Studies said that …………….

Everyday newspapers report astounding discoveries by scientists and researchers. Some of this research is done upon absolutely new topics. There are also tests done on existing topics where the new study either agrees or disagrees with existing studies done on the subject matter. The ones that get highlighted are usually (notice the word “usually”) done by much acclaimed people with a lot of credentials. So for laymen like us it is easier to agree with them rather than disagree. After all, who are we to agree or disagree with these experts? 

 Now this raises a couple of very interesting questions. At least they did for me. Firstly, how sound are these studies? Are they unbiased and done through rigorous research? Secondly, how do we react when we see these studies? 

  I got the answer of the first question when I listened to numerous Econtalk podcasts. For the unaware, Econtalk is a talk show hosted by Professor Russ Roberts of George Mason University. What I realized is that these research findings which frequently find the way to the newspaper headlines are not as sound or rigorous as we may have assumed them to be. The distinguished researchers, many from top notch universities of the world can be quite biased. They frequently manipulate the data (data fitting) to ensure that the outcome matches with what they want to show rather than what the truth is. 

 The newspapers only mention the summary of the findings. However, we rarely have access to the data set used to come to the conclusion. Even if we had access to all the data, how many of us would have to look at it to check for mistakes. If another unbiased scientist using the same methodology came to a similar conclusion then only we can call the study quite robust. 

 However, just because some people decided to be less truthful does not mean that there are no good researchers. There are people following rigorous methods to come to conclusions. There are also people who cite the weaknesses in their methodology while submitting the results. Thanks to these people human beings have advanced quite a bit.

 Now we come to the other interesting part. How do people react when they learn about the outcome of a new research finding? This is where things get even more interesting. I have seen the same person saying that there a new research on healthcare saying that XYZ food has harmful side effects and the same person (another layman like me) on a different occasion trashing a separate research on a different food item . What has happened here? “Confirmation bias” has happened. 

 How do we actually decide which study to believe and which not to? Like I said, it is all about confirmation bias. We just believe the one that we want to believe and ignore all others. Other times, we also do a one person study by ourselves where the only data set is us. Let me take an example of a study which concluded that exercising makes us healthier. Normally I would just quickly relate to myself and try to remember whether that applied to me. Maybe, I did exercise in the past, but I never lost any body fat. I would then quickly say that the research is rubbish because it never applied to me. 

 What did I wrong here? Practically everything. Firstly, there are many variables that can influence ones health. My one person study did not control for all the other variables. Secondly, statistics gives a viewpoint about a large sample. I could very easily be an outlier. But that would not necessarily mean that the original research was wrong. Thirdly, I may not have even done the exercises correctly and cheated on form. There could be many more.

 Biases are and will remain an integral part of human life. However, it would do all of us good to try to minimize these biases. The first step is to be aware of them. Only then can we try to minimize them while thinking or analyzing. 

 Easier said than done (saying from personal experience).

The need for heretics in the society

Disclosure: I have realized that my blog pieces rarely have a coherent flow and I tend to jump around from one topic to another.  I wrote this piece after a long time. I guess the topic was something that was moving in my head for a long time.

Do not be shocked by the title. The word heretic has two different definitions according to Merriam-Webster.

1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth

2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine 
 

I am actually referring to the latter definition. The modern heretic is a non-conformist who challenges assumptions. This makes the heretic an outlier. 

The amount of knowledge in this world is endless. In 2013, even with thousands of years of civilization the knowledge human beings have attained is probably about a drop in an ocean (in my opinion). There is just so much we don't know. There are also things we think we know but in reality what we know is incorrect. In spite of all this, we really love to believe that we know a lot and this problem is more so in our so called experts and politicians. 

I tend to believe that the people who have reached the highest levels on knowledge in their specific disciplines actually realize how little they know. However, according to Ariel Rubinstein of Tel Aviv University many of these so called experts (and politicians) have a natural incentive to give the impression that they already know everything. But we do have a few people like Friedrich Von Hayek whom many considers as the Renaissance man of twentieth century economics. Von Hayek in his final works mentioned that the economy is just too complex for politicians to avert recessions and unemployment without unintended consequences that may well be worse. He advised politicians and economists to be a bit more humble.

Human being in general loves to follow the herd. We try to follow the recent fad and buy the shares that most people are recommending. I guess it gives us a sort of mental peace that even if what we are doing is wrong we are still with the crowd. And boy, do we love shooting down those who come up with radical thoughts.

But we NEED the outliers, the people who would dare to go against the crowd.The people who would challenge the theories which we have taken for granted. History has shown us that time after time that such people have emerged and their discoveries have changed the course of the entire world. But, easier said than done. It takes guts to go against the mass.

Personally I am guilty of acting like a so called EXPERT. So this is what I am advising to myself (and anyone else who is reading this post). 

1. Always look at both sides of the table before coming to my conclusion. Only after neutrally looking at alternate sides can I come at a solution. In certain issues, like economics for instance their might not be a solution at all. 

2. Encourage other people to be outliers. Do not shoot down people who hold the absolute opposite views than me. Be ready to change my view if enough evidence is shown.

3. Be more humble.