Sunday, June 21, 2015

The trouble with calling critiques of Tim Hunt a witch hunt

How many Nobel laureates does it take to screw up a position? By my current count, nine. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has already observed the rich irony of using the collective privilege and power of the Nobel to try to shut up the less-powerful by claiming that they're going to chill freedom of expression. If not, consider that observed.

The Tim Hunt story is redux redux, as though every time a stone is shifted from the power structure, another one simply takes its place from an infinite supply of the components of existing power. The narrative with each of these episodes never deviates. A white man in a clear position of power in science says or does something sexist. People whom those words and actions harm or diminish recognize the behavior as symptomatic of a longstanding systemic structural problem and call it out, usually on Twitter. Much of the calling out consists of wry humor and snark, genuine social critique, and expressions of anger and frustration. Evidently, this challenge from the proletariat alarms the representatives of the power structure (they get the vapors pretty easily) and elicits a series of reflexive accusations of witch hunts, lynchings, and mob savagery. Meanwhile, those of the less-privileged classes are on the receiving end of threats that span everything from threatened career progress to death.

Just as nine Nobel laureates are evidently incapable of understanding how a man who calls for segregated labs might not be the best fit for an institution with a mission of diversity, many of their ilk also seem incapable of understanding the implications of the terms they select to attack those they wish to shut up. Herein, I offer a useful resource.

Lynch mob: I've written about this before, so I'll just paraphrase me: The phrase 'lynch mob' is a loaded one. Here's what lynch mobs did and do. Charles Blow has written in depth about how indefensible it is to co-opt this term to characterize the by-any-measure relatively mild complaints about ... well, anything. Meanwhile, women of Twitter get this.

Witch hunt: This practice still exists, not metaphorically but as it has always existed historically: Targeting people suspected of practicing witchcraft, usually with assumed nefarious intent, and attempting to harm or kill the suspected witch. Often, the witch is female and being accused of witchery for less-than-magical reasons, including as punishment related to sexual behavior. In some regions of the world, women right now, this minute, are suffering physical pain and death because of witch hunts. The witch, of course, is someone who has done nothing of the sort, as witchcraft is not a thing. Whereas saying and doing sexist things is definitely a thing and one that deserves to be called out. Characterizing critical tweets or blogs as part of a "witch hunt" is melodramatic, at best.

Calling for (someone's) head: People are using this one to characterize what they think are people calling for Tim Hunt to be fired from something. I tweeted a request for examples of such calls. I got none. I asked again. I got none. The implications? If you're gonna use a term, even metaphorically, at least be sure you have some metaphorical examples to support the claim.

Mob: Can relate to organized crime, but in this case, I think those who are using this epithet seek to diminish their targets into howling, pitchfork-wielding brutes attacking their noble, long-suffering selves. If your version of a mob is a lot of smart women and men formulating well-argued critiques of what you've said or done, you've got the fortitude of Mr. Woodhouse and might want to consider retiring from public life.

Coven: Oh, of course, it's a gendered term intended to diminish the women criticizing you to a bunch of cackling hags doling some eye of newt into a pot. A little sleight of hand with words in the hope that no one will notice that what the women are saying is true. Meanwhile, you're just proving their point.

The Spanish Inquisition: In this example, an all-woman panel at a recent science journalism conference was compared to the Spanish Inquisition. The panel was called "Sexism, science writing and solution: A global perspective." Clearly, these women were hell bent on serving as a mobile tribunal to ensure adherence to and maintain the integrity of medieval Catholic orthodoxy because we obviously have no problems whatsoever with sexism in science or science writing.

Finally: Rather than resorting to these facile characterizations of people who find your comments or actions harmful, consider giving them due consideration. If you can't bring yourself to do that because you're stumbling over your own confirmation bias, at the very least, try to come up with something more original and pithy and less racist and sexist to detract attention from the validity of the critiques. Even Nobel prize winners should realize that using this kind of terminology to defend against charges of bias simply contributes to the evidence that the bias is there.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

How you think just like Tim Hunt ... and so do I

At Forbes: Yes, his comments are retrograde, foolish, and demoralizing and his defenders somehow managed to be worse than that. But that great intellectual leveler, confirmation bias, left a lot of us sweeping right by another problem.


What is your dog thinking?

At Forbes: A little puppythink and a correction that was fun to make.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2015/06/15/7-things-60-minutes-didnt-tell-you-about-how-dogs-think/

Sunday, May 31, 2015

The Sleeping Lady

Each week, several times a week she would drive the road. Climb to the top of a grade, engage a blind turn where it peaked, drop down into the flats below to cross marshlands with a central, uneven ridge, like a woman lying supine, stretching up and out before her. Every week, the days and small series of towns blending into one along this path she would drive, up and down and up and back again, wearing a track through time and space, the rhythm of life's routines.

She knew the route well, mapped it in her head complete with landmarks, the scars in the road to avoid, the bumps requiring a brake tap here, a small swerve there. She knew the parks and the marsh where long-legged, still birds would suddenly become airborne, as though an invisible force spread their wings and lifted them, beating skyward. Lifting them as she drove by, in the asphalt grooves.

And then there was the four-way stop. Halting cars from all directions at the edge of one of the quaint small towns that punctuated the grooves. A church. A library. A grove of silent, sentinel redwoods crowding out the light. And a restaurant with a marquee that read, invariably, "Lobster rolls. Beer. Wine."

It looked like a Cape Cod house even though Cape Cod was a continent and an entrenched culture away. A worn white boarded frame building with a small front porch and trellises sporting distinctly un-Cape Cod-ish flora. It invited by its look and its marquee a promise of a careless afternoon spent in aimless, privileged wanderings in the sea air, to end serendipitously in this rambling whiteboard restaurant for a lobster roll and some wine, perhaps over laughter at the unfamiliar nothingness and satisfaction of a day just passing.

An attractive promise for her, with a life of must-do-this-next from wake until sleep, little chance for wine and a lobster roll on the porch in the sea air as the sun set on an ambling peaceful day. Indeed, the sign reminded her, daily and more often, that to be sitting outdoors, drinking wine in the waning light of evening would be an unfamiliar and welcome moment of no must-do-this-next in the offing.

She never drank wine outdoors in waning light, feeling the unfamiliarity of nothingness. Wine was for the dark inside when the time had passed for driving or thinking or anything beyond winding downward even more deeply, yet more numbly. How could it be that every day, the corkscrew found more space to turn? Was there a bottom? When would she feel the pain? Sleep came first, instead.

Always, the evening sun shone when she approached the four-way stop, the sign inviting, "Lobster rolls. Beer. Wine." All in the incipient shadow of the looming, tree-carpeted mountain of a sleeping lady. And always, she stopped at the four-way after she read it, feeling the sign call her, then took her turn in this direction or that, depending on the duty, on the next that must be done. Stop. North. Stop. South. Stop. East. Stop. West.

But some day, she promised the sign, promised herself, promised the sleeping lady mountain, felt the rhythm in those grooves promise to her, she would turn before the four-way stop, while the sun still shone. Pass under the marquee, sit on that porch with a glass in hand and a brilliant dusky-painted sky before her. She would know when she did it that that was a day of unfamiliar nothingness and the satisfaction of a day just passing. One of these days.

"Look, Mama," he said, as they approached the familiar four-way, yet again, on just another day. "It's closed. 'Thank you for all the good years,' it says." He said. She read. And rolled on, just a few feet more, a small distance, to the four-way stop. Where she paused in the growing shadow of the sleeping lady as the sun fell away into nothing.

Chocolate study sting: Where are these millions of fools, anyway?

On May 27, John Bohannon published a self-congratulatory piece at io9 about how he'd "fooled millions" into thinking that chocolate helps with weight loss. How? He conducted a human subjects study of 15 people, ventured on a statistical fishing expedition with the results, got a vanity journal to publish the paper, and then slapped up a news release that was carefully crafted to sell the hell out of his dubious findings.

I'm sure he was hoping for more in his duplicitous effort to fool millions, which, by the way, is not a typical goal of journalism. Bohannon must have been enormously disappointed to find that in reality, the number of outlets that fell for his silly stunt may have been smaller than his tiny study population. He seems to have wanted to expose science and health journalists, diet studies in particular (although why those and not, say, heart studies, I'm not sure), and the problem of vanity publications for what they are, as though people had not been discussing these problems ad-goddamned-nauseam for ... ever.

His hypothesis appears to have been that if you dangle something sexy and scientific-seeming (e.g., chocolate) before a pack of hungry journalists, they'll bite every time, the suckers, no matter how crappy said sexy science really is. Sadly for Bohannon, his results failed to support his hypothesis. But that hasn't stopped him from trying to manipulate his outcomes with an odd mix of braggadocio and patronizing finger-wagging about p value hacking to justify the compromise of research and journalistic ethics his little caper involved.

What Bohannon's results really show is ... drumroll please ... that some websites recycle news releases. It's exactly the kind of lame finding a desperate researcher would be forced to publish in a vanity journal because it has all the novelty of hot weather during the Texas summer. What he "discovered" isn't a problem with science journalism, diet studies, or vanity journals. It's a problem with churnalism sites trying to make shit in general look like journalism (ETA: one that pre-dates the Internet). Yet even his data for that are weak--people don't seem to buy so easily as perhaps they once did into regurgalism as journalism. As sexy as Bohannon tried to make his chocolate study seem, the churnalism didn't churn up much online interest in it.

First, let's take Bohannon's impossible-to-prove (and indefensible) claim that he "fooled millions" into thinking that chocolate causes weight loss. Below is a breakdown of the handful of outlets that even mentioned this study and also gave numbers of social media shares. Note that of these nine seven, eight just regurgitated the news release. In other words, no journalist had a hand in what was posted, and no reporting took place. Like many churnalism sites, these sites--Times of India, anyone?--simply harvested and packaged a news release.

Social Media Shares
Daily Star: 249 shares; news release regurgitation
Irish Examiner: 10,820; news release regurgitation
Cosmopolitan, German: 48; news release regurgitation+redaction and explanation
Times of India: 15; notorious news release regurgitator
German HuffPo: unknown; news release regurgitation
HuffPo India: 4; news release regurgitation+retraction
Brigitte (German): 64 shares, also a regurgitation
Focus (German): no shares given, but the video has 23 ratings; another news release regurgitation
Tyler, Tex, news station: Shares unclear. Population of Tyler, Tex.: 100,223. This one was reported, with outside comment from a dietician.

Some silly math to illustrate the silliness of this claim: Let's say, generously, that each social media share reached 100 people and that they were all uncritically gullible consumers. Based on the above, that translates into 11,170-ish shares x 100 for a total reach of 1,117,000-ish people plus the entire city of Tyler, Tex. (requiring that all of Tyler had watched that one segment on the local news station) for a grand total of 1,217,000-ish. That's 1.2 million people, perhaps, who might have possibly seen a reference to chocolate and weight loss on somebody's Facebook wall or Twitter feed and then, presumbly having crawled out from under a rock where they had resided since the pre-Internet era, immediately consumed a pound of chocolate right after trying this one weird trick they'd read about for losing belly fat. Those fools.

And that's going on the assumption that every person who read about the chocolate thing was fooled by it instead of doing what any sensible consumer of any such information over the last half century or so would do, which is to think, "That is total horseshit. I've been eating chocolate every effing day for 20 years with nary an ounce lost." (Note: As pointed out to me on Twitter, this list does not include the print outlet Bild and the millions who read it; Bild has retracted what they printed). Bohannon has not shown that millions read and believed that chocolate would help them lose weight.

The only ones who could demonstrably have been fooled are journalists who earnestly reported the story, and they add up to single digits. Churnalist sites were probably just happy to have something to churn that had the word "chocolate" in it.

How important were Bohannon and his chocolate study to social media users during the time period it washed over the global news media and duped all of those millions? Let's ask Topsy. Topsy--who has been talking on Twitter about Bohannon and chocolate lately?
How about Google trends on searches of the 'first author'?
  • John Bohannon, searched by name, last 90 days: not enough volume to show
  • Johannes Bohannon, searched by name, last 90 days: not enough volume to show
No one on social media, much less journalists, seems to have cared much about that chocolate study or about John/Johannes Bohannon until Bohannon wrote his io9 piece.

What about the story when it "broke" a couple of months ago? Looks like Bohannon himself did this search when he was scraping around the web for examples of journalists he'd duped. That list he cited in his io9 piece? That's the entire list. Here's the (English-language) search of Google news on terms "Bohannon" and "chocolate," covering dates from March 27 through April 4. There are literally seven hits, one of which is the site where Bohannon posted the news release. Another report says that at most, 17 outlets seem to have picked up the story (probably including this handful of German outlets, all of which regurgitate the news release).

We can all interpret squishy data in different ways, but whether it's 7 or 17, somewhere in between, or slightly more, we're talking about a global population here of thousands of journalists who somehow managed not to write about Bohannon's super-sexy duplicitous chocolate study. Bohannon may intepret that finding of 7 to 17 as proof that journalists are suckers who need to attend better to their jobs and double check the legitimacy of a scientific journal. I say that it shows that actual journalists aren't quite the suckers Bohannon hypothesized them to be and that churnalist sites gonna churn. In reality, he fed the latter exactly what they need to do what they do.

A couple of outlets published briefs a little later, including Prevention and Shape. Prevention has an editor's note at the top of original article, which again was little more than a regurgitation of the news release. They say:
Editor's Note: This article reports on a study later revealed to have been conducted by an unqualified researcher who manipulated the statistics in order to produce a significant result. It was published in a journal that doesn't peer-review its research. We regret the error. There is legitimate research on the benefits of chocolate, but this study doesn't qualify.
Bohannon did a lot of things with his "sting." He dunked the ethics of two professions into dirty waters. He failed to support his hypothesis and failed to recognize that failure. He showed us things we already know and talk about all the time. And he self promoted (which is now getting us into the real problem with journalism, as Hilda Bastian writes). The one thing he doesn't seem to have demonstrated? That he fooled much of anyone, much less science and health journalists, into thinking that eating chocolate will help you lose weight.


******Last update: Monday, June 1 10:11 a.m. ET******
Origins of churnalism, FYI, dating back almost a quarter century.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Weight loss: It's never meant something good for me

I don't diet. I never have because I don't like to engage in lifestyle changes that are unmaintainable. So when I lose weight, it's not because I've done something special to make it happen. My body on some occasions has just made it happen. And on none of those occasions were the factors involved positive influences on my life or my health.

In high school, I became very thin because I was partying too much, smoking a lot, sleeping too little, and probably not eating enough to keep up with my restless energy expenditure. People who encountered me after having not seen me for a few months would remark with surprise and intended compliments on how great I looked, I looked so thin! But how I got that way? I'm probably still paying the price for it, decades later.

In my early twenties, several coinciding and very disruptive negative life events led to my buying and smoking cigarettes by the carton in an effort to manage my stress, accompanied by a 35-pound weight loss. Everyone had the same reaction: You're so small! So thin! You look great! How did you do it? I didn't do it. Intense stress and nicotine addiction did it for me. The price tag of that on my health is probably still being written.

Just after having my third child, I suddenly lost about 15 pounds. God, it was great. Three children in, and I was at a healthy BMI (don't get me started on BMI, but still, it was great to see that number), able to slip into jeans without feeling them grip my waist like a starving python. Then, I learned that I had autoimmune hyperthyroidism that was so intense and intractable, I had to have my thyroid completely removed. Not such a great reason for weight loss. But boy, did people notice and compliment me on it.

In fact, not once in my life has weight loss been healthy. The thing is, I'm generally not obviously overweight or unhealthy anyway. I am a pretty average-sized woman who wears a size 8 or 10 and who only recently really started having to think about my caloric intake to fight the battle of the menopausal midriff. When I lost weight effortlessly, I wasn't trying to do it, and not once did it happen for good or healthy reasons. It was always for bad reasons, for negative behaviors, some of which I am paying for today in ways that actually interfere with my being healthy now.

Yet, irrationally, I miss how it felt to be smaller. I miss how it felt to have people comment on how great I looked, even though I know exactly what it means for me to lose weight. If I were to suddenly drop some weight today, lose 10 or 15 pounds, I imagine that most people I know would say to me, "You look great! How did you do it?"

And I'd bask in that feeling all over again in spite of everything I know about how weight loss reflects negative influences on me. I'd enjoy how those jeans lightly encircle my no-longer-menopausal midriff, be pleased at the slender reflection of my profile in the mirror. Even though I know that for me, weight loss is a sign of poor health or unhealthy inputs, the positive feedback driven by cultural expectations about my waistline would carry more weight for me than all the threats to my health that those lost pounds imply. That says something about me and my own helpless enjoyment of personal compliments. But it also says something about our insistence on linking thinness with good health, even when evidence suggests a less-than-consistent relationship between the two.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

On Autism Speaks' Suzanne Wright, the frustrated savior

Suzanne Wright, founder of Autism Speaks, made some comments at the Vatican (transcribed here at Unstrange Minds), addressing Pope Francis. In her remarks, she practically glows blue herself as she waxes enthusiastic about how awesome she and her organization are for getting people to use blue lights around the world. Throughout, she draws some not-remotely-subtle comparisons to St. Francis, of all people, who was known not only for not Othering his fellow human beings but also for seeing non-human animals as his brothers and sisters. And, lest anyone think she might stray off message, she belittles and demeans and negatively stereotypes autistic people like her grandson. As usual.

Of course, if Wright ever did listen to the autistics speaking to her and her organization, she'd stop using that kind of language. I used to wonder why someone like Wright, who loves an autistic person, would be so hell bent on refusing to seek out and listen to the very people who might have the best insights into what it means to be autistic. Autistic adults have so much to tell non-autistic people about the experience of being autistic. About how complex their inner lives are, even when from the neurotypical perspective, an autistic person can seem "simple," as Wright wants to characterize it. A lack of communicative speech or of communication that neurotypicals can recognize or quantify or understand does not mean--has never meant--a lack of a rich mental life. Intellectual disability doesn't imply an absent rich inner life, either. The inability to understand autistic people doesn't mean they're missing a piece from the puzzle that makes a person whole or missing a vowel. To speak of autistic people--and, I'm inferring, especially autistic people identified as intellectually disabled--as though they had the inner lives of a banana slug is shameful, degrading, demeaning, and shallow. Yet Wright did that. And she got a standing ovation for it, according to Autism Speaks.


As I said, I used to wonder why Suzanne Wright wouldn't be beside herself with joy at the prospect of being able to learn from the autistic people offering their insights--these adults her grandson will someday become. She'd learn that in spite of her claim that autistic people are "free from the burden of money," in reality, autistic adults experience considerable economic struggles because of the need to live off of disability, the difficulty finding jobs, the struggles of maneuvering alone, without supports, through a world that refuses to accommodate them, that harkens to the negative and damaging stereotypes that Wright and others like her perpetuate. She'd learn that rather than having "simple desires" and "simple needs," autistic people aren't reducible to anything simple but instead are people with complex needs and desires that they can't always communicate easily to people like Suzanne Wright. Why wouldn't anyone want to hear and learn from the people who are having the experiences their loved one has had, is having, may have, is likely to have, and learn all of this?


And then I realized why. Her self-aggrandizing yet groveling remarks before the Pope make it clear. If you admit that others can understand the people for whom you claim to speak, then you cannot position yourself as the savior. The Wrights founded Autism Speaks to save their grandson. When others build a bridge to understanding and acceptance, a savior is no longer needed. The raison d'ĂȘtre of their entire organization crumbles if people start building bridges past and through and around them between non-autistics and autistics. With those bridges, those connections, autistic people and their loved ones don't need Autism Speaks to speak for them. They can speak to each other just fine without it. That must be hard news for a soi disant savior to accept.