dr.ricky online

Category: Skepticism

Learning how to be skeptical, to think critically

  • A conversation with vaccine hesitancy

    A conversation with vaccine hesitancy

    Excerpted. 

    [VaccineHesitantFriend]: I completely understand that. We are lucky to be here in the US. And I’m doing my part by not getting the vaccine, so those other countries can have it. Sorry I don’t put anything into my body without fully understanding it, and not going to start now. That’s my personal choice, not a privilege. 

    [me] I’ll be glad to help you understand the vaccines. Please feel free to post questions and I’ll do the underlying research. You may have a legitimate concern that we have missed and I’ll be glad to learn something from it. Scientists from the American Society for Virology have volunteered their time to have online town halls to help explain vaccination. 

    [VHF]: I really appreciate that. And a question I ask a lot of people is why can’t we put all this effort into curing cancer? Or getting rid of child slavery? Just seems interesting to me that all these scientist and government officials group together to cure a disease that other scientists created. Would really love to hear your answer on this. The only answer I ever get is… there’s just too much money being made. 

    [Me] Important distinction: a cure deals with people with a disease, and a vaccine is about preventing the disease in the first place. There’s no evidence that COVID19 was engineered or created by scientists – the genetic sequence of the virus available to the public (as is most of the publications), and we can check for tell tale marks of engineering. They aren’t there. But proving a negative is rather difficult, so as more evidence arises, we can follow up. The mRNA vaccines are actually partly developed to prevent cancer, and it just turns out that COVID-19 is the first wide application of the technology. More applications will come in the future. Note that this attached review is from 2018 – the mRNA vaccines have been in development for a while – https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

    [VHF] Well this is where I part ways from the discussion. It was absolutely made in a lab. And your boy Fauci is a big fat liar. Thanks for the info and the responses. 

    There’s more to say about the question of money and the profit motive, but the issue was never really about vaccination, or the nature of the technology. Once a narrative is threatened, the conversation was shut down.

  • Remdesivir Hopes

    Remdesivir Hopes

    • Remdesivir is an experimental antiviral drug made by the company Gilead. Designed to act against the RNA driven RNA polymerase enzyme in RNA viruses, it was initially tested on Ebola.
    • Since coronaviruses are also RNA viruses, Remdesivir is expected to work on them, too.
    • Published in The Lancet: Clinical trial of remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19
      • Randomized, double-blinded
        • 237 patients
      • Placebo controlled
      • Multi-center
        • 10 hospitals in China
      • Bottom line
        • Any improvement was not statistically significant

  • Visualizing NCAA GPA data

    On 5 Sept 2018, the NCAA Research team tweeted out this chart  :

    It reports the average core high school grade point averages (GPA) among NCAA Division I freshman student athletes. So, a bit of a background – the National Collegiate Athletics Association governs just about all collegiate athletic programs in America, and the Division I schools devote the most money and resources to their athletic programs. A great deal of attention is thus focused on the Division I programs, almost to the detriment of the others (it goes all the way to Division III). The GPA is usually used as a measure of academic performance, though it may not reflect the difficulty of the coursework. But this chart is an egregious use of “infographics” to mislead rather than to bring insight to data:

    • Without a Y-axis to denote scale, the use of bar charts here visually make it appear that 3.77 is 7x higher than 3.07, when it’s actually far smaller in scale on standard 4.0 GPA scales (it tops out at 4).
    • The categorical use of the different sports makes it appear that it is the independent variable, and that GPA is what is being measured. But since the GPA was measured in high school, it actually precedes the sport.
    • Because of this switch in dependent and independent variables, a reader may interpret some form of causality – implying for example that choosing fencing will lead to better academic performance.

    Good data visualization should serve to bring new insight to the data that isn’t evident from just looking at the numbers. The GPAs considered here range between 3-4, which is letter grade B-A, quite above average academically, and that is unsurprising. These are the high school GPAs of student athletes recruited to Division I schools, arguably the most competitive programs. This is a measure of their past academic performance, but doesn’t say anything about how the sport chosen affects their current or future performance. The data, however, informs something about the sports programs themselves. Using the exact same data, I replotted the chart.

    High school GPA of males and females as recruited into NCAA Div 1 sports programs.

    The chart is in two parts – on the left is the section where a sport is available for both males and females, and on the right is a smaller section for sports that are gender specific. The axes go from 3.0 to 4.0, indicating the spread within this range. Sports are labeled accordingly.

    A linear relationship exists between enrolled female and male student athlete high school GPAs  – regardless of sport program. What this means is that at least within each sport, they apply their GPA criteria roughly with the same proportion to both genders. Which probably means that the sports programs recruit from the same communities for both men and women, that is fencing programs put a heavier emphasis on high GPAs for admission than basketball programs do, regardless of gender. But we see a stark difference in the GPA cutoffs between genders: almost all athletic programs recruit females with a GPA above 3.5, while more than half athletic programs enrolled male student athletes with GPAs below 3.5. In fact, all the male specific sport programs – baseball, wrestling and football – recruit with GPAs below 3.5. One cannot make definitive interpretations without further details on how the data is collected, but this implies that the barrier to entry to a collegiate athletic program, at least based on GPA, is significantly lower for males than for females. While some may think that this indicates superior academic performance among female student athletes, it could be an indicator for a systemic bias when recruiting for women across all sports programs.

  • Becoming height neutral

    Becoming height neutral

    The website Beachvolleyballspace covered the recent FIVB Gstaad Major with an article celebrating the winners, the currently top ranked Canadian team of Paredes and Pavan claiming the gold. The article title (Canadian women dominate Gstaad Major – Japan challenges top teams) makes special mention of the fifth place Japanese team of Murakami and Ishii. Why? Was it a remarkable breakthrough performance?

    The whole latter half was spent mentioning how much shorter the team was relative to their opponents. That’s it. Beach volleyball culture venerates height so much that it’s often the first and only statistic mentioned for players. No mention that Murakami is a 7 year veteran of the FIVB circuit – it’s newsworthy because they were supposed to lose.

    Height discrimination is so pervasive that coaches will refuse to consider athletes just for being too short. I’ve spoken with talented young women who have already given up the dream of playing beach volleyball for college because they’ve been told time and again that their genetics will simply not give them a chance. Players constantly pine about being taller, and taller players, regardless of experience, are always groomed. A metric this damning should be backed by extensive studies or data – yet every discussion I’ve had with coaches either point to anecdotal experience, or cherrypicked material. Saying that the best athletes in the world are always taller is flawed logic – they are the product of this pervasive bias, so of course the selection for taller players is evident. What’s more telling is that despite this, players of all sizes break through: Bruno Schmidt, Shelda Bede, Holly McPeak, Annie Martin. If the thesis is that height is always a beach volleyball advantage, these counterexamples are sufficient to discredit it.

    The cultural baggage of height superiority is entrained from a young age, and repeated incessantly – thus, how height becomes an advantage stems from a psychological one. Taller players are simply given more opportunities to play, to explore, to make mistakes. Pay attention without bias next time, and see the language difference between how coaches treat taller and shorter players, and how they treat each other. A shorter team hands to the taller team an immediate advantage by simply expecting themselves to be at a disadvantage. The way out of this is to begin young, and to start instilling in them the confidence of height neutrality. Even among older athletes, we can unlock a richer vein of talent from our pool of players by simply opening our eyes beyond how tall they stand or how high they jump. The game is deeper and wider than the height of its tallest players.

  • Falsifiability

    Falsifiability

    In an earlier posting on detecting the signs of pseudoscience, I quoted an article which mentions unfalsifiability as a property. This is actually a pretty good early test for understanding if something is science-based, and attends to a common misunderstanding about the scientific process.

    Whenever the phrase “scientifically proven” is used, your critical thinking alarm bells should go off – because much of scientific progress is based on disproving things. Unambiguously proving a hypothesis is actually quite difficult and rare, but what happens more frequently is disproving the counter-hypothesis, because all you need is a simple break in the logic or a sample contrary to it. When a conjecture or concept withstands extensive attempts at disproof is when it enters the field as a major theory.

    Let’s try this out. Take the statement that “All cars have four wheels”. It’s kind of difficult to figure out how to prove this, but finding a single car that has three or five wheels is sufficient to disprove it. A single example of an object falling at a different acceleration rate would be sufficient to disprove what we know about gravity, or a single core sample of fossils forming at a different order would overturn evolution – but after hundreds of years of attempts, these theories have stood their ground. And good scientists continue to think about ways to show that something accepted as true may be false. Which is an important feature – falsifiability is key. And the failure of these tests add to our confidence in these major theories. If you cannot devise a test that will sufficiently disprove the statement, it’s likely outside of science, no matter what the trappings.

    Let’s look at an example of something which is unfalsifiable. This is taken directly from the product description page of VitaminShoppe, a prominent sponsor for the AVP (US domestic pro beach volleyball tour):

    Naturally detoxifies and boosts your immune system

    Can you think of a test that will falsify this statement? What kind of trial could be done to definitively show that something does not “boost the immune system” or “naturally detoxify”? Near as I can tell, this falls into the category of unfalsifiable, sort of like the claim that a machine detects ghosts. When evaluating promises made through coaching advice, improve your critical thinking skills by asking how you can falsify a statement. And this is how we progressively increase confidence in practice.

  • Recognizing Sports Pseudoscience

    Recognizing Sports Pseudoscience

    In a recent discussion with BJ Leroy of USA Volleyball, I encountered a paper by Bailey et al (2018) published in the open access journal Frontiers in Psychology, titled  “The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and Neuromyths Among Sports Coaches“. Since the journal is open access, the paper is readily available to download and read. The paper is basically a study on the pervasiveness of pseudoscience among sports coaches, even with ideas that have been long established to be untrue. Dr. Ed Couglin wrote a layperson friendly (albeit Irish-centric) interpretation of the paper.

    Suffice it to say, pseudoscience is rampant in sports culture, and pervasive in beach volleyball. I’d say much of the sponsor economy is built around pseudoscientific beliefs, but I’ll address those specific examples in future articles. What I’d like to share here is an excerpt from the Bailey paper, that outlines some properties of pseudoscience which will help you identify it. Bear in mind, this also applies to how people may argue their points online.

    • Unfalsifiability
    • Absence of self-correction
    • Overuse of ad hoc immunizing tactics designed to protect theories from refutation
    • Absence of connectivity with other domains of knowledge
    • Use of unnecessarily unclear language
    • Over-reliance on anecdotes and testimonials at the expense of systematic evidence
    • Evasion of genuine peer review
    • Emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation.
  • Observations on Primary Elections

    Observations on Primary Elections

    Today was one of the election days in Texas. As a primer for the reader who is unfamiliar with the political set up in America, the scene is dominated by two main political parties: the Republican and the Democratic parties. And before the main elections, each party holds primary elections to install the main candidate that they are putting into the main election for each office. Although the field may have, for example, 14 potential candidates vying for the District 2 Congressional seat (9 for the Republicans, and 5 from the Democrats), by the end of the primary elections, there will be two candidates. This type of hypersimplification extends to much of American politics, even when describing issues that aren’t candidates running for office, such as resolutions or statements of principle.

    Any one voter is allowed to vote in only one of the primary races, but this only serves to narrow the field within that party. The vote to win the actual office doesn’t happen until November, and is completely separate from the primary voting. I have a friend who votes in the primary in the party he will ultimately not be supporting – and this makes sense. If one is aligned ultimately with the values of a particular party, choosing to influence the composition of the opposing party means a long term engineering of overall political values towards the compromised middle, regardless of party name.

    Texas primary election ballots both begin with statements declaring party identity

    But the system is rigged early on to foster tribalist mindsets. Instead of separating party values as an issue to be discussed, voters are asked to identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats first. This subtle language establishes tribes right away, setting up the “us vs them” attitude long before any other issues are described, and thus maintains partisanship first. This nudge is how people can be led to voting against their own best interests, as fear of tribal rejection often overrides even statements of fact. David McRaney did a particularly good podcast episode on Tribal Psychology that is worth checking out. Learning to recognize the signs of tribal separation is an important skill – humans evolved to rapidly segregate into tribes, and this urge colors almost all aspects of judgement.