Ten Science Songs That Are Kinda Meh (Part 1)

Well hello there! After spending two weeks and 3000 words praising various songs for getting science right (Part 1 here and Part 2 here), we’re now moving a step down the ladder to the decidedly mediocre. These are the songs that reference science and aren’t really wrong, but aren’t overly inspiring or interesting either.  While some of these are great songs, just know that through most of this my face resembles a bored professor teaching general science requirements to liberal arts major freshmen who didn’t figure out how to test out. For those of you never in that situation, it’s just an inner scream that looks like this:

The Math by Hilary Duff
Nominated Line:
 whole song

Bethany: Despite the promising title, this is a song that clearly exists because one of Hilary Duff’s songwriters had a crush on a guy who was smarter than her. She tries to explain love to him in terms of mathematics, but it’s the kind of math references anyone who’s passed 3rd grade would understand. Addition. Subtraction. Equal signs. THIS ISN’T GOING TO WORK HILARY. We math geeks love our references, but we like them at a level that requires more than a primary school education.

You can still turn this around though….do a follow up that references how much you’ve learned then say things like “You say it’s time to go, but with convolution time doesn’t matter”. That’ll get ’em.

Barring that, I can only say this: Why can’t you be more like that nice Josh Ritter fellow Ms Duff?

Ben: Bethany referenced Duff’s songwriters in her paragraph, which means I have to do the research into the recording of this Hilary Duff album, which was not the sort of thing I thought I signed up for.

A short history: “The Math” was recorded for the release of Hilary Duff’s first real pop album, the recording of which sounds like the sort of well-paying migraine you sign up for when you become a pop producer. Apparently, at the launch of this process, Duff was a Disney TV star who decided she wanted to become a singer because she saw pop musicians warming up before a show and it “looked fun.” A Disney executive signed her, had her start voice lessons, and launched a multi-million dollar recording session. Somewhere out there, Robert Johnson’s soul just moaned in eternal torment.

Recording was immediately troubled because Duff was “listening to a lot of Destiny’s Child at the time” (weren’t we all), so the songs had an “urban style” to them that apparently “didn’t strike a chord,” according to one of the producers. From what we know of Duff’s artistic range, I assume this is a breathtakingly dramatic understatement.

At this point, her producer asked her “what kind of music she would like to do,” which is not normally the sort of conversation one has halfway through a recording process. She mentioned that growing up, she’d “listened to a lot of rock music,” (I genuinely do not want to know who she means) and liked songs that had “a little bit more guitar in it.”

Enter Kara DioGuardi – yes, that Kara DioGuardi! Onetime American Idol judge/reluctant bikini model Kara DioGuardi! – who had written demos for a number of songs, including future Duff singles “Come Clean” and “Little Voice.” Duff recorded these as demos, and they were sent to the studio, along with “The Math,” which was not sung by Duff at all but by prolific songwriter Lauren Christy. The studio loved all three songs and the new direction, and Duff was forced to add all three to her new record.

Forced? Yes, evidently, Duff feels the same way about “The Math” that the rest of us do, calling it “her biggest mistake,” which is very strong language for someone who dated both Joel Madden and Aaron Carter. Of course, when you listen to the pop-guitar buzz and word vomit that makes up “The Math,” one understands exactly where she’s coming from.

Also, for our younger reader, to “star 69” someone meant to type that exact sequence into your phone’s touchtone pad, which would then make the landline you were on call the last person who had called you back. What a weird, old-timey thing to do! Anyway, it’s not sordid or anything. Hilary kept it clean.

Bethany: Whoa. I think you put more effort in to that part than went in to the entire song to begin with. Good show.

Rest my Chemistry by Interpol
Nominated Line: “I’m going to rest my chemistry”

Bethany: Okay, Ben’s going to have to explain this one to me. This song uses the word “chemistry” ten times and doesn’t say anything about the subject. In my world, that’s just name dropping.

Ben: As best I can tell, to “rest my chemistry” means to “not take any cocaine, at least right at the moment.” It’s like when celebrities go to rehab for “exhaustion.”

As Interpol songs go, this is fine, but it carries no weight next to, say, “Evil,” their hook-laden hit with the bizarre puppetry music video. Frankly, putting “Rest My Chemistry” in this group feels right – it’s a tune with a vague acknowledgement of the chemical makeup of the world around us, but without any actual, you know, science.

Bethany: Glad we’re on the same page here. B- to Interpol because I just don’t want to see them again next semester.

Ben: Boy, if retaking the course comes into consideration, that’s going to dramatically affect the scores the groups we’re covering in the sections to come. Unless the dean just happens to find some contraband in Thomas Dolby’s locker, of course…

She’s Electric by Oasis
Nominated line:
“She’s electric, can I be electric too?”

Bethany: Just so we all know I can criticize things I love, let’s talk about this song. Noel repeats over and over how electric this girl he likes is. This is all well and good, but then he starts wanting to be electric too. This clearly goes against all electrical safety precautions, where the goal is to not electrocute yourself along with the person you’re trying to help. It’s like he knows how it works, but like a 12 year old in his first hands on lab wants to do the exact wrong thing with the information.

On the other hand, this could be turned around with the right visuals. This could totally work in concert:

Except make it  more British-ey.

Ben: I don’t know what that visual is, but I found the perfect British person to design it.

He’s already interested in lightbulbs!

“She’s Electric” is full of bad ideas. This woman has a sister, and “God only knows how he missed her.” It seems exceptionally unwise to get involved in a relationship where you wish you’d had a go at her sister, but now it’s too late. What’s more, he doesn’t get along with her brother, who quite wisely doesn’t trust Noel, since he also has taken a fancy to their mother. Meanwhile, the girl in question is pregnant with someone else’s child, which wouldn’t be outrageously concerning except that he only mentions it in conjunction with the fact that she has a lot of cousins, making an uncomfortable inference about the perhaps-too-close relationships that hold this familial group together.

Most importantly, he’s not showing proper electrical safety, and that’s the most major concern. Noel, you know full well what’s going to happen if you try to end up “electric too.”

b7c73770-f5bd-0132-44e0-0a2ca390b447*

*Note: possibly not 100% scientifically accurate.

Noel, take my advice. Get out of there. She’s no good for you. This is a nightmare waiting to happen. But if you must, handle her carefully, and try to move her away from any electric current with a broom, like this:

tumblr_nttzi5m8LS1s02vreo2_400

Readers, if only we were all so wise.

Bethany: Ben, I see a future for you in gif-driven public safety educational videos. It’s a calling.

Ben: I probably can’t make a career out of it, but I’ll change my twitter bio anyway.

Man on the Moon by R.E.M.
Nominated line:
“Newton got beamed by the apple good”

Bethany: This line has always bothered me. Why is it there? It’s not interesting, it’s not inspired, it’s a scientific reference only in the loosest sense of the term. Isn’t this a song about Andy Kaufman? Why are we talking about Newton and apples? The story about how he discovered gravity is really famous and possibly apocryphal, but everyone knows this. What does it teach us? We get a complete biography of Kaufman in under 5 minutes and then a 5 second muttering about Newton and apples? Michael Stipe, you disappoint.

Ben: Boy, you were grouchy on this one. Until I fixed it, you’d managed to both get the name of the song wrong and misspell “R.E.M.” That’s some uncharacteristic negligence. Looks like it’s up to me to defend our favorite Georgian college-rock band.

It’s tough to make too much out of this one. “Man On The Moon” was the last song recorded for R.E.M.’s masterwork album Automatic For The People, and the lyrics of it came at the very last minute. The entire album had been finished and was to be sent for mastering the next morning.  They had recorded music for “Man On The Moon,” but the song was still without vocals, or indeed, lyrics. Michael Stipe, stymied by writer’s block for weeks, walked around the block, listening to the track, and decided to write the lyrics as a song about Andy Kaufman. The lyrics were written and the vocals recorded only a few hours later.

Or, at least, that’s what Michael Stipe says. Stipe, like Kaufman, was prone to inventing stories as a form of self-glorification, and enjoyed playing fast and loose with the truth. Much like Newton’s possible mythical apple, we will never know the veracity of the story.

In fact, that’s most likely the reference Stipe is making here: Newton’s apple, Moses bringing forth water from his stick, Cleopatra being bitten by an asp – are these historical events or falsehoods accepted as realities? Stipe even questions Kaufman’s own death – “here’s a truck stop instead of St. Peter’s” – a nod to how Kaufman’s propensity for taking a joke too far led to his fans never being quite able to accept that he was dead.

As usual, R.E.M.’s penchant to meander along line between cleverness and ambiguity is well covered over by their ear for melody, since this is a hall of fame pop song no matter how well you understand the lyrics. That baseline is an all-timer.

Bethany: Realizing I misspelled R.E.M. led to the sub-realization that their band name is a better scientific reference than this line.  Also, here’s the wrestling match from line two:

She Blinded Me With Science by Thomas Dolby
Nominated Line:
whole song

Bethany: Okay, if you thought I was grouchy about R.E.M., it’s nothing compared to my feelings about this Dolby song. Let me say this once, very clearly, so there’s no misunderstanding: THIS. IS. NOT. A. SCIENCE. SONG.

It’s not. It’s a high school kid reading his course schedule. It’s not fit to graduate, let alone be considered an anthem. This song is like a singer yelling “WHAT’S UP INSERT RELEVANT CITY NAME HERE” at a concert. There are subjects named, but no actual science….and yet because it says SCIENCE loudly and over and over, somehow it’s become part of the pantheon. Are we nerds so bad off that we will accept this kind of thing? Guys, we have to expect better than this. We’re worth it.

Ben: I was utterly unfamiliar with Mr. Dolby and his scientific affectations, and so watching the music video for this song was a bit of a rude awakening. This song is everything I dislike about pop music in the 80’s, from the off-puttingly banal Mad Lib lyricism, to the bewildering shouts of British television science enthusiast Magnus Pike, to (above all) the brain-curdling synth track, with its entirely electric violin sound fooling no one (Dolby at one point plays an actual violin in the video, and later rubs a bow across an actress halfheartedly painted to look like a violin. In neither action is he convincing).

What’s odd is that despite the song’s utter ineptitude at expressing coherent scientific thought, Thomas Dolby’s resume is somewhat reasonably accomplished. He’s an accomplished session musician, been the musical director at the TED Conference since 2001, and is now a professor of the arts at Johns Hopkins. However, it seems that rather than his hit single being the culmination of a lifetime understanding of science, his odd one-hit wonder led him to become the poster boy for science and music, and respectability followed.

The music video for this song – also featuring the truly bizarre Magnus Pike – is a mashup of every bit of awful 80’s-ness: an unappealing frontman in an unappealing outfit, frantic camera zooms, an attractive woman wearing glasses in “sexy scientist” vibe, a low angle shot of just a woman’s legs, the unjustified used of children dressed up as adults, and a film reference (the text slates seen in silent films) used with hammering clumsiness. The peak moment of this is one of the video’s final slates:

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 12.31.35 AM

Nerds of the world: you do not want this song representing you.

In my perusal of Mr. Dolby’s Wikipedia, I also found this:

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 12.34.38 AM

The only thing less surprising to me was discovering that this song went to number one in Canada. Stop playing into our conceptions of you, Canucks!

That’s all I’ve got this week. Bethany?

Bethany: Until next week and Part 2, I’ll just be here doing my nails.

Part 2 is up, read it here!

What’s a p-value and Why Is Everyone So Mad At It?

A reader named Doug has sent me a couple of awesome articles about p-values (thanks Doug!) and why we should regard them with suspicion. As often happens with these things, I subsequently tried to explain to someone unfamiliar with stats/math why this is such an interesting topic that everyone should be aware of and realized I needed a whole blog post.

While most people outside of research/stats circles won’t ever understand the math part of a p-value calculation, it’s actually a pretty important concept for anyone who wants to know what researchers are up to.  Thus, allow me to go all statsplainer on you to get you up to speed.

Okay, so why are you anthropomorphizing  p-values and accusing people of being mad at them?

Well, you probably didn’t click on the link up there that Doug sent me, but it was a post from the journal Nature on the American Statistical Association’s recent warning about the use of p-values in published literature.

P-values and the calculation thereof are a pretty fundamental part of most basic statistics courses, so to see a large group of statisticians push back against their use is a bit of a surprise.

Gotcha. So the people who taught us to use them in the first place are now telling us to watch out for them. Fantastic.

Yeah, they kind of acknowledge that. Their paper on the issue actually starts with this joke:

Q: Why do so many colleges and grad schools teach p=0.05
A: Because that’s still what the scientific community and journal editors use

Q: Why do so many people still use p=0.05
A: Because that’s what they were taught in grad school

That’s a terrible joke. I’m not even sure I get it.
Yeah, statistical humor tends to appeal to a limited audience. What it’s trying to point out though is that we’ve gotten ourselves in to a difficult spot by teaching “what everyone does” and then producing a group of people who only know how to do what they were taught.

Okay, that makes sense I guess…but what does the whole p=0.05 thing even mean?
Well, when you’re doing research, at some point or another you’ll want to do something called “hypothesis testing”. This is the basis of most published studies you hear about. You set up two opposing sides, formally called the null and alternative hypothesis, and then you figure out if you have the evidence to support one or the other.

The null hypothesis H0, is typically the theory that nothing interesting is happening. Two groups are equal, there’s no change in behavior, etc etc.

The alternative hypothesis Ha, is typically the theory you REALLY want to be true…at least in terms of your academic career. This would mean that something interesting is occurring: two groups are different, there’s a change in behavior, etc etc.

Okay, I’m with you so far…keep going.
This next step can work differently depending on the experiment/sample size/lots of other details, but lets say we’re comparing Star Bellied Sneetches to those without stars on their bellies and seeing if the groups eat a different amount of dessert. After we calculated the average dessert eaten by both groups, we would calculate something called a t statistic using this equation.

tstatistic

Once we have that value, we take the amusingly old school step of pulling out a table that looks like this, and then finding the value we want to compare our value to.

Okay, so how do we figure out where on this table we’re looking? 

Well, the degrees of freedom part is another whole calculation I threw in just to be annoying, but the other part is your α, or alpha. Alpha is what we’re really referencing when we say p=0.05….we set our significance level (or alpha) at .05, so now that’s what we’re aiming for.  If the value we calculated using that equation up there is larger than the value the table gives, then it’s considered a finding significant at the level of alpha.

I think I lost you.

That’s fine. Most stats software will actually do this for you, and spit out a nice little p-value to boot. Your only decision is whether or not the value is acceptable. The most commonly used “significant” value is p < .05.

Okay, how’d we pick that number?

Arbitrarily.

No really.

No, that’s really it. This is why that joke up there was funny. After all the fancy technical math, we compare it to a value that’s basically used because everyone uses it. Sometimes people will use .1 or .01 if they’re feeling frisky, but .05 is king.  There’s even an XKCD comic about it:

This is where we get in to the meat of the issue. There’s no particularly good reason why .049 can make a career and .051 doesn’t.  As I showed with the equation above, the difference between those two values can actually be more about sample size than the difference in effect.  

In theory, the p-value should mean “the chances we’d see an effect larger the one we are seeing if the null hypothesis was true”, but the more people aspire to the .05 level, the less accurate that becomes.

Why’s that?

Well, a couple reasons. First, the .05 value will always mean that 1 out of 20 p-values could be due to chance. For some studies that gather a lot of data points, this means they will almost always be able to get a significant finding.

This tactic was used by the journalist who published an intentionally  fake “chocolate helps you lose weight” study last year.  He did a real study, but collected 18 different measures on people who were eating chocolate, knowing that chances were good that he would get a significant result on one of them. Weight loss ended up being the significant result, so he led with that just downplayed the other ones. Other researchers just throw the non-significant effects in the drawer.

There’s also the issue of definitions. It can be really hard to grasp what a p-value is, and even some stats text books end up saying wrong or misleading definitions.  This paper gives a really good overview of some of the myths, but suffice it to say the p-value is not “the chance the null hypothesis is true”.

Okay, so I think I get it. But why did the American Statistical Society speak out now? What got them upset?

Yeah, let’s get back to them. Well as they said in their paper, the problem is not that no one has warned about this previously, it’s that they keep seeing the issue. Their exact words:

Let’s be clear. Nothing in the ASA statement is new. Statisticians and others have been sounding the alarm about these matters for decades, to little avail. We hoped that a statement from the world’s largest professional association of statisticians would open a fresh discussion and draw renewed and vigorous attention to changing the practice of science with regards to the use of statistical inference.

As replication crises have rocked various fields, statisticians have decided to speak out.  Fundamentally, p-values are really supposed to be like the SAT: a standardized way of comparing findings across fields. In practice they can have a lot of flaws, and that’s what the ASA guidance wanted to point out.  Their paper essentially spelled out their view of the problem and proposed 6 guidelines for p-value use going forward.

And what were those?

  1. P-values can indicate how incompatible the data are with a specified statistical model.
  2. P-values do not measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, or the probability that the data were produced by random chance alone.
  3. Scientific conclusions and business or policy decisions should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold.
  4. Proper inference requires full reporting and transparency
  5. A p-value, or statistical significance, does not measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result.
  6. By itself, a p-value does not provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model or hypothesis.

They provide more explanation in the paper, but basically what they’re saying is what I was trying to get across above: p-values are useful if you’re being honest about what you’re using them for. They don’t tell you if your experimental set up was good, if your explanation for your data is reasonable, and they don’t guard against selection bias very well at all. The number “.05” is good but arbitrary, and the whole thing is a probability game, not a clear “true/false” line.

 

Okay, I think I get it….but should statisticians really be picking on other fields like this?

That’s a good point, and I’d like to address it. Psychologists don’t typically walk in to stats conferences and criticize them, so why do statisticians get to criticize everyone else? Andrew Gelman probably explains this best. He was one of the authors on the ASA paper, and he’s a baseball fan. In a post a few months ago, he said this:

Believing a theory is correct because someone reported p less than .05 in a Psychological Science paper is like believing that a player belongs in the Hall of Fame because hit .300 once in Fenway Park.

This is not a perfect analogy. Hitting .300 anywhere is a great accomplishment, whereas “p less than .05” can easily represent nothing more than an impressive talent for self-delusion. But I’m just trying to get at the point that ultimately it is statistical summaries and statistical models that are being used to make strong (and statistical ridiculous) claims about reality, hence statistical criticisms, and external data such as come from replications, are relevant.

As Bill James is quoted as saying, “the alternative to good statistics isn’t no statistics…it’s bad statistics.”

Got a question you’d like an unnecessarily long answer to? Ask it here!

C is for Confounders

Today we’re looking at confounding effects. And monkeys. And banana production.

LetterC

In case you’re curious, banana trees actually should be pretty close together. They don’t like being exposed.

Image credit for independent variable, dependent variable, confounder, Stan, and Phil. All images modified as allowed by the Creative Commons license.

Ten Songs That Get Science Right (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of our piece on “Ten Songs That Get Science Right”. Missed Part 1? Read it here.

“Champagne Supernova” by Oasis
Nominated Line: “Like a Champagne Supernova in the sky”

Bethany: I loved this song in high school. In fact I loved this whole band, and even in 2016 two out of the last three concerts I’ve been to are Noel Gallagher concerts. Conflict of interest aside, that’s not why this made the list. It made the list because it’s the only song I know of that actually summoned the scientific phenomena it referenced in to existence….or at least got something really cool named after it. Basically, when this song was released in 1996, the term Champagne Supernova had no real astronomical meaning. That changed in 2006, when researchers discovered a supernova that exceeded the Chandrasekhar limit and decided that “extreme explosions that offer new insight into the inner workings of supernovae are an obvious cause for celebration”. Ergo, they dubbed it a “champagne supernova”. And yes, they clarified they did know the song and it was not a coincidental naming.

Can’t wait to see what a Wonderwall turns out to be.

Ben: Donald Trump is building it right now.

As someone who just aggressively defended my BNL fandom, I’m not going to sit idly by and let you feel exposed by expressing your love of Oasis and one of the Gallaghers, though I coudn’t remember which one was the good one, so I had to Google it.

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 10.39.23 PM

I’m pretty sure I disagree with this  – I like Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds more than I like Beady Eye – but I’d be much more interested in the opinions of my more versed colleague.

Perhaps* I am biased, but I think 90’s alternative rock has aged much better than most genres, and Oasis has aged as well as anyone. Both “Wonderwall” and “Champagne Supernova” are still magnificent recordings, and both deserve to have pieces of scientific wonder named after them into time immemorial, even though spending more than an hour or two in either brother’s presence seems like a fate nigh unto death.

*unquestionably

lFF6N6V

Bethany: You don’t have to defend me. My love for somewhat whiny British men with livers of steel is not a thing I’m ashamed of. Also, my google says this:

teamnoel

C₁₁ H₁₇ N₂ O₂ S Na by Anthrax
Nominated Line: Song Title

Bethany: Do I even have to explain my love for this? It’s a chemical formula. Who puts a chemical formula for their song title? The same guy who named his bio “The Story of That Guy From Anthrax” that’s who. Anyway, that’s the real formula for sodium pentathol aka “truth serum” and the whole song is about wishing you could force someone to tell the truth. No further science references at all, just a chemical formula you have to google.  While in reality sodium pentathol probably doesnt work that well, I’ll let that slide as poetic license.

Ben: Well, this led me down a whole rabbit hole of the history of sodium pentathol and its use in police confessions, and eventually to the bizarre case of Sybil Dorsett, a fascinating story that I will never be able to work into a conversation as long as I live.

I’m no particular fan of thrash metal in any context, though Anthrax is one of the better examples of the genre, and I appreciate the cleanliness of the recording rather than hiding a lack of musicianship behind fuzz. The thing I like the most about the song is that it was recorded in 1993 – therefore, Googling or even Altavista-ing the song title was out of the question. You had to know someone else who knew what it meant, or go to an actual library. Anthrax: supporting libraries!

Well, they always did seem like a studious lot.

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 11.23.15 PM

“Stuck To You” by Josh Ritter
Nominated Line: whole song

Bethany: I will admit, I had never heard this song before Ben put it on the list. Color me ashamed. This is every pedantic nerds dream song, wherein a man takes common love song cliches and corrects them with more scientifically accurate answers.  It’s a beautiful thing, and a little more elaborate than just declaring someone your statistically significant other.

Ben: I found this one on a hunt for “science songs,” and while I’d listened to a fair bit of Josh Ritter before, I’d never stumbled across this one. It’s a neat, concise statement that’s both tongue-in-cheek and mournful, like a lot of folk songs used to be. I wish more artists had this sort of song in their quiver.

Bethany: Especially once we get to the next section, we’re going to look back at this song wistfully.  Spoiler alert: I will definitely use the line “Why couldn’t you be more like that nice Josh Ritter fellow Ms Duff” at some point.

“The Elements” by Tom Lehrer
Nominated Line: whole song

Bethany: How can we do a “best of” list and not include the Elements Song? I mean, I spent a whole day at my grandfather’s house one summer attempting to memorize this in the days before DVR and easy rewind. I think I broke his VHS, and he made me watch Pirates of Penzance as penance.  Anyway, this was written in 1959 and it falls 16 elements short of today’s periodic table….but it’s still a great song. Damn catchy too.

Ben: My dad and I used to listen to old comedy records together in our living room, which is a very old-fashioned thing for someone who is technically considered a Millennial to say. One of the ones we played most frequently was An Evening Wasted With Tom Lehrer, which contains such ditties as “Poisoning Pigeons In the Park,” “The Masochism Tango,” and also “The Elements,” which I saw no less than three different math majors perform at talent shows while in college. Singing all the words to this song aloud is the nerd equivalent of peacocking. In fact, here’s Daniel Radcliffe doing it right now!

Whoops, ended up on a whole celebrities-rapping-on-talk-shows YouTube jag. Got distracted there for a minute.

elliec-8591

“Girl You Have No Faith In Medicine” by White Stripes
Nominated Line: whole song

Bethany: I’m not entirely sure about this song, but I think I like it. It appears to be a song about placebo effects, drugs that work, and people who won’t take drugs that are too familiar because they need something different. I put it on repeat for an hour to see if I ended up feeling differently, and I didn’t. I think this is an anti-alternative medicine theme song. Probably.

Ben: Like all White Stripes songs, your mileage is going to vary considerably depending on whether what Jack White does is your jam or not. I dig the White Stripes, but I have no particular feelings towards this song one way or the other. I think it fits neatly into the album, because I recall liking Elephant very much, but that was a long time ago.

I was surprised that you didn’t break down the “strip the bark right off the tree and hand it this way” line (Aspirin is made from the bark of a willow tree). That seemed like your lane.

Bethany: Ben, aspirin hasn’t been made from willow bark since the late 1800s. Don’t be a hippie.

Ben: I probably shouldn’t have forged that pharmacist’s license, then. Someone’s bound to catch on eventually.

Well, that covers the good songs, so I’m expecting this to get meaner as it goes. I’m looking forward to it.

Want to go directly to the mediocre songs? Find Part 1 of that here.

For the whole series page, go here.

St Patricks Day Infographic

Welcome to Grade the Infographic, which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like: I take an infographic and grade the data in it. I have three criteria I’m looking for in my grading: source of data, accuracy of data and accuracy of visuals. While some design choices annoy me, I’m not a designer, couldn’t do any better, and won’t be commenting unless I think it’s skewing the perception of the information. I’m really only focused with what’s on the graphic, so I also don’t assess stats that maybe should have been included but weren’t.  If you’d like to submit an infographic for grading, go here. If you’d like to protest a grade for yourself or someone else, feel free to do so in the comments or on the feedback page.

Welcome to Grade an Infographic and Happy St Patrick’s Day! I thought I’d go with a bit of a theme this month. A quick look around the web led me to this infographic from the History Channel:

Okay, to start things off, let’s take a look at the references.

MarInfographicpt1

Oof. History Channel, really? Not good. You give me the edition for the Holidays Festivals and Celebrations of the World Dictionary, but not a specific link for information?  Some of those looked slightly useful so I didn’t do a full 10 points off, but not a great start.

MarInfographicpt2

This is one of the problems when big groups put out infographics with no sources. I don’t know where this came from, and now the first 2 pages of google results cite this infographic as a source.

MarInfographicpt3

Okay, not bad. As with any historical figure, these are somewhat in dispute. However, these seem to be the most commonly agreed upon ones.

MarInfographicpt4

So the parade length changed in 2011, and since there’s not a date on this infographic I took half a point off.  By the way….best line from the parade FAQ: “The Parade has not been cancelled due to bad weather. That said, the Parade has marched in a variety of meteorologic conditions that have included various examples of inclemency.”

MarInfographicpt5

So apparently greenchicagoriver.com let its domain registration lapse last year and it’s now a site in a language I don’t read. Still, I found some data here and baby names here. The crowd number discrepancy confused me until I realized the 100,000 is probably an estimate of those who watch the dye go in, and 400,000 is the estimate of those who see it throughout the day.

MarInfographicpt6

These all look about right, based on what’s listed here. Digging a little, it looks like they may be 2011 numbers?

MarInfographicpt7

Okay, and there we go! Based on the Census Bureau table here, this looked about right.

MarInfographicpt8

Overall, a pretty nice effort from the History Channel. The only downside was a lack of useful sources and a lack of a year. With the internet being what it is, ALL infographics should really have a year of creation so people don’t continue to quote things past the dates they are valid. This goes double for large websites that know they get a lot of traffic.

The EMDB (Emotional Movie Database)

Working with Ben always gets me thinking about movies, so this month I decided to poke around at some of the research studies done on film in general.  I was pretty interested when I found this study called “The Emotional Movie Database (EMDB): A Self-Report and Psychophysiological Study“.  The Internet Movie Database is one of the best known resources for movie information online, so I was curious what the Emotional Movie Database would be.

Basically it’s a database of movie clips tested and validated to generally produce specific emotions in people. Attempting to induce certain emotional states in people is common in psychological research, but normally people use just still pictures. These researchers thought audio free movie clips might be helpful, as they can sustain the emotion for a bit of time.  Here’s the study:

MarRC

I wasn’t able to fit all the particular movies in the sketchnote, but here they are. I didn’t include the exact scenes because the horror ones were kinda gross, but they are in the paper itself. The researchers were from Spain (edit: and Portugal), so not all are American movies:

Horror:

  1. The Ruins
  2. Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2 scenes)
  3. Midnight Meat Train
  4.  Hostel
  5.  Hostel 2
  6. Midnight Meat Train (2 scenes)
  7.  Cannibal Holocaust
  8.  The Rest Stop

Erotic:

  1. Underworld: Evolution
  2. Playboy’s Clip
  3. 9 Songs (2 scenes)
  4.  Killing Me softly
  5. Kama Sutra: the sensual art of lovemaking (2 scenes)
  6.  Monamour
  7.  Diary of a Nymphomaniac (2 scenes)

Negative Social Interactions:

  1. Boogeyman
  2.  The descent
  3.  The Pianist
  4. Diary of a Nymphomaniac
  5. Mystic River (2 scenes)
  6. Boogeyman 2
  7. Bridge to Terabithia
  8. American Beauty (2 scenes)

Social positive interactions:

  1. This Girls Life
  2.  My Best Friend’s Girls
  3. Good Luck Chuck
  4. Ruins  (2 scenes)
  5. Lie With Me
  6. Last Chance Harvey
  7. Diary of a Nymphomaniac (2 scenes)
  8.  The Rest Stop

Scenery: Disney’s Earth

Objects: Researchers filmed their hands fiddling with objects.

The most interesting part of this list is that some of the most consistently rated happy social scenes actually come from the beginnings of horror movies:The Ruins and The Rest Stop. That puts an interesting spin on what the film makers actually are doing….heightening tension by unequivocally showing happiness first.

To note, the subjects rating these clips were all college  students from Spain or Portugal. YMMV.

Ten Songs That Get Science Right (Part 1)

Well hi there! Ben and Bethany here, and we’re counting down the top science references in popular music. Last week we went over the rules and introduced Ben, so go check that out first if you’re at all confused. We’re going to start off the rankings nice and slow, beginning with 10 songs that get science right.  These are the good guys.

“Sounds of Science” by the Beastie Boys
Nominated Line: “Dropping Science like Galileo dropped the orange” (3:08 mark)

Bethany: Ooh, we’re starting off with a good one here. Can I just say I love this line? And not just because Neil Degrasse Tyson uses it in his show intro for Star Talk. No, I love it because 1. the reference is not the obvious fruit based scientist one* and 2. it’s being used accurately and describes something not quite intuitive. The reference here is to the Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment. While the details are probably apocryphal, the legend goes that Galileo went to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, dropped an orange and a grape off the side, and used it to prove that gravity was not dependent on the mass of the object. Nice high school physics callback there.

*I mean, good job on the gravity thing and all Newton, but you’re getting a little cliche don’t you think?

Ben: Bethany, thanks again for having me. This is basically everything I like to do, put together in one blog post, and the best part is I get to hand off all the tricky research parts of it to someone much more qualified than me. I’m not even certain what my Google search history would look like if I were in charge of both jobs, but my first search would probably be, “what IS science?” and that’s probably a rough place to start.

“Sounds of Science” is a collection of everything I like about the Beastie Boys – showboating rapping, frenetic changes of pace, ludicrous levels of hyperbole. They make sure to brag about their prowess in… every possible context, compare themselves to Jesus Christ, then sing a Simon and Garfunkle chorus on top of a Beatles sample. They don’t lack for confidence.

As for the science, all of it seems fair – after all, “with my nose I knows and with my scopes I scope” is certainly factually accurate. I’m glad Bethany’s here, though, because I could use an explanation of what, exactly, “the radium, EMD squared” means.

Bethany: Well in addition to rhyming with “Shea Stadium”, the radium thing appears to be an incredibly clever reference. Paul’s Boutique, the album this song was on, came out in mid-1989. We can assume most of the songs on it were written or recorded in 1988, and the atomic number of radium is…..88.   Thank God they didn’t record it earlier or later, because Francium and Actinium just don’t roll of the tongue quite as well.

Based on my research, the EMD squared thing actually should have been your wheelhouse. EMD was the distribution arm of Capitol Records, their label. The squared part of course is a reference to Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence formula.

Ben: That’s a pretty classic Beastie Boys move – it’s clever, it scans, it’s a little sloppy and doesn’t quite fit – but you can’t stop and look at it too closely, because by then the boys are three verses ahead of you.

“We Didn’t Start the Fire” by Billy Joel
Nominated line: Multiple mentions but I like “children of thalidomide” (1:50 mark)

Bethany: How do you pick a reference out of a song that is literally all references?  Arbitrarily, that’s how. Actually, this isn’t totally arbitrary. Joel’s song here is an anthem covering lots of major world shaping events, and I actually really appreciated him throwing a medical reference. Thalidomide was a drug given as a sedative that was also prescribed to pregnant women for morning sickness. Despite assurances from the company that it was “completely safe” it was actually quite dangerous and resulted in children with deformities…most notably limbs that never grew and a 50% mortality rate. It’s an incredibly depressing story, but it helped push forward drug regulation and the role of the FDA in monitoring drug development. I give Joel full credit here for recognizing the importance of this historic event.

Ben: Well, this is a bummer. I hadn’t known any of this.

You wouldn’t know how dark the lyrics are from listening to the song. I’d always been aware that “We Didn’t Start the Fire” was supposed to be a protest song, but actually experiencing the song means listening to an aggressively upbeat number that is supposed to ironically contrast with the song’s content, but mostly just turns it into a catchy can-you-sing-along? contest.

As I think will become a continual theme for my responses, I highly recommend watching the entire music video, if only for the surreal moment of watching Billy Joel play an imaginary pair of bongos in front of a flaming picture of the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. In fact, Joel is playing imaginary bongos a fair bit during this song, as I guess that’s his go-to motion when he gets nervous. I get you, bro.

Not-Sure-What-to-do-With-Hands-Talladega-Nights-Ricky-Bobby

“Affirmative Action” by Foxy Brown
Nominated line: “32 grams raw, chop it in half, get 16, double it times three/We got 48, which mean a whole lot of cream/Divide the profit by four, subtract it by eight/We back to 16.” (3:34 mark)

Bethany:  Ms Brown’s lyrics have caused quite a stir, and got her voted the all time 5th worst rap line of all time by About.com. This line reminds me of one of those stupid Facebook math problems where someone makes an equation purposefully unclear then everyone argues over order of operations like that’s a thing we really all care about. However, let it never be said that I’m not willing to take sides in an argument I find stupid. Thus, here you go:

foxybrowndefense

The only slight ding I give her is changing units half way through the problem, from grams to profits.

Ben: I like how you used an actual DEA photograph of heroin for the picture. Make sure everyone knows you didn’t just have that lying around.

I think Ms. Brown is significantly mistreated for her honesty in this song. This is actually not a Foxy Brown song, but a Nas song featuring remaining members of “The Firm” (AZ, Cormega, Brown), bragging about their heroin and coke-dealing exploits. The first three rappers spend their verses explaining what kind of cars they’ve purchased, except for Nas, who seems to have a bit of a death wish and spends half his verse on the reality of response killings.

It’s clear that Ms. Brown is in charge of the day-to-day business operations, and if she’s got to cut into the purity of her product in order to make a profit, that’s something she’s willing to do. She’s a business, man. And she doesn’t mind telling you how she goes about it.

Though it does seem like it would cut into any future profits to admit that you’re not giving out top-of-the-line material. This song is basically “The Big Short,” but for drug dealing.

Bethany: Reading your explanation makes me remember all the math problems I did in high school where they irritated me by adding superfluous words to “challenge” us. I DON’T CARE WHY SUZY AND JOHNNY WANT ORANGES JUST GIVE ME THE NUMBERS.

Ben: I was always the opposite, I wanted more backstory. WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THE TRAINS PASS? IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE TRACKS? HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE BEFORE THIS WHOLE THING IS BLOWN TO HELL? *furious hacking motion on imaginary keyboard* GET OUTTA THERE, JIMMY, YOU’RE NOT NOT GONNA MAKE IT!

“Why Does the Sun Shine?” by They Might Be Giants
Nominated Lyric: Whole Song

Bethany: They Might Be Giants has a whole album of kids songs called “Here Comes Science” and this is one of the most popular songs off that album.  While it plays slightly fast and loose with describing the exact composition of the sun, they retain full credit because they wrote their own rebuttal song clarifying where they’d simplified things. That actually puts them ahead of at least 30% of practicing scientists.

Ben: Guys. Guys. I learned so much from this song. Copper can be a gas?

History of Everything (Big Bang Theory theme song) by Barenaked Ladies
Nominated line: Whole Song

Bethany: If you’re a science geek, hold Sheldon Cooper up as a hero, and have an hour or two to kill, go read this post and thread to get excruciating detail on how accurate this song is. For everyone else, don’t cite it in your PhD thesis, but it’s actually pretty close. Plus, it’s popular and admire any band that can make a song with that level of detail catch on.

Ben: To all the Barenaked Ladies haters out there, you should know that I’m basically these people whenever someone takes any shots at BNL.

I’d never actually listened to the entire song before, just the short bit that plays before “Big Bang Theory” episodes, and I enjoyed yet again learning things. Our universe is going to start contracting? Guys, I have not been paying attention to anything. My mind was blown before Kevin Hearn* had even started his keyboard solo.

*Yes, I do know the name of Barenaked Ladies’ keyboardist. Don’t step to me.

Bringing up BNL actually brings up some me-and-Bethany ties, because when I was in 8th grade, my dad took me and her younger brother Tim to a massive outdoor festival in downtown Boston, dropped us off, and arranged to meet us in about 8 hours* at a Dunkin Donuts about a mile away. This was before the age of cell phones. I have literally no idea what would have happened if we hadn’t shown up. Bethany was justifiably furious, as she had been denied going to go see Ani DiFranco earlier that month with friends, and she was a high school junior at the time.

* It was a long concert. The show’s lineup was: The Corrs, Edwin McCain, Sister Hazel, BNL, and Hootie and the Blowfish. My first concert was the most 90’s concert of all time.

Bethany: Thanks for reminding me of this incident. I haven’t harassed my parents about this injustice in years. They’re due for another round. Also, Barenaked Ladies haters only exist in highly controlled lab experiments, not in the wild.

Ben: Oh, phew. I’ll put my Internet Comment Gun back in its holster, then.

In the least shocking development ever, we appear to be going a bit long here. The next 5 songs will be split off into Part 2, going up next week.  Don’t wait until then to complain to us about what we missed, feel free to start now.

Ready for Part 2? Click here!

For the whole series page, go here.

What’s a Normal Winter Anyway? (Boston Edition)

Mid-March is here, and all of Boston is breathing a sigh of relief that this winter was more “normal” than last winter. Last winter was completely record breaking in terms of snow, and we all have a bit of a hangover from it. I was discussing this with a few people at work, and we started to wonder what “normal” really looks like for this area. Obviously this meant I needed a graph!  I wanted to check out what the snow curve normally looks like for each winter, and I found some decent looking data here.  A few notes:

  1. The data is almost 100 years worth….1920 through 2016
  2. After 1936, measurements are from Boston Logan Airport. Apparently that’s when the weather station opened there. I’m not completely sure where they came from prior to that, but presumably it was somewhere in the area.
  3. For all data, the year means “season ending in”. So my 2016 totals include November and December of 2015.
  4. I only looked at November-April.  October and May have both had snow, but the snow that fell in those months has never gone over 1.5 inches for any season.

Okay, so what’s normal?  First I took a look by month. The blue box represents the middle two quartiles, or where half of all years fall. The lines on either end are the top/bottom 25% of years:

Snowbymonth

So it appears January and February are approximately equal for most years, but February can pack a bigger punch.

But let’s just look at averages for the months, then see where last year and this year fall:

Recentyearsvsaverages

Interesting. This shows that this year we actually had a slightly above average February, we just didn’t notice because last year was insane.

Okay, but what about total snowfall? Where are we so far?

Well, since 1920, here’s what it takes to make each quartile:

Min 8 inches
25% of winters < 28 inches
Median < 39 inches
75% of winters < 53 inches
Maximum 112 inches

As it stands right now, Boston has gotten about 25 inches of snow so far this winter. That puts us in the lowest quartile for snowfall. We’re not quite the least snowy winter in recent memory (2012, 2007 and 2002 all had less snow), but we’re certainly on the lower end. Only 18 years (since 1920)

So basically we have a year with legitimately low snow totals that was preceeded by a year with outrageous snow totals.Kind of explains the whiplash.

But where are we on the whiplash scale? Is this the biggest year to year change in snow totals ever?

Well, we hit a record for that this year for sure. An 87 inch difference in snowfall totals for consecutive years is pretty record breaking.  Interestingly though, there were two streaks I found that actually gave people whiplash for 4 years in a row. The  1994-1997 run, where the snow totals swung up to almost 100 inches for two winters (1994 and 1996) and then hit low totals on the alternating years (16 inches and 30 inches in 1995 and 1997, respectively).  2002-2006 was similar, though less dramatic.  In order to compete, 2017 will have to hit 90 inches or more of snow.

Don’t do that 2017, don’t do that.

B is for Bimodal Distribution

Another one in my series of statistical terms for those who like words, this time with pictures:

LetterB

Credit for the camel picture is Flickr user Camel Droop. Graphs  and camel names were my addition. 

While human height is the typical example of a bimodal distribution, it actually isn’t one.  That’s why I went for dung heaps in my example sentence.

Pop Science and an Introduction

Hi everyone! After 10 weeks on basic internet science, I thought it might be fun to switch things up a bit.  For the next few weeks (more if we get inspired), I’ve invited a very special collaborator to help me put together a definitive guide to the good, the bad and the ugly of science/math references in popular music.

Say hi to Ben!

Ben is a childhood friend of mine who runs ten-four films, his own blog, is funny on Twitter, and he watches movies.  He grew up without a TV, so of course he rebelled and became a professional film maker.  He’s a font of knowledge on music in general and indie rock in particular, and is the kind of person that responds to emails like “what’s up with Rivers Cuomo?” with multi-page missives that are just a few citations short of being a media studies doctoral thesis. Since that kind of brilliant obsessiveness is one the traits I most value in others, Ben has always been one of my go tos for all things pop culture. If you want to get  a sense of where he’s coming from, check out his favorite albums, TV shows, songs, and movies of 2015.

Anything else you’d like to tell the nice people Ben?

Ben: Hello! And thanks for having me. As Bethany mentioned, this is the sort of thing I do when only vaguely prompted, or sometimes entirely unprompted, and for an audience that often consists of only myself. As Dante once noted, you have to follow your own star.*

*I’m mostly sure this is a Dante quote, but the Internet might be fooling me again.

I like appearing on this site, because it gives me a veneer of intellectual robustness, which is somewhat undercut by the fact that I had to use a thesaurus site right there because I couldn’t remember the word “robust.”

Okay, so what are the rules here?

Both Ben and I have a healthy dose of petty despot in us, so everything’s subject to change at our whim. However, here’s how we started:

  1. We kept the definition of “science songs” pretty broad. We decided to include things that referenced math, scientists and medicine, in addition to more general science stuff.
  2. We drew the line at “science”. Some people try to sneak what are basically “geek” references on to science lists. Dungeons and dragons, while geeky, is not actual science.
  3. The whole song didn’t have to be about science. I’m a pretty big fan of the one line reference, so sometimes that’s all it took to make the list.
  4. I classified how good the science was according to my own whims, Ben classified how good the song was according to his. Ben’s a filmmaker, my taste in music is terrible. It works better this way. Basically, if you don’t think the song should have made the list it did, complain to me. If you don’t like it’s order on the list, complain to Ben.

Wait, Ben, did I just make those rules up or is that how you did things too?

Ben: You made all those rules up. I just followed your lead. But I think we ended up contributing a roughly equal amount of songs to this endeavor, and I think it’s pretty telling we both had mental lists of songs in which we had either applauded or been irked by the science displayed.

Frankly, this is a pretty ideal setup, with you placing the ball on the tee for me here. I’m glad to be Waldorf to your Statler.

Now that you’re all up to speed, we’ll see you next Sunday for “Ten Songs that Got Science Right”.

Click here to read Part 1 of “Ten Songs that Got Science Right!”