I shouldn't get upset when I see news reports warning that your chances of getting some terrible ailment are increased by 40% if you do this or that. But I do. Why? It's not because I'm scared of getting that particular ailment. In fact, I don't really take that much notice of these reports. Here's why.
Here is an example I put to a few guys at the gym the other day after one of these stories appeared on the news. Give your gut feeling answer to it. Say one out of 1000 people get a pimple naturally. A study has shown that if you drink tea, your chances of getting a pimple increase by 40%. How many people out of 1000 get a pimple now. Remember, give a gut feeling answer to it. All the guys at the gym gave the answer of 400. And guess what, they were all wrong. In fact, only one point four (I'm using words rather than numbers so I don't give the game away) people get a pimple now. Remember, it's a forty percent increase. That means you multiply the number of people who get it by 140/100. In this case, that makes it one point four people.
The point is, it is not just enough to say it's an increase, you also need to the know the number of people who it really affects. 40% sounds scary, but if it really means that 0.14% get it rather that 0.1% does it still sound as scary?
For example, Here is research about the increase in risk of getting cancer if you are on HRT. The headline states there is a 60% increased risk of cancer. In reality, it means an increase from 0.23% of the population having cancer to 0.35% if you are having prolonged HRT use. This is a better indication of the risk and a more realistic number to be basing decisions on.
By the way, here is another question I gave the guys at the gym. In Melbourne, the weather on one day is totally independent of the weather that happens the next day. If there is 50% chance of rain on saturday and a 50% chance of rain on sunday, what is the chance that it will rain on the weekend? Give a gut feeling answer. I'll give the answer later.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
The original idea is the domain of the genius
Sidenote: I haven't written here in nearly two months. It's not that I have had nothing to say, it's just that I have been venting verbally. By the time I sit down, the urge to vent has passed. However, I thought I better put something down. So here it is.
It has been said that there are no original ideas. Even when you have a thought you think is original, you pick up a book or read an article written years ago that contains your idea.
A couple of rants ago I expressed the opinion along the lines that most people are stupid and that the more advanced a society becomes the less knowledgible the average population is. Well, this opinion was expressed by Mencken about 75 years ago.
I am reading "H.L. Mencken on religion, edited by S. T. Joshi". Mencken was a newspaper man, essayist and political commentator in the early to mid 20th century. His philosophy and beliefs are:
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
An interesting set of beliefs that have a lot of merit. I like the one about "no discovery of fact can be wholly useless". That one goes out to those who keep asking what practical use could there be for my research.
Anyway, he formulated my ideas years ago and wrote about them in a far better way. In fact, as I am reading this book, it is quite scary to find how close I am to his way of thinking. But it's early days and I'm not even through the first chapter. I may have to read other works by him.
I'll leave you with a few quotes from him:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
It has been said that there are no original ideas. Even when you have a thought you think is original, you pick up a book or read an article written years ago that contains your idea.
A couple of rants ago I expressed the opinion along the lines that most people are stupid and that the more advanced a society becomes the less knowledgible the average population is. Well, this opinion was expressed by Mencken about 75 years ago.
I am reading "H.L. Mencken on religion, edited by S. T. Joshi". Mencken was a newspaper man, essayist and political commentator in the early to mid 20th century. His philosophy and beliefs are:
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
An interesting set of beliefs that have a lot of merit. I like the one about "no discovery of fact can be wholly useless". That one goes out to those who keep asking what practical use could there be for my research.
Anyway, he formulated my ideas years ago and wrote about them in a far better way. In fact, as I am reading this book, it is quite scary to find how close I am to his way of thinking. But it's early days and I'm not even through the first chapter. I may have to read other works by him.
I'll leave you with a few quotes from him:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
I like smoke and lightning.....
Being a fan of the metal genre, I ventured to the Palace to see Queensryche. What an interesting crowd. First of all, it was the most polite crowd I've ever been in. Everyone who bumped into me during the night said sorry. It was very civil. The crowd itself consisted of:
Traditional metal heads - You know these guys, they are the ones with the long hair, Iron Maiden t-shirts, and tight black jeans;
Metal chicks - hair peroxided within an inch of its life, leather everywhere, studded jewellery;
mid 30's metal fans - guys who were fans during the 80's but no longer feel the need to dress the part. These guys have short hair and dress street casual;
mid 30's metal fans girlfriends - these girls have been obviously dragged along by their boyfriends to experience the fine music that is Operation Mindcrime;
New converts - the early 20's brigade who are discovering the fine fare that 80's metal had to offer. I overheard one of them talking to a bunch of over 40's and lamenting the fact that he was born 15 years too late.
The gig was excellent. I've been waiting to see Operation Mindcrime live and it didn't disappoint. The only downside was the songs from Operation Mindcrime II. They fell a bit flat. I don't know why they wanted to do a sequel 20 years later since sequels to albums usually fail.
Keeping with the metal theme, what does a singer of an influential and highly successful metal band do when they are not singing? They are commercial pilots.
Do you know which band this guy fronts? He recently flew about 200 people back to England after they had fled Lebanon.
Traditional metal heads - You know these guys, they are the ones with the long hair, Iron Maiden t-shirts, and tight black jeans;
Metal chicks - hair peroxided within an inch of its life, leather everywhere, studded jewellery;
mid 30's metal fans - guys who were fans during the 80's but no longer feel the need to dress the part. These guys have short hair and dress street casual;
mid 30's metal fans girlfriends - these girls have been obviously dragged along by their boyfriends to experience the fine music that is Operation Mindcrime;
New converts - the early 20's brigade who are discovering the fine fare that 80's metal had to offer. I overheard one of them talking to a bunch of over 40's and lamenting the fact that he was born 15 years too late.
The gig was excellent. I've been waiting to see Operation Mindcrime live and it didn't disappoint. The only downside was the songs from Operation Mindcrime II. They fell a bit flat. I don't know why they wanted to do a sequel 20 years later since sequels to albums usually fail.
Keeping with the metal theme, what does a singer of an influential and highly successful metal band do when they are not singing? They are commercial pilots.
Do you know which band this guy fronts? He recently flew about 200 people back to England after they had fled Lebanon.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Who did you vote for?
I've been following this Howard and Costello 'argy-bargy' and reading the average citizens view on this, for example, at The Age. I common thread in these rants is the phrase "I voted for Howard/Costello not Costello/Howard". Now, not everyone lives in the electorates of Bennelong or Higgins. So most of the writers in these forums did not in fact vote for Howard or Costello, unless their ballot had names similar to the Prime Minister or treasurer. So, you people did not vote for Howard/Costello but your local member. By the way, do they know who that is?
My point of this is that people should be thinking about who they are really voting for and keeping those individuals true to thier election promises. You should be basing your vote on the people actually standing in your electorate. I know that this idea is a fantasy. It's too hard to check what each candidate really stands for. Too many hide thier real beliefs just so they can ride on the coat tails of someone else. Thier ambition is just power, not to do good.
Another thing that gives me the irit's is 'directed preferences'. I was reminded of this via the story that John Pasquarelli ran as an independent and was funded by the Liberal party on the understanding that he would direct preferences to the Liberals. 'Directed preferences' rely on people being sheep and just doing what they are told. That's the problem. People have become lazy. Wake up! You can choose who you direct your preferences to. You don't have to follow the 'How to vote' cards.
This leads me to a few more hypotheses (I won't call them theories until they are backed by hard evidence, although I think the evidence is pretty strong) that I have:
90% of the population are sheep.
90% of the population are stupid.
The more a country becomes scientifically advanced, the less scientifically literate each individual becomes. In fact, they become less scientifically literate then the previous generation.
My point of this is that people should be thinking about who they are really voting for and keeping those individuals true to thier election promises. You should be basing your vote on the people actually standing in your electorate. I know that this idea is a fantasy. It's too hard to check what each candidate really stands for. Too many hide thier real beliefs just so they can ride on the coat tails of someone else. Thier ambition is just power, not to do good.
Another thing that gives me the irit's is 'directed preferences'. I was reminded of this via the story that John Pasquarelli ran as an independent and was funded by the Liberal party on the understanding that he would direct preferences to the Liberals. 'Directed preferences' rely on people being sheep and just doing what they are told. That's the problem. People have become lazy. Wake up! You can choose who you direct your preferences to. You don't have to follow the 'How to vote' cards.
This leads me to a few more hypotheses (I won't call them theories until they are backed by hard evidence, although I think the evidence is pretty strong) that I have:
90% of the population are sheep.
90% of the population are stupid.
The more a country becomes scientifically advanced, the less scientifically literate each individual becomes. In fact, they become less scientifically literate then the previous generation.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Sosedi, Buren, Mezoblebi, ....
I have many theories. Most of these come from considered thoughts random rants that I have from day to day. However, I keep forgeting these until something triggers the memory of a particular theory. Today I read an article in the Sunday Age which reminded me of one of my theories. It goes something like this:
The larger a city is, the more lonely its inhabitants can become.
I have lived in my apartment block of 16 units for the last 18 months. I have only met two of my neighbours in that time. The first was a woman in her sixties who I spoke to for the first time about a year after I had moved in. I have only seen her twice. I can't even remember her name. The second was a girl in her late twenties who knocked on my door a few weeks ago to borrow a corkscrew. Her name I still can recall. I have no idea about any other inhabitant of my apartment block. If something happened to any of them I wouldn't know about it. They may as well be living on the other side of the world. You hear those stories about people who have died in their house in the city and not been found for weeks.
Is this because they can call on others who are not neccessary neighbours? Or does the city cause agoraphobia? Or do people lock themselves away because they fear the unknown? Has media emphasis on the rare violent events that happen in the city been a factor? When people meet, do they eye off the other with distrust and extreem caution?
I don't. Call me naive, but 99.99% of the population are decent folk. I try (and it is hard) to begin a conversation with someone who I haven't met with no preconcieved ideas of the type of person they are. They soon reveal themselves for who they are and then I'll make a judgement.
One thing I found strange about both the meetings of my neighbours was that they didn't ask what my name was or tell me what their name was. Both times I had to interupted the conversation topic to introduce myself and find out who they were. It used to be that when you met, the first thing that was exchanged was your names. Is this a symptom of the prevailing mood?
How many of your neighbours do you know?
The larger a city is, the more lonely its inhabitants can become.
I have lived in my apartment block of 16 units for the last 18 months. I have only met two of my neighbours in that time. The first was a woman in her sixties who I spoke to for the first time about a year after I had moved in. I have only seen her twice. I can't even remember her name. The second was a girl in her late twenties who knocked on my door a few weeks ago to borrow a corkscrew. Her name I still can recall. I have no idea about any other inhabitant of my apartment block. If something happened to any of them I wouldn't know about it. They may as well be living on the other side of the world. You hear those stories about people who have died in their house in the city and not been found for weeks.
Is this because they can call on others who are not neccessary neighbours? Or does the city cause agoraphobia? Or do people lock themselves away because they fear the unknown? Has media emphasis on the rare violent events that happen in the city been a factor? When people meet, do they eye off the other with distrust and extreem caution?
I don't. Call me naive, but 99.99% of the population are decent folk. I try (and it is hard) to begin a conversation with someone who I haven't met with no preconcieved ideas of the type of person they are. They soon reveal themselves for who they are and then I'll make a judgement.
One thing I found strange about both the meetings of my neighbours was that they didn't ask what my name was or tell me what their name was. Both times I had to interupted the conversation topic to introduce myself and find out who they were. It used to be that when you met, the first thing that was exchanged was your names. Is this a symptom of the prevailing mood?
How many of your neighbours do you know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
