Skeptics and studies
06/02/13 04:45
One of the podcasts that I listen to is NPR’s satiric news quiz show, “Wait, Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!” I like the general tone of the show and, like most listeners, I like the banter between the host Peter Sagal and the panelists, many of whom are professional comedians. One show regular that I appreciate is Paula Poundstone. She frequently interrupts the host when he turns to various scientific studies and questions the legitimacy of the research. Last summer, Sagal referred to a study that indicated that egg yolks are almost as bad for you as smoking.
“This concerns me,” Poundstone said.
“This was an actual, legitimate medical study,” Sagal assured her.
“Who says?” she demanded.
“The science people!” another panelist, Faith Salie, chimed in.
“they studied thousands of people who have been eating a certain amount of eggs,” Sagal explained, “and they discovered that the plaque in their arteries was two-thirds as bad as people who had been smoking.”
Poundstone suggested they might re-name the show: “Wait, wait . . . don’t tell me what’s bad for me now.”
The show has featured Poundstone ranting about a British study on the best way for a man to attract a woman at a nightclub: “You know, I’ve really been suspect of some of the studies that you guys mention.”
Again, when Sagal mentioned that Japanese scientists found that watching kittens and other cute baby animals on the internet made workers more focused and productive the rest of the day, Poundstone asked, “Why would anybody even do such a study?”
Sagal said, “Well, I imagine they might start with the premise that a lot of people are watching cat videos at work. We might as well find out what effect it is having on them.”
Poundstone replied, “I see what you’re saying. So their boss came in while they were watching cat videos and said, ‘what the h . . . are you doing? Your not doing anything.’ And they said, ‘oh, but we are doing a study.’”
I’m with Paula Poundstone. I read a few news articles and look up a few studies in medical journals and other scientific papers, and I am amazed that scientists, especially social scientists, can find funding for their research. How do they come up with the ideas for their studies and who actually pays for such silly research?
There has been a study on the relationship between eating organic food and immoral behavior.
Scientists spent $3 million putting shrimp on a treadmill to study the effects of bacteria on mobility.
They’ve studied the effects of playing FarmVille on Facebook on making and keeping actual friends.
Scientists have studied whether or not Twitter can predict the stock market.
I understand the dynamics of needing a research project to power a graduate school thesis and finding a new topic that hasn’t already been researched beyond comprehension can be difficult. I also know that some of the studies that may look silly or useless on the surface can lead to increases in our understanding of important human dynamics. With such a fast-paced and ever-changing world where social, physical and technological factors are constantly changing, sometimes the silly studies produce the greatest breakthroughs in understanding.
I remain with the skeptics, however. Skepticism is a healthy attitude when it comes to scientific studies of any type. The skeptics often spot the flaws in the assumptions or the missed variables that lead to inaccurate conclusions.
But there was a study recently that did catch my attention.
For five years, now, researchers at New York’s University at Buffalo, Stony Brook University and Grand Valley State University have followed 846 individuals who have faced stressful situations in their lives. Stressful experiences included such things as serious illness, burglary, job loss, financial difficulties or the death of a family member. Respondents were asked to report the amount of time in the past 12 months they had spent helping friends, neighbors or relatives not living with them by providing transportation, running errands, doing shopping, performing housework, looking after children and other tasks.
The results, to be published in the American Journal of Public Health, demonstrate that providing tangible help to others protects health and adds to longevity. People who help others live longer than those who do not. Helping others adds to the capacity to endure stressful events.
Of course, I am inclined to believe the study because it reports a truth that I had learned from another source: “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35)
The proverb that the Bible attributes to Jesus has been attributed to other sources and is found in most world religions. Those of us who have experienced a few Christmases know intuitively that finding just the right gift for another can render much more pleasure than receiving a gift. The feeling of anticipation as you wait for another’s surprise is as gratifying, if not more so than the anticipation of receiving a surprise.
Now scientists have found solid evidence to back up the truth we have long known. Giving to or helping others helps to relieve stress in the body and is beneficial to overall health and longevity.
It feels good to do a good deed for someone. And that good feeling isn’t just a momentary experience, but rather a genuine reduction in stress. Putting others first not only feels good. It is good. Volunteering services for a worthy cause contributes to a more healthy life. Serving others and putting their needs and concerns ahead of your own, decreases your needs and concerns.
I remain a skeptic about many scientific studies. And I think that there are plenty of things labeled research that draw less-than-accurate conclusions. But I’m pretty sure that the studies of the effects of helping others on overall stress are accurate.
It still doesn’t explain why it takes a study to conclude the obvious, but such a study is probably more valuable that putting shrimp on a treadmill.
“This concerns me,” Poundstone said.
“This was an actual, legitimate medical study,” Sagal assured her.
“Who says?” she demanded.
“The science people!” another panelist, Faith Salie, chimed in.
“they studied thousands of people who have been eating a certain amount of eggs,” Sagal explained, “and they discovered that the plaque in their arteries was two-thirds as bad as people who had been smoking.”
Poundstone suggested they might re-name the show: “Wait, wait . . . don’t tell me what’s bad for me now.”
The show has featured Poundstone ranting about a British study on the best way for a man to attract a woman at a nightclub: “You know, I’ve really been suspect of some of the studies that you guys mention.”
Again, when Sagal mentioned that Japanese scientists found that watching kittens and other cute baby animals on the internet made workers more focused and productive the rest of the day, Poundstone asked, “Why would anybody even do such a study?”
Sagal said, “Well, I imagine they might start with the premise that a lot of people are watching cat videos at work. We might as well find out what effect it is having on them.”
Poundstone replied, “I see what you’re saying. So their boss came in while they were watching cat videos and said, ‘what the h . . . are you doing? Your not doing anything.’ And they said, ‘oh, but we are doing a study.’”
I’m with Paula Poundstone. I read a few news articles and look up a few studies in medical journals and other scientific papers, and I am amazed that scientists, especially social scientists, can find funding for their research. How do they come up with the ideas for their studies and who actually pays for such silly research?
There has been a study on the relationship between eating organic food and immoral behavior.
Scientists spent $3 million putting shrimp on a treadmill to study the effects of bacteria on mobility.
They’ve studied the effects of playing FarmVille on Facebook on making and keeping actual friends.
Scientists have studied whether or not Twitter can predict the stock market.
I understand the dynamics of needing a research project to power a graduate school thesis and finding a new topic that hasn’t already been researched beyond comprehension can be difficult. I also know that some of the studies that may look silly or useless on the surface can lead to increases in our understanding of important human dynamics. With such a fast-paced and ever-changing world where social, physical and technological factors are constantly changing, sometimes the silly studies produce the greatest breakthroughs in understanding.
I remain with the skeptics, however. Skepticism is a healthy attitude when it comes to scientific studies of any type. The skeptics often spot the flaws in the assumptions or the missed variables that lead to inaccurate conclusions.
But there was a study recently that did catch my attention.
For five years, now, researchers at New York’s University at Buffalo, Stony Brook University and Grand Valley State University have followed 846 individuals who have faced stressful situations in their lives. Stressful experiences included such things as serious illness, burglary, job loss, financial difficulties or the death of a family member. Respondents were asked to report the amount of time in the past 12 months they had spent helping friends, neighbors or relatives not living with them by providing transportation, running errands, doing shopping, performing housework, looking after children and other tasks.
The results, to be published in the American Journal of Public Health, demonstrate that providing tangible help to others protects health and adds to longevity. People who help others live longer than those who do not. Helping others adds to the capacity to endure stressful events.
Of course, I am inclined to believe the study because it reports a truth that I had learned from another source: “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35)
The proverb that the Bible attributes to Jesus has been attributed to other sources and is found in most world religions. Those of us who have experienced a few Christmases know intuitively that finding just the right gift for another can render much more pleasure than receiving a gift. The feeling of anticipation as you wait for another’s surprise is as gratifying, if not more so than the anticipation of receiving a surprise.
Now scientists have found solid evidence to back up the truth we have long known. Giving to or helping others helps to relieve stress in the body and is beneficial to overall health and longevity.
It feels good to do a good deed for someone. And that good feeling isn’t just a momentary experience, but rather a genuine reduction in stress. Putting others first not only feels good. It is good. Volunteering services for a worthy cause contributes to a more healthy life. Serving others and putting their needs and concerns ahead of your own, decreases your needs and concerns.
I remain a skeptic about many scientific studies. And I think that there are plenty of things labeled research that draw less-than-accurate conclusions. But I’m pretty sure that the studies of the effects of helping others on overall stress are accurate.
It still doesn’t explain why it takes a study to conclude the obvious, but such a study is probably more valuable that putting shrimp on a treadmill.