Month: August 2012

Anti-conservative bias and social psychology

/ bs king / 5 Comments

My most popular blog post of all time was the one I did on conservative trust in the scientific community vs retraction rates.   I called it “Paranoia is just good sense if people really are out to get you” because I had a suspicion (confirmed when I ran the data) that conservatives might actually be behaving rationally when they said they trusted science less, given the ever increasing retraction rates in prominent journals.

Now, a new study shows that this distrust of the scientific community is even more well founded than I originally thought.

In a survey conducted by two self proclaimed liberals, it was found that there is heavy evidence that conservatives are being systematically discriminated against in the field of social psychology.  What unnerved the authors even more is that this was not a case where people were hiding their bias:

To some on the right, such findings are hardly surprising. But to the authors, who expected to find lopsided political leanings, but not bias, the results were not what they expected.
“The questions were pretty blatant. We didn’t expect people would give those answers,” said Yoel Inbar, a co-author, who is a visiting assistant professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and an assistant professor of social psychology at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands.
He said that the findings should concern academics. Of the bias he and a co-author found, he said, “I don’t think it’s O.K.”

The study isn’t available yet, so I can’t say I’ve read the nuances.  Still, it’s hard for me to believe two liberal authors would have attempted to skew the results in this direction.  Conservatives have claimed this bias exists for years (look no further than the ethics complaint lodged against Mark Regnerus for proof), and will no doubt find nothing shocking about the results.  For liberals to have to face what this means however, that’s something new.  Even in the comments on this article, the vitriol is surprising, with many saying that conservatives are so out of touch that it is an ethical responsibility to keep them out of fields like social psychology.

Yikes.

It is much to my chagrin that social science gets lumped in with harder science, but since findings in this field are so often reported in the media, it makes sense to take them in to account.  We have a vicious cycle here now where some fields are dominated by one party, who then do studies that slam the other party, then accuse that party of being anti-science when they don’t agree with the results.  This is crazy.  The worst thing that can happen to any scientific research is too much consensus….especially when it involves moving targets like social psychology.  With 40% of the population identifying as conservative, how can we leave those perspectives out?  Everyone, liberal and conservative, should be troubled by these findings.  Those untroubled by this should take a good look at themselves and truly ask the question “what am I so afraid of?”.

Olympic visuals

/ bs king / 1 Comment

One of the nice parts of having a baby during the Olympics is that there’s always something interesting on TV at 3am.

I had posted a visual representation of the winners of past years vs the winners today last week, and yesterday I saw an even better one.   It won’t embed, but it’s worth a watch.  It focuses primarily on Usian Bolt’s 100m dash time.  Apparently the gold medalist from 1896 still would have had 65 feet left to run when Bolt finished.

Additionally, the bronze medalist from 1896 would be finishing on par with today’s record setting 8 year olds.  It’s interesting stuff, even if (like the AVI) you believe there’s chicanery involved.

Growth charts and tiny babies

/ bs king / 4 Comments

This is another post that reflects my current life situation, but it highlighted some pretty interesting issues with data tables.

This issue is particularly interesting to me because I delivered via unplanned/urgent c-section, in part because of some abnormal measurements found during a routine ultrasound.  We had to have quite a few follow up consults and testing (among other things, they actually had to assess for achondroplasia – better known as the major cause of dwarfism)*.

Given this, my mother thought I’d find this Wall Street Journal article on baby growth charts interesting.  Essentially, baby growth charts were set several decades ago based on a population that’s different from what we have now.  The CDC does not want to readjust the charts, as it would make obesity look more normal than they think it should, and this is causing a situation where a high number of children are measuring “off the charts”.

It’s an interesting situation when you realize that 95th percentile doesn’t actually mean “larger than 95% of children of the same age” but rather “larger than 95% of children the same age 40 years ago”.

Additionally, it also points out that the CDC growth chart is based largely on formula fed babies, who grow slightly differently from breast fed babies.  So at the same time Mayor Bloomberg is pushing breastfeeding, doctors are potentially telling parents their children need formula to speed their growth up to match a chart that only tracks where they would be if they had done formula to begin with (this is why state mandated health policy drives me nuts so often….you solve one aspect while leaving several causes unadressed).

As the availability of testing goes up, we have to be particularly vigilant to make sure our standards charts keep up as well.  Otherwise we routinize unnecessary testing and freak out new parents.  And from personal experience, I can say that’s just not nice.

*It was ruled unlikely, though apparently we can’t get a definitive no until he actually starts growing, or not as the case may be.  There’s no genetic history of it in my family or the husband’s, though we are both on the short side.  In this case, us being short is actually a positive….it means the abnormalities are more likely natural variations.  Our genetic consult doctor was hilariously terrible though….she suggested if we wanted more information about the condition we watch the reality TV show about it (Little People Big World).  Then she said it was unlikely, but maybe we should still watch the show.  She ended it all with a comment about how it was never good when genetics doctors had too much to say, so we should be happy she wasn’t talking too much.  I don’t think she was very self aware.  

Weekend Moment of Zen 8-4-10

/ bs king / 1 Comment

While I’m still recouping/adjusting, I thought a little humor might be in line.  This one comes courtesy of sometimes reader/my uncle in law Deac, who labeled this a golf joke…but I think it tells us something important about engineers:

An engineer, a priest, and a businessman were playing golf and overtook another group of golfers who were hitting the ball in every possible wrong direction. The clumsy group would miss the ball, hit it into the lake, bump into each other, and accidentally thwack each other when they swung.
The businessman got on his iPhone and called the golf course administrator complaining bitterly about the inconvenience, high golf fees, and insisting that such an inconsiderate, inept group of goof-offs shouldn’t be allowed on “his” golf course.
Upon hearing the response, the businessman shut up and hung up quickly. He contritely told the other two group, “Those are blind golfers. They were firefighters, but were responding to a chemical fire. They saved 30 people, but lost their sight from toxic fumes. I feel terrible for what I said. I’m going to have my company pay for their caddies and green fees forever so they can always play golf. They really deserve our respect and help.”
The priest said, “Those poor men! They selflessly lost their sight to help others. I’m going to have a Golfer’s Mass every month and pray for the return of their sight. Our collections will go to those poor golfers’ families.”
Finally, the engineer said, “Why can’t those guys play at night?”

Rich Mom Poor Mom

/ bs king / 3 Comments

I have a sleeping baby in my lap, so you’ll forgive me if I have a one track mind.

Yesterday we met with a nurse who let us know that in Sweden, they have now set minimums for skin to skin contact between mom and babies during hospital stays.  If you don’t do the minimum, you pay the hospital bill.  This morning, in my first perusal around the internet in a few days, I see that Mayor Bloomberg is trying to find ways of encouraging new mother’s to breastfeed.

A note on research regarding babies and various practices in infancy:  Babies are a lot of work.  I realize I’m preaching to the choir on this, as many of my readers have successfully raised quite a few children, but it’s true.  Many of the practices that show lots of benefits for babies (skin to skin contact, breastfeeding, etc) take even more time than the alternatives.  While I believe these things are good for babies on their own, all data collected on these practices will be complicated by the fact that parents who engage in them tend to have more time, resources, and support than those who don’t.  Pushing these practices on those who are already particularly stressed may not have as profound an outcome as it did in the study, as the groups went from self selecting to random.

Something to think about for the policy makers.

Sorry, I’ve been reading over a lot of hospital literature and getting mildly annoyed.  I think that means the pain medication has worn off.  Nurse!