Great piece. There is a tendency for some popularizers to push an interesting new angle or 'insight' over whether that insight is actually true or supported by science or data. Freakonomics has other examples, Matthew Syed is worse. We need more actual scientists to write pieces like this.
The problem is, if actual scientists tried to write such pieces, they'd never get published as their stories wouldn't be as sensationalist as when Gladwell or others do.
True - I meant that response pieces like Adam's from actual experts are important. They won't get the same traction as the original sensationalist pieces but can still offset some damage because influential people - e.g. policy advisers - may still see them. And they are valuable for non specialist scientists and interested laypeople.
This is great. I was just going to say the focus on environment over "essence" reminds me of anti germ theory like terrain theory which may have some good benefits but considering the relationship is backwards one is forced to hold ideas loosely because they're narratives which are extremely dependent on variables these concepts aren't meant to analyze. You certainly get no broken windows but it depends on your values. Taiwan is extremely big on recycling and reusing materials.
I love popular science books but have learnt over the years that most of the need to be taken with a pinch of salt and just a jumping off point leading to something more serious where they motivate you to do further work. First thing I look for is detailed footnotes. Second a good bibliography.
Following your broken windows example, there are many criminology studies which i wonder about but which may be built on less solid foundations than they make out. Broad brush figures:
1. i recall about 30 % of sociology research has been replicated successfully - let’s say criminology is similar.
2. Correlations of cause and effects are generally of the order of 30 % too.
So that means chances of success , assuming same set of conditions is around 9%.
Unlike lab experiments, the context for crime varies. What works in research location, may not work as well elsewhere. No two places the same. This the third dilution of the prospect of “what works”.
Adam, "welcome back" it's been a while.
Thank you for this practical discussion!
Thank you for this! We like surprises and simplicity, surprisingly simple answers are popular. Accuracy and complicated don’t appeal as much.
Great piece. There is a tendency for some popularizers to push an interesting new angle or 'insight' over whether that insight is actually true or supported by science or data. Freakonomics has other examples, Matthew Syed is worse. We need more actual scientists to write pieces like this.
The problem is, if actual scientists tried to write such pieces, they'd never get published as their stories wouldn't be as sensationalist as when Gladwell or others do.
True - I meant that response pieces like Adam's from actual experts are important. They won't get the same traction as the original sensationalist pieces but can still offset some damage because influential people - e.g. policy advisers - may still see them. And they are valuable for non specialist scientists and interested laypeople.
This is great. I was just going to say the focus on environment over "essence" reminds me of anti germ theory like terrain theory which may have some good benefits but considering the relationship is backwards one is forced to hold ideas loosely because they're narratives which are extremely dependent on variables these concepts aren't meant to analyze. You certainly get no broken windows but it depends on your values. Taiwan is extremely big on recycling and reusing materials.
I love popular science books but have learnt over the years that most of the need to be taken with a pinch of salt and just a jumping off point leading to something more serious where they motivate you to do further work. First thing I look for is detailed footnotes. Second a good bibliography.
Terrific piece. Similarish things bug me too.
Following your broken windows example, there are many criminology studies which i wonder about but which may be built on less solid foundations than they make out. Broad brush figures:
1. i recall about 30 % of sociology research has been replicated successfully - let’s say criminology is similar.
2. Correlations of cause and effects are generally of the order of 30 % too.
So that means chances of success , assuming same set of conditions is around 9%.
Unlike lab experiments, the context for crime varies. What works in research location, may not work as well elsewhere. No two places the same. This the third dilution of the prospect of “what works”.
Thoughts anyone?