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!

New data point

/ bs king / 8 Comments

Today I would like to announce the start of a new study, with n=1.  Results will trickle in sporadically from here on in.

His name is Finn.

This morning I spent a few minutes explaining to him about correlation and causation, and his uncle took confirmation bias.  I think he understood.

They say the best data can be explained in pictures, so I’ll leave you with this:

Good data, good.  Please excuse some sporadic posting for a bit!

International data – beware the self reporting

/ bs king / 2 Comments

Maybe it’s just because the Olympics are on, but I’ve run in to a few interesting international statistics lately that gave me pause.

The first was regarding infant mortality.  After Aaron Sorkin’s new show The Newsroom incorrectly reported that the US was 178th in infant mortality (really, you think there are 177 countries you’d rather give birth in?), I went looking for the infant mortality listings across the world.  The US does not typically do very well in terms of other industrialized countries.  
There are a few interesting reasons for that….we have a much larger population than most of the countries that beat us, and it’s spread out over a much larger area.  Our care across areas/populations tends to be more uneven, states vary wildly on issues like access, health insurance, prenatal care, etc. Our records however, tend to be meticulous….there is very little doubt that we capture nearly all infant mortality that actually occurs.  This combination can put the US at a huge disadvantage in these statistics (10-30% according to the best published studies).
This raises the point of why Cuba tends to beat us.  Now, realistically speaking, if you or someone you love had to give birth, would you seriously pick Cuba over the US?  Would anybody?  And yet they look safer given the data….which is all self reported.  I have no problems believing that Singapore outranks us, but I’m skeptical of any country that might have an agenda.  Worldwide, there is actually very little consensus on what is a “live birth”, and the US tends to use the “any sign of life” definition.  
On the other end of the spectrum, I saw this piece recently on gun control.  I’ve covered misleading gun stats before (suicides are often combined with homicides to get “death by gun violence” numbers).  One of the interesting facts the article above points out is that internationally, gun deaths are only counted when it’s civilian on civilian violence.  This is certainly fine in the US…I would think we wouldn’t want to count every time the police had to open fire, but in countries with, um, more questionable police tactics, this could cause some skewing (Syria was cited as one such example).  
Data is hard enough to pin down when you know the sources have no vested interest in misleading you….international rankings will never be free from such bias.

Too hot to hire?

/ bs king / 3 Comments

….or why psych undergrads would make lousy hiring managers.

I saw this study pop up on Instapundit, and while the number of “that happens to me all the time” jokes are infinite, I’m pretty sad this study got mentioned at all.  Here’s the Router’s recap:

Attractive women faced discrimination when they applied for jobs where appearance was not seen as important. These positions included job titles like manager of research and development, director of finance, mechanical engineer and construction supervisor.

Oh the sad sad existence of beautiful women.  To work so hard on your career and then get denied a job because you’re too attractive.  Now, out of curiosity, exactly how many women got rejected from these jobs for this study?

None.

This study didn’t study women or men actually applying for jobs.  They studied what happens when you give a bunch of psych undergrads a huge stack of pictures, a list of job titles and say “sort these pictures in to groups of who you think would be most qualified for a job based solely on the pictures“.  Seriously, that’s what they did.  Read the full study here.

It turns out that when you ask 65 undergrads (mostly women) to rank a whole bunch (204) of photos of people using no criteria other than what they look like, people might judge other people based on what they look like.  There was some lovely statistical analysis in here, but at no point did they attempt to prove that asking a 20 year old (who presumably had no first hand knowledge about any of the fields other than psych) to sort a picture reflected at all what goes on in hiring offices.

In fact, this is what the “practical implications” section of the paper said:

Although the findings reported here demonstrate the “what is beautiful is good” and “beauty is beastly” effects, it is important to address the likelihood of such stereotypes influencing actual employment decisions. For example, in situations where there is a high cost of making a mistake, as would be the case for a hiring decision, one would expect the decision maker to rely more on individuating information, rather than on stereotypes about physical appearance. However, it is important to note that the bias for the physically attractive, unlike other stereotypes, seems to impact impression formation in a broader range of circumstances. Recent meta-analyses suggest that the what is beautiful is good effect is pervasive, even when the perceiver has additional information about the target   (Hosoda et al., 2003; Langlois et al., 2000). Attractiveness may influence decision  making at a subconscious level, where exposure to an attractive individual elicits positive feelings in the decision maker, causing him or her to judge the target more favorably (Eagly et al., 1991). Moreover, in situations where a decision maker is under a high cognitive load or under time pressure, he or she may be more likely to rely on stereotypes (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Pendry & Macrae, 1994).

So there is some proof that people favor attractive people no matter what, but no similar proof that they might discriminate against an attractive person if they had real world information.  Which leads me to get a little weirded out by quotes like this from the researcher (in interviews, not the article):

“In every other kind of job, attractive women were preferred,” said Johnson, who chided those who let stereotypes affect hiring decisions. 

Putting aside the fact that equality in this case appears to mean that everyone should prefer attractive people….what hiring managers was she chiding?  The ones she never studied?  Since the largest bias against attractive women was found when the mostly female undergrads were asked about who was qualified for male dominated fields….does that say more about what men think about women in non traditional fields, or what women think about women in non traditional fields?

While I’m sure that physical appearance does make a difference in hiring practices, I would have loved to see a little more time dedicated mimicking the real world before announcing that women were facing discrimination in certain professions.  To allow these results to be propagated as proof of what goes on at legitimate companies is a bit of a stretch, and points the finger at people who never even got asked what they would do.  

Friday Fun Links

/ bs king / 3 Comments

This is one of the coolest uses of graphic/animated data I’ve seen….it compares past Olympians to each other to show what the events would have looked like if the gold medalists from different years had competed against each other.  Swimming seems to have gained the most over the years, while the long jump seems more impervious to time.

This infographic looks innocuous, until you look at the upper right hand corner.  Cats have 72 hour days? (h/t junkcharts)

This is a useful page if you ever wanted to know what superhero your font of choice would be.  The only downside….no comic sans (asshole).

XKCD.com added a new page where he answers hypothetical questions with physics.  This weeks is “what would a mole of moles look like?”  Haven’t we all wondered that at some point?

Tracking the wild bad data

/ bs king / 5 Comments

As someone who spent 3 years studying family dynamics in grad school, I was pretty interested in the NYT piece that ran last week on class divides in single vs married households.  The article generated a lot of buzz, and if you haven’t read it, I would recommend it.

People seemed to either love or hate this article, and it’s stirred up a whole lot of discussion online.  One of the more interesting points that got brought up though, was a discussion about why the focus was on single moms as opposed to deadbeat dads.

This led to some quoting of an interesting statistic regarding custodial parents and child support.  When I first read this statistic, it was from Amanda Marcotte over at Slate who put it this way:

…. in a substantial number of cases, the men just quit their families. That’s why only 41 percent of custodial parents receive child support.

Now, I’ve perused internet comment boards enough to know that there are a LOT of men out there griping about how much they pay in child support.  I was a little shocked to read that apparently 59% don’t give anything.  I clicked on the closest link she had provided…..which took me over to the NYT Economix blog and an item by Nancy Folbre. There was the stat again, except with a few more qualifiers:

In 2009, the latest year for which data are available, only about 41 percent of custodial parents (predominantly women) received the child support they were owed. Some biological dads were deadbeats. 

So that frames it a little differently.  It’s still a little unclear from that statement, but it started to occur to me that this probably meant only 41% were up to date on their support payments…not that only 41% of non-custodial parents were paying.

I clicked on the link provided by Folbre, and got to the Census Bureau website, which put it all this way:

 In 2009, 41.2 percent of custodial parents received the full amount of child support owed them, down from 46.8 percent in 2007, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The proportion of these parents who were owed child support payments and who received any amount at all — either full or partial — declined from 76.3 percent to 70.8 percent over the period.

Now that’s still a lot of deadbeats, but it is a slightly different picture from the one we originally started with.  When I clicked on the link from the Census Bureau snapshot to the report it originally came from, I noticed something else interesting….only about half of all custodial parents have court ordered support, and the non-payment stats above appear to reflect only what is happening in the court ordered cases.  The non court ordered cases are certainly hazy….30% of custodial parents said they never went to court because they knew the other person couldn’t pay….but it is interesting that the quoted stats only apply to half of the custodial parent cases.

Overall, I must say I kind of enjoyed attempting tracking the evolution of a stat (in reverse).  It’s not often you get to actually see how things evolve from the primary source to several steps out….and it was an interesting mental exercise.  Thanks for taking the journey with me.