See those numbers in parentheses? Those pretty much sum up the statistics for each test they did. I’ll ignore the first two for the moment because I don’t have faith in my own ability to interpret them correctly for you, but the last one is the infamous p-value. This value tells you how likely your data set is assuming the null hypothesis.

In their case, the null hypothesis appears to be that cognitive activity has no effect on the progression of dementia for individuals at all three stages. The first group, which had no cognitive impairment at the onset of the study, saw less degradation with more activity. The p-value of 0.003 means there is a 0.3% chance of this if the null hypothesis is true, so they conclude that cognitive activity helps.

The second group with “mild cognitive impairment” had a result with a p-value of 0.300, or a %30 chance that the result came from the null hypothesis. The text of the article reflects this lack of a meaningful result. Lastly, the group with Alzheimer Disease, the degradation of cognitive function decreased with increased activity with p<0.001, considered a strong result for rejecting the null hypothesis.

Which is an important point. Hypothesis testing like this must be carefully constructed. All a p-value tells you is how likely your data set is assuming your null hypothesis. Rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily imply the result being tested. My interpretation of the above article as a whole would be that they’ve found compelling evidence that cognitive activity affects the rate of progression of dementia at various stages. What those specific effects are, they can’t really say yet. That’s why they’ll probably design another study to home in on the details.  I could go on about journalists jumping the gun and exaggerating results to satisfy people’s craving for instant gratification, but I think that’s already been said.

For me, social networking will probably never be social. There are so many ways I could stay connected with the people I care about, that the odds are slim to none that I will ever be connecting with all of them on the same service rendering the whole experience somewhat vacuous. Moreover, I already know what they like. If I wanted to read my friends favorite articles, there are much better ways for me to do that. I want an Amazon recommendation system for news. I want something that will tell me about something I never would have seen before based on my interest in the articles I already know how to find.

Digg gave me that. At least a close enough approximation that I used the service regularly. Now they’ve decided to re-invent RSS, a service I already use, and tack on some social features a la Google Reader. So it doesn’t let me do anything I couldn’t do before. The one feature that made it unique is missing. And in order to find parts of the web I’m statistically inclined to enjoy I’ve had to resort to stumbleupon. It gets close. But I want NEWS, not any random thing on the web that’s been sitting there for any period of time. And I can’t stand going through each website serially. I want a shotgun start. I want to not have to open articles that disinterest me based on their title and blurb.

So apparently the active business model in news aggregator services is to re-invent the already established wheel and offer nothing new. Which is sad. If there were one out there doing something unique, even if it wasn’t the specific unique thing I want them to do (keeping in mind that as far as I’m concerned social interaction on these services doesn’t exist… I just wanna read) I might use it just for that. So you folks with enough free time to spend reading a lot of news, enlighten me. Who really is doing something special and why should I be using their service?

To me this is a question that is only slightly more sane than the faux-feminist accusation that science is a man’s way of knowing that suppresses an equal, but unexplainable (and actually fictitious) woman’s way of knowing. In terms of answering practical scientific questions, science is the way of knowing. As Chad points out, intuition isn’t separate from science, which is not strictly logic.

To really get anywhere at all, I think, scientists have to be intuitive. Eschewing intuition, I would personally be left with a very time-consuming list of things to check every time there’s a problem in my hardware. Sure, it’s not a flash of insight that will lead to anything like QCD, general relativity, or the quantum hydrogen atom, but I need to be able to make a pretty good guess where to look for the problem to save myself from checking the entire setup only to discover there was a bad connector on a BNC cable (hint: check the connectors first).

Propagating the myth that different ways of knowing belong to specific genders isn’t doing anybody any good, especially if one way of knowing is given most of the credit for scientific progress. A man can have keen intuition, be a good scientist, and be masculine. A woman can have sharp logic, be a good scientist, and be feminine. The idea that intuition implies femininity or precludes masculinity is only going to hold back potential scientists from venturing into territory they feel is forbidden by their gender. Like I’ve said before, the gender gap isn’t about ability, it’s about broadly perceived inability.

There were no computers, not by modern standards anyway. There were no robots. There was just pure, unadulterated human chutzpah and a whole bunch of really smart people who found a way to make it happen. That’s why I wanted to do science. I wanted to figure out how to make things happen. And I have. Duck tape and cable ties. So take some time today to reflect on how awesome space is. Here’s an article in wired with less snark and more pretty pictures.

When I argued with friends about nuclear power or the population of the planet, I didn’t convince anyone of anything. Not because I was wrong, or because I didn’t have a well constructed argument, but because the people I was arguing with had an emotional investment in the subject. No amount of evidence will satisfy, because the fear of Chernobyl or the guilt of living a consumer-driven developed-world lifestyle makes certain unreasonable choices very appealing emotionally.

Sentimental attachment is a trap anyone can fall into. Sometimes the thought of something being true makes us feel good–whether it’s a supreme being, our immanent salvation by renewable energy, or anything that seems to justify a lifestyle choice we’re just not sure about otherwise. Usually the sign of such an attachment is a very defensive response to any kind of criticism, no matter how level. Instead of arguments structured around evidence, these defenses tend to to betray a feeling that the subject in question must be true no matter what.

I usually walk away. I don’t know if letting the sentimental devotee have the last word just lends them more wood for their fire, but I usually find that I can’t even get a direct response to my critique or a single citation of evidence, so it certainly feels like I’m waisting my time. I do know that when I’ve been the emotionally invested, I usually don’t back down until I get something from somewhere unexpected that makes me reflect on my own position.  At least for me, the direct approach never works–so when dealing with others I try to back off when the emotions are running high.

My smug title bar makes it sound simple. How to be right? Don’t get attached to ideas–they can be wrong. It’s a lot easier to say than to do, but I think it might be even harder to know how to handle one’s self when confronted with an intensely emotional defense. For the defender, it’s just a matter of holding their ground against any onslaught. For the critic, it’s about communicating without damaging another person’s well-being and friendship.

Have you ever seen a Matthew Broderick movie from the 80s? This book is exactly like all of them. The main character is Matthew Broderick. You couldn’t make a more cookie-cutter coming of age story without using an actual cookie cutter. The only remotely interesting character is the Fuller-obsessed grandmother who is vastly under-utilized.

In terms of the Bechdel Test, it fails spectacularly. I don’t believe two female characters ever even directly interact in the narrative. Moreover the main character Sebastian’s surrogate family has an absent father. Why is he absent? Because his wife is so intolerable, and it cannot be made more clear that it is, in fact, all her fault! His daughter? The only solution to her problems is the touch of a man, so she’s oh so promiscuous until Matthew Broderick Sebastian, the awkward, nerdy, isolated main character rescues her from her woes. Yuck.

There are some Fuller-related nuggets of goodness, but these are few and far between. Mostly he is used as a soft, friendly surrogate for more harsh realities that keep kids separated from their peers and society at large. I started reading, wanting to geek out over a subject I adore, but wound up connecting in a completely different way. Growing up a Jehovah’s Witness gave me a lot of similar neuroses as Sebastian when he finally started interacting with others. So if nothing else, I can appreciate as fairly unique the book’s message about coming to terms with an upbringing that separates one from what’s immediately present.

Final conclusion? Tepid. It’s a fast, easy read, but almost frustrating in its fullness of unrealized potential. Wouldn’t recommend reading unless you’re in a situation where you need to kill time but are extremely bored and uncomfortable, like if you’re at a Cleveland sporting event or on an airplane, and then I’d wait for the paperback as it’ll travel easier.

Next project is reported to be finding the shortest possible game of Risk. It kind of makes me want to analyze Settlers of Catan or something.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127575676

Of all the humans who’ve ever lived, 6.4 percent are alive today. The sheer number of people is overwhelming natural systems, destroying biodiversity, and challenging efforts to control global warming. Earth’s population is rising at 80 million people per year – roughly the number of unwanted pregnancies. Solving the population problem means making every child a wanted child.