pressure to act quickly is employed after you fill out the little qualifying survey to see if Wu-Yi is right for you. I'll take this as an aside to the current topic. I did the survey three times. Once, I entered accurate information, and the site stated that Wu-Yi was right for me. The second time, I entered information indicating I wanted to lose over 100 pounds in one month. Again, I was a 'perfect candidate' for the free sample. Finally, I entered information indicating that I wanted to *GAIN* 20 pounds, going from 140 lbs to 160 lbs on a 4'7" frame. Once again, I was a perfect candidate. My conclusion on this is that no matter what you put in there, you will be given an opportunity to purchase, or obtain your free sample of, the tea.
After you finish the survey, however, you are brought to a screen where you can enter your information, and a countdown applet. The countdown is supposed to show how many free samples are left. You are given a few minutes to make your decision, and then all the free samples will be gone. So the time limit for the offer is reduced from hours, depending on what time of day you visit the site, to minutes. This further increases the pressure to take advantage of the offer. Interestingly enough, the counter stops at -1, rather than 0. Apparently the free sample kits are on back-order…
So in conclusion, we have a product that makes no hard and specific claims, pays for it's testimonials, does not show any scientifically tested results, does not adequately screen its users, and uses several questionable marketing tactics. I don't trust it, and neither should you.
And that's *my* claim.
*Click*
What followed was a page describing the wonders of Wu-Yi Tea. Yet another in a long line of products which look promising, but really, promise nothing and deliver nothing. Let's see why.
Non-Claims / Use of the word "May". - Most products that are scams will make very vague claims about what they do. May promote weight loss. May boost the immune system. May promote better health. Sure, it may do any or all of those things, but does it? The use of the word 'may' means that the product claims to do… nothing. There is the possibility that the tea will have particular properties that have a certain effect, but the hard claim that it does, is simply not there. In short, the marketers of Wu-Yi Tea do not actually claim that it has any effect. There is no clinical evidence or controlled study supplied that shows a definite effect of any of this product, though there is a reference to a study by one doctor at one location. Not exactly what I would call definitive. I will do some research, though, of this doctor and institution, and see if I can dig up the study in question. I will update this post as necessary. (Gotta do your research, if you really want to be a skeptic.)
My scalp sweat may cure impotence. It doesn't. But it might. Wanna buy some?
Multiple Disclaimers. - First I want to say something about disclaimers in general. Note the word: Dis-Claim-Er. The word itself means that the following information will contradict, or at least contraindicate, the previously made claims. Disclaimers in general tend to follow similar patterns as displayed on the Wu-Yi website. If you read the disclaimer carefully, you will find that the product does not need to have any effect at all, in order for the disclaimer to apply. In other words, with the disclaimer provided, the product doesn't have to do anything. The net effect can be 0, and the product provider has an out. Think about this the next time you read a disclaimer.
Having said that, I want to point out a couple specific things about this particular product. Please notice that along the side of the page, where the various testimonials and before/after pictures are, each are followed by a disclaimer that says three very specific things. First, that the results are not typical. Again, the tea does not make a specific claim of fat or weight loss, so the weight loss results shown in the testimonials are not typical results of drinking the tea. Second, the disclaimer notes that in addition to drinking the tea, the people in the testimonials followed an exercise and diet regimen. The weight loss is easily attributable to this, rather than the tea. Third, the disclaimer states that "individuals have been remunerated." To save you the trouble of grabbing the dictionary, remunerated means 'paid'. These people were paid, quite well according to the website itself, which states that if you send in your success story, and pictures, then you can be paid up to $1,000 for your participation. I would also suggest that this would be a fairly significant motivator to lose weight, and probably a factor in the various success stories displayed on the website.
Marketing Tactics - When any health product is advertised, there is a certain amount of marketing involved. When marketing pharmaceuticals and other products to those of us who cannot buy them directly, a positive lifestyle or situation is often displayed, such as a happy couple on the beach, or a family gathering at the dinner table, with the assumption that we will want to identify with that lifestyle, and go to our doctors to ask for our prescriptions to be changed. Other products, such as traditional cold and cough medicines, are usually advertised by showing a transition between sickness and health. If you feel like this (sick), take our product and you will feel like this (well). It's simple, but effective advertising.
Wu-Yi Tea is non-prescription, so the first tactic does not apply. The second is applied in the testimonials and pictures of happy, athletic looking people. But there are other, more interesting tactics used, that I think bear significant mention.
First, is the appeal to act quickly. This is accomplished in several different ways. First, an offer is extended to obtain a sample of the tea at no cost. The offer is only for a limited time, of course. It only lasts for a few days, and you must act quickly to take advantage of it. I noticed when I visited the site for the first time, that the offer was two days old already, and today was the last day. I did nothing, of course, and went back to the site the next day. I noticed that they claimed to have a technological problem with the website, and that as a result, the offer was open for one more day. I found that interesting, so I went back the next day, and found the same result. The offer was open for one more day. In fact, after a month, I visited the site again, and found that it was still the 'last day' of this offer. The site no longer claimed a technical issue, but had reverted to the previous wording. It seems that no matter when you visit the site, it's always the LAST DAY of this offer.
Another way they attempt to ratchet up the pressure to act quickly is employed after you fill out the little qualifying survey to see if Wu-Yi is right for you. I'll take this as an aside to the current topic. I did the survey three times. Once, I entered accurate information, and the site stated that Wu-Yi was right for me. The second time, I entered information indicating I wanted to lose over 100 pounds in one month. Again, I was a 'perfect candidate' for the free sample. Finally, I entered information indicating that I wanted to *GAIN* 20 pounds, going from 140 lbs to 160 lbs on a 4'7" frame. Once again, I was a perfect candidate. My conclusion on this is that no matter what you put in there, you will be given an opportunity to purchase, or obtain your free sample of, the tea.
After you finish the survey, however, you are brought to a screen where you can enter your information, and a countdown applet. The countdown is supposed to show how many free samples are left. You are given a few minutes to make your decision, and then all the free samples will be gone. So the time limit for the offer is reduced from hours, depending on what time of day you visit the site, to minutes. This further increases the pressure to take advantage of the offer. Interestingly enough, the counter stops at -1, rather than 0. Apparently the free sample kits are on back-order…
So in conclusion, we have a product that makes no hard and specific claims, pays for it's testimonials, does not show any scientifically tested results, does not adequately screen its users, and uses several questionable marketing tactics. I don't trust it, and neither should you.
And that's *my* claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
