Seth's Blog

• MMO (massively multiplayer online) game connoisseurship
• Thorstein Veblen lives! (cartoon)
• article about self-tracking in Technology Review with several associated articles. The author, Emily Singer, describes a month of self-tracking, including what went wrong.
  
• triumph of new-age medicine. Emily Blackburn, a Nobel Prize winner, says modern medicine does a good job with infectious disease. What about antibiotic resistance? What about failing to understand how to boost the immune system?
• Medtronic didn’t waste $23 million. Associated article. A surgeon named Thomas Zdeblick, who received $23 million from Medtronic, has drawn attention away from the company by claiming he has no financial interest in a product that generates substantial income for him whenever it is used according to FDA guidelines.

Thanks to Tim Lundeen, J.C. and Ben Casnocha.

About ten years ago, while visiting my friend Carl Willat, he presented me with five versions of limoncello (an Italian lemon liqueur) side by side in shot glasses. Two were store-bought, the rest homemade, if I remember correctly. I tried them one by one. I had had limoncello many times but never different versions side by side. It was easy to notice differences between them. Obviously. What surprised me was an hedonic reaction: I thought two of them (with more complex flavors) were wonderful and one (store-bought) was awful. Both reactions (wonderful and awful) were stronger than usual. In a small way, I’d become a connoisseur. After that, I was happy to buy expensive limoncello (e.g., $26). I no longer bought cheap limoncello ($18). I call the hedonic changes produced by side-by-side comparisons the Willat Effect. Carl became a connoisseur of Italian hand-painted tableware due to side by side comparisons. I believe connoisseurs were important in human evolution because they helped support skilled artisans. Our design preference for repeated elements (e.g., wallpaper, textiles) evolved so that we would put similar things side by side. (more…)

In a paper (and blog post), Andrew Gelman writes:

As a statistician, I was trained to think of randomized experimentation as representing the gold standard of knowledge in the social sciences, and, despite having seen occasional arguments to the contrary, I still hold that view, expressed pithily by Box, Hunter, and Hunter (1978) that “To find out what happens when you change something, it is necessary to change it.”

Box, Hunter, and Hunter (1978) (a book called Statistics for Experimenters) is well-regarded by statisticians. Perhaps Box, Hunter, and Hunter, and Andrew, were/are unfamiliar with another quote (modified from Beveridge): “Everyone believes an experiment except the experimenter; no one believes a theory except the theorist.” (more…)

I have blogged several times about Caroline Rodger’s idea that sonograms during pregnancy greatly increase the risk of autism in the fetus. Her idea is supported by several lines of evidence, as she explains in this talk.

A new study provides more evidence. It found a high concordance rate among fraternal twins. In the general population from which the new study was drawn (California), about 1 child in 100 has autism. But if you are an identical twin, and your co-twin has autism spectrum disorder, your chance of having the same diagnosis is about 70%. The crucial point of the study is that the concordance was also high for fraternal twins: about 40%.  As one commenter put it, this result “puts a spotlight on pregnancy as a time when environmental factors might exert their effects”.

Another study found more risk of autism if the mom took an anti-depressant during pregnancy. This supports the idea that a bad prenatal environment causes autism.

Thanks to Paul Sas and Gary Wolf.

In an interview, James D. Watson, co-discovery of the structure of DNA, said

Some day a child is going to sue its parents for being born. They will say, My life is so awful with these terrible genetic defects.

(Quoted by Richard Bentall in Doctoring the Mind.) Watson is implying that genetic defects matter in the big picture of human impairment. They don’t. Changes over time in disease incidence, migration studies (in all instances I know of, the disease profile of the migrating group changes to match the place where they live), powerful nutritional effects (e.g., Weston Price) and other evidence of environmental potency show that all major diseases (heart disease, cancer, depression, obesity, plague, tuberculosis, smallpox, etc.) are mostly caused by the environment, in the sense that environmental changes could greatly reduce their incidence. Genes are a distraction. (To say that major diseases are also “caused” by genes in the sense that genes affect environmental potency is to miss the point that we want to reduce the diseases — want to reduce obesity for example — so it is the environmental lever that matters. If a child could eliminate its obesity by changing its environment, it would not sue its parents.) If Watson was unaware of that, okay. But for him to claim the opposite is a great — and I am afraid profoundly self-serving — delusion. (more…)