I’m still putting together some more for my previous series, but in the mean time:

Definitions are important.  REALLY important.  I’ve blogged before about how confusing things can get when researchers choose to define a word in a way most people wouldn’t think to, and this topic is no exception.

Today, for the first time in my life, a doctor refused to write me a prescription for a medication I actually needed.

Lousy day here in Bad Data Bad-land.  I stayed home from work today because my throat feels like it’s been attacked by razor blades, and in my Nyquil induced haze, I fell down the stairs.   I’m hopeful that I didn’t break anything, but standing/walking/sitting hurts WAY more than it should.

Luckily I still have pain meds left over from my c-section, so that’s a consolation.

If I start slurring my typing by the end of this, you’ll know what happened.

One of the reasons I love the internet is my family’s habit of sending all family emails about random subjects.  The immediate family is 6 + 2 spouses, so the 8 person email chain can get a little amusing.  A few days ago, my mother, who is forever scolding us to get outside more often, forwarded us this article on how hiking boosts creativity.  My brother, a biology teacher, was the first to respond with this:

Love it, but before I love it too much . . .Bethany, could we get an analysis of this creativity test?

I’ve apparently got them all a little nervous when it comes to research now.

Anyway, being the good sister that I am, I thought I’d take a look at the data.  Essentially, the study took a group of people headed on an Outward Bound hiking excursion and gave them a creativity test.  Then it took another group of people, sent them out hiking, and gave them a creativity test after they’d been in the wilderness for about 4 days.  Those out in nature for several days did better to a statistically significant level.

The creativity levels were measured using the Remote Associates Test, which is a test that gives people 3 words and asks them to find the common word that ties them together (ex: falling actor dust*).

Overall, I thought it was an interesting and unique study, definitely one that deserves follow up with a larger sample size and some other variables.  The authors hypothesized that the boost in creativity was due to either technology deprivation or nature exposure, but also noted that:

A limitation to the current research is the inability to determine if the effects are due to an increased exposure to nature, to a decreased exposure to technology, or to other factors associated with spending three days immersed in nature. In the majority of real-world multi-day hiking experiences, the exposure to nature and technology are inversely related and we cannot determine if one factor has more influence than another. From a scientific perspective, it may prove theoretically important to understand the unique influences of nature and technology on creative problem solving; however, from a pragmatic perspective these two factors are often so strongly interrelated that they may be considered to be different sides of the same coin. We suggest that attempts to meaningfully dissociate the highly correlated real-world effects of nature and technology may be like asking Gestalt psychologists whether figure or ground is more important in perceptual grouping.

I would be interested to see a follow up that addressed if this were related specifically to nature, or if it was true of any vacation….how is people’s creativity 3 days in to a cruise?

It was definitely a fascinating study, IMHO.  Daniel, permission to love it has been granted.

I’m going to go lay down now, very gently.

*answer: star 

As the AVI pointed out in the comments on my last post, book lists are troublesome.  Are we ranking books that are important, books that are supposed to be important, books that we’re reading or books we want people to think we’re reading?   What makes a good book anyway?

Still don’t have enough Christmas present ideas?  How about the book My Ideal Bookshelf which compiles different “notable” peoples favorite books?  Just as cool is the chart the editor’s boyfriend did to show how all the lists interacted.

Sometimes I think I should link to my blog on my facebook page.  Then I realize that would mean I couldn’t repost ignorant infographics with impunity.  Like this one:

Jack and Jill were racing, but it was no contest.  Jack beat Jill by 10 yards on a 100 yard course.  Jill suggested that for the second race, Jack should start 10 yards behind the starting line.  Presuming they run the same speed, who wins this race, and how long before Amanda Marcotte writes a column about it?

I was reading an article the other day….something about people being foolish….and I ran across a rather fascinating comment.  It started as a regular comment of exasperation, but ended with an interesting stat “what do you expect from a country where 7% of people think the Planet of the Apes could come true”.

I don’t watch much TV.  Though I occasionally watch a crime procedural or two (see kids, science is fun!), I can’t remember the last time I watched a sitcom (scratch that, I have watch the Big Bang Theory on more than one occasion).  Thus I was somewhat interested to see the feminist blogosphere calling out the Zooey Deschanel vehicle (oh she’s so zany…..is that rain????) “The New Girl” for using a deceptive statistic.

Apparently a recent episode focused entirely on the premise that “by the time a lady hits 30, she loses about 90 percent of her eggs.”

When the fact checkers weighed in, they revealed that while that stat is true, women start out with approximately 300,000 eggs…..so at 30 there are still about 30,000 hanging out there.

Of course eggs don’t necessarily equate to fertility, and fertility doesn’t necessarily mean a healthy pregnancy.  Despite what many comments section trolls claim, women’s prime childbearing years are not in their teens, but rather peak at 25 or so.

While taking a look at this, I actually found more evidence that the fertility decline starts circa 27, but the overall chances of ever achieving pregnancy don’t start to drop off until 33 or 34.  This was a good reminder that the “turning 30” thing has little to do with an actual physiological change, and more to do with people just liking round numbers.

Also related: I had often heard (and even quoted) that women who had already had kids were able to have kids later in life than those who had not (ie a woman who has a child at 30 will have an easier time having another one at 37 then one who is trying at 37 for the first time).  There’s a suggestion that this actually isn’t true….it’s just that by having that first child you’ve self selected as someone who doesn’t have a pre-existing fertility problem.  I couldn’t find the original study to verify this….but it seems like a plausible oversight.

Another note: fertility stats are really difficult to try to find, IVF clinics are the ones publishing most of them and they’re dodgy with citations…..still a better source for info than a TV show though.

One last note: congrats to regular reader Andy….you’re going to love being a Dad.  The world needs more banjo players….brainwash him/her early and you just might get one.