Showing posts with label Miscellaneous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miscellaneous. Show all posts

11 August 2020

Comments General Guidelines from Cassie Kozyrkov

I am active on LinkedIn these days and one of the people whose work I follow is Cassie Kozyrkov, Chief Decision Scientist at Google. 

She has great articles, blog posts and videos. If statistics and Decision Science interest ou, she is great. You should follow her.

Anyway, she published a set of guidelines for comments on her posts which I thought were really good.  I asked her if I could steal the guidelines and she said yes, so here we are. The following are my general guidelines. I made a few very minor changes to hers.

"Hi folks! A quick update on how I handle your comments on my posts.

"Your positive comments bring me joy and are what makes toiling on weekends worth it. I'm smiling on the inside even though I won't have time to give them all the "thank you" they deserve.

"Your comments that take the content in new directions thrill me and give me new ideas.

"Your questions provide fodder for new material.

"Your negative comments that critically and thoughtfully engage with the content specifics and help your peers (and me) learn stay.

"Your comments pointing out specific errors I've made are" kept "even after I fix my mistakes. Thank you!" [Keeps me humble a little.]

"Your comments with spoilers (e.g. "the answer is B") are deleted.

"Your comments which contain incorrect conclusions are deleted so that other readers don't get misinformed. My apologies!

"Harassing / ad hominem / negative comments like "this sucks/you suck/people like you suck" without a helpful explanation to benefit readers are deleted because they disproportionately discourage others from reading the content to form their own views.

"Why did I tell you this? So that you don't use the comments as data. They're not a poll. There are people who like my writing and there are people who don't. 

"To those who like it, thanks for joining me and keeping me motivated!

"Four more varieties:

"Comments that are harmlessly off-topic usually stay, but not if they're very distracting.

"Comments that are trying to sell something are deleted.

"Comments that make it painfully obvious that you didn't read what you're commenting on are deleted.

"Comments with intelligent humor / wordplay about the topic are my most treasured favorite thing. They make my day. (Sometimes I even respond to them when I ought to be working.) I've had some really great laughs on this forum and I'm deeply grateful for all you quick-witted, cheeky, cheerful people."

There it is. She's really great, and I really like her philosophy for engagement.

Best to all, and keep safe.

17 February 2017

Office Space and Creativity - What Makes the Perfect Office

Fascinating post about how office space affects creativity and productivity. by Tim Harford


The bottom line is that there is no evidence that fancy architecture and design help. What does helo is letting people have control over their environment.

25 January 2017

Scott Adams' Take on Post-inauguration Trump

9/6/2018 Update: You can see below that I stopped adding to the list in March 2018. After this date, two things happened: Scott went to a speaking format and his cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias got the better of him. He talks about liberals with Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I'm afraid he has Trump worship syndrome. His posts became ramblings justifying Trump's behavior. I still wish that Scott were right in his opinions, but Trump's behaviors and decisions have gone way beyond any credible hope that he is, or can be, a president that takes the country in a good direction.
As you may be aware, Scott Adams of Dilbert predicted a Trump victory in August 2015, well before he won the Republican primary. His basis was that Trump is the best persuader he has ever seen. He did many blog posts about his thought process and Trump's progress and strategies. I tracked all his posts at this link.

He stuck to his guns all the way through, even in the last two weeks before the vote when all the serious polls were predicting a Clinton victory.

He admonished the readers of his blog to adopt a different mindset, a different way of thinking about persuasion and election campaign tactics and strategy.

Perhaps he was just lucky, but I don't think that's the case. I believe that Scott saw something that was opaque to almost everyone else.

The other post got too long and was dealing with how Trump got elected. I am going to continue tracking Scott's posts post-inauguration in this post. This time they will be in reverse chronological order - newest first.

March 2018
Things I Have Learned About Gun Control , 3/4/2018
How to Criticize a Political Opponent Using List Persuasion, 3/3/2018, Talking about list journalism, "...while each item is unimportant, false, overblown, or an obvious misinterpretation of intent, the sheer quantity of items makes it persuasive nonetheless."

February 2018
What if the News Reported Only Facts, 2/21/2018
The Charlottesville Fake News Was the Best Persuasion Play of the Past Year, 2/14/2018

January 2018
Persuasion Reading List – Updated 1/18, Jan 24 (Posted)
How to Make Your Opponents Try (and fail) to Prove a Negative, Jan 20
Are the Fake News Awards Persuasive?, Jan 18
How North Korea Can Become Switzerland of the East, Jan 17
President Trump Earns the Highest Presidential Approval Level of All Time, Jan 9
Is President Trump’s Nuclear Button Tweet a Sign of Insanity?, Jan 3
How President Trump Changed Your Imagination, Jan 2

December 2017
The Demolition President, Dec 28
How to Determine If You Should Talk About Politics in Public, Dec 22
Why Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Republicans are Natural Allies (or should be), Dec 11

November 2017
President Trump’s 2017 Report Card (first draft), Nov 13
Win Bigly Bonus Chapter, Nov 6, Chapter on Hypnotism from Scott's new book
Persuading Terrorist Cowards, Nov 1

October 2017
How to Know President Trump is in Your Head, Oct 19
How to Make a Little Rocket Man Costume for Halloween, Oct 19
The North Korea Reframe, Oct 17
Low Public Approval of President Trump Yet Unusually High Consumer Confidence. Hmmm…, Oct 16
Affirmations, Positive Thinking, Trump, and Norman Vincent Peale, Oct 13
The Worst Gun Control Arguments, Oct 6

September 2017
The Universe is Winking at You, Sep 22
I Explain the Persuasion Techniques President Trump is using on The Wall and DACA, Sep 14
Win Bigly - Available for pre-order, Sep 11, Scott's new book about persuasion
When to Trust the Experts (Climate and Otherwise), Sep 11
Why North Korea and the United States are Near War, Sep 5

August 2017
Leadership is Breaking Out All Over, Aug 31 Just a link to a periscope video.
The Magical Thinking Opposition, Aug 22
Checking My Six Month Prediction - Did it Age Well?, Aug 20
Do We Really Need “Moral Leadership” from the White House?, Aug 19
How To Know You’re In a Mass Hysteria Bubble, Aug 17
The People’s Plan to Fix Health Care, Aug 7

July 2017
People Keep Telling Me to Stop Blogging about North Korea, Jul 31
Another Way to Make Mexico Pay for the Wall?, Jul 30
Can a Nation Attack a Company?, Jul 30
The Turn to “Effective, but we don’t like it.”, Jul 30
Health Care is a System, Not a Goal, Jul 28, "McCain did what heroes do. He took a bullet to prevent Congress from ignoring the wishes of half the country." "[Trump's] strongest play as a negotiator involved waiting until Congress utterly and completely failed. That almost didn’t happen last night. It took a war hero to finish the job. "
I Tell You Why President Trump is on the Verge of Total Victory, Jul 25
How “Confident” are Intelligence Agencies that Russia Interfered with the Election?, Jul 23
I’m Not Your Pope (But Thanks for Asking), Jul 21
Listen to My Conversation with Sam Harris – About President Trump, Jul 19
I Tell You How Citizens Can Fix Health Care (Now that Congress Failed), Jul 18
I Teach You How to Take a Meeting with a Russian Lawyer. Also Some Kid Rock Laughs., Jul 16
My Chat About Russia With Tucker Carlson, Jul 12
People Who Can’t Recognize Humor (literally), Jul 9
North Korea is an Information Problem Disguised as a Military Problem, Jul 9
International Relations in a Time of Nukes and Plenty, Jul 8
Solving the North Korea Situation, Jul 5
My Exciting Periscope Playlist, Jul 3

June 2017

How President Trump’s Tweet about Morning Joe Will Destroy Civilization, Jun 30
Did Syria use Chemical Weapons in Khan Shaykhun?, Jun 30
The Only Way to Fix Healthcare Insurance in the U.S., Jun 27
President Trump’s Idea to Put Solar Panels on the Wall, Jun 22
Why the New Healthcare Bill Will Be a Loser, Jun 22
Russia Hacked our Election! (So what?), Jun 13
The Comey Fog, Jun 8
Solar Panels on the Wall?, Jun 7
Most Problems are Information Problems, Jun 5
Helping the Terrorists Recruit, Jun 4, Change the frame. ISIS is a bunch of losers.
An Example of Cognitive Dissonance, Jun 3, The climate denial cartoon was a cognitive dissonance trap. Did you fall for it?
Betting on Climate Change, Jun 2, If it was so bad, literally planet destroying with support from a broad spectrum of business leaders, why did the market respond positively?

May 2017
The Kathy Griffin Controversy, May 31, "You and I get to live in the movies in our heads until your script and mine come into conflict. That’s what happened with the Griffin photo." and "The takeaway here should not be so much about Griffin. The takeaway is that a room full of people involved in the photoshoot did not see this as a huge problem from the start. They were living a different movie."
Covfefe, May 31, The nation needed a laugh break.
Going After the Families of Terrorists, May 25, It is possible to go after them without going after them. But maybe we should...
The Time I Nudged Climate Scientists into Debunking their Own Models, May 23, Climate scientists try to debunk Scott's criticisms, but show their cognitive dissonance.
Goodbye ISIS, Hello Losers, May 23, Branding Isis as Losers will cripple them
Time to End Presidential Press Briefings?, Are press briefings really worth the time and effort? Perhaps there's a better way.
The Short Attention Span President, May 20, Is it short attention span or focusing on the important? How can you tell the difference?
The Slow-Motion Assassination of President Trump, May 17
A Quick Look at President Trump and the Big Picture, May 16
How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet, May 16, Not about Trump, but interesting read for the readers of E4E. Look for the cognitive dissonance tells.
The Comey Firing, May 9
Where’s My Immigration Prediction Model?, May 8
The Healthcare Confusopoly, May 4, "...refuse to re-elect any politician who votes for a health care bill that YOU don’t understand. If you don’t understand a healthcare bill, that means it is designed to screw you."
The Resistance changes its attack from “Russian Puppet” to “Trump is Crazy” - Which Works Best?, May 4
Pre-Bribing a President, May 3
Using Persuasion to Create Assets Out of Nothing, May 2
The North Korean Weapons Test Pattern, May 1


April 2017
President Trump’s First 100 Days, Apr 25
How a Systems-Thinking President Can Settle the Climate Science Debate, Apr 21
Big Red Flag for Cognitive Dissonance, Apr 21, Not Trump, but good intro for the next post. Climate scientists probably believe they have convinced about half of the public to their side using their graphs and logic and facts. That’s not the case. They convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and logic. And it probably worked best with the people who have the least knowledge of how often complicated prediction models have failed in the past.
The Air Comes Out of the Anti-Trump Balloon, Apr 18
How to Structure a Deal With North Korea, Apr 17
U.S. and Russian Relationship at a Low?, Apr 13
The North Korea Reframe, Apr 12
Trusting Your Government in a Time of War, Apr 10
The Syrian Air Base Attack, Apr 7
The Syrian Gas Attack Persuasion, Apr 6
How a Hypnotist Sees a Verbal Slip, Apr 5

March 2017
The Systems President, Mar 29, You can look at the house healthcare efforts as a failure or as a step towards an ultimately successful health care effort.
Trump and Healthcare, Mar 25, Not really about healthcare, but rather Trump gets promoted from perception of Hitler to merely incompetent
My Take on Wiretapping, Trump, and Comey, Mar 20
How to Leak Like a Master Persuader, Mar 16
Tracking My Persuasion, Mar 14, Another Not Trump article, more an ad for his book.
Two More Movies on One Screen, Mar 13 Not about Trump, but definitely about persuasion.
Could Cognitive Scientists Eliminate ISIS?, Mar 9
Income Inequality, Mar 9
Wiretapping Word-Thinking, Mar 7
Am I Predicting or Influencing?, Mar 5
Dopamine Puppets, Mar 2
I Talk about President Trump’s Speech on YouTube, Mar 1
President Trump’s Speech Last Night, Mar 1, Scott things Trump killed the SOTU


February 2017
Persuasion Advice for African-Americans, Feb 21
De-hypnotizing a Climate Science Zombie, Feb 20
Trump and Sweden, Feb 20, Link to this youtube. Is Trump the crazy one, or are his critics?
Imaginary News, Feb 17
How to Evaluate a President, Feb 17
How to Persuade the Other Party, Feb 15
Good Example of Our Two-Movie Reality, Feb 12
About the 97% of Climate Scientists, Feb 10
Sam Harris Induces Cognitive Dissonance in Ben Affleck, Feb 5
A Thought Experiment About Republicans, Feb 5
The Social Media Hive Mind, Feb 4
The Persuasion Advantage and Climate Science, Feb 4
Berkeley and Hitler, Feb 3
President Trump and the Other Countries, Feb 2, You can't tell the difference between rudeness and good negotiation based on limited information
Introducing the Chaos Drinking Game, Feb 1
Hypnotists Flips Pro-Choicers to Pro-Life in Seconds (I explain how), Feb 1
The Odds of Being Killed by an Immigrant, Feb 1

January 2017
Is President Trump Doing Management Wrong?, Jan 31
The Persuasion Filter Looks at Torture. Does it Work?, Jan 30
The Canadian Option, Jan 29
Be Careful What You Wish For (especially if it is Hitler), Jan 29
The Persuasion Filter and Immigration, Jan 27, Muslim ban is a negotiating tactic
Outrage Dilution, Jan 26 "And when Trump has created a hundred reasons to complain, do you know what impression will be left with the public? He sure got a lot done." Like it or not.
Battle of the Hats, Jan 24 (Comparing MAGA hats to Pussy hats from a persuasion perspective)

01 August 2016

A Nerd's Introduction to Mental Health

NerdFitness is a nice site that covers a lot of stuff.

A Nerd's Introduction to Mental Health

Also a lot of other pages with good info.

Here is a sampling:

Everything You Need to Know About Body Fat Percentage
The Beginner’s Guide to the Paleo Diet
Meet Staci: Your New Powerlifting Super Hero - Why you should build muscle rather than try to "tone"

The also have a free app for iOS called Paleo Central.



08 August 2014

Blood Pressure - The E4E View

What is Blood Pressure

Blood pressure is the range of pressures in your cardiovascular system exerted by the heart pumping blood through your system. it is normally expressed in units of mmHg (millimeters of mercury). So a value of 120 is enough to support a column of mercury 120 mm high. Blood pressure has two values diastolic and systolic. The systolic (higher value) is the transient pressure in your arteries experienced during a heartbeat. The diastolic (lower value) is the recovery or resting pressure experienced in-between heartbeats. Blood pressure is normally expressed as systolic over diastolic, e.g. 120/80.

It is very common to find articles that talk about how high blood pressure is associated with heart disease. It is also common to see articles that say that high blood pressure causes stroke and heart disease. E4E wonders about this and set out to research it.

High Blood Pressure from an Engineering Perspective
Think of the circulatory system and the heart as a pump--perhaps something like a diaphragm or a peristaltic pump. It pushes out the fluid with one stroke, then brings in fluid with the next. Each time the heart pushes out fluid, there is pressure created downstream from the heart. This rapidly dissipates for two main reasons: the arteries themselves are elastic and therefore expand when they receive pressure, the blood flows out of the arteries and into tissue and through the kidneys (and ultimately into the veins for return to the lungs and heart)--it's like having a hose without anything to stop the flow.

From this simplistic perspective then, removing the elasticity of the arteries or restricting the flow from the arteries can cause high blood pressure. Arteriosclerosis, the thickening, hardening, and loss of elasticity of the walls of arteries reduces the elasticity of the arteries, and so is a cause of high diastolic blood pressure. The loss of elasticity can be from either changes in the structure of the artery walls or by deposition of plaques inside the innermost lining of the artery, a condition known as atherosclerosis.

Additionally, renal artery disease, a blockage of the artery that brings blood to the kidneys for filtering, prevents the blood from exiting freely from the arterial system.

After the pulse of pressure from the heart, there is then a brief period for the pressure to dissipate before the next beat. So the systolic pressure indicates your body's ability to handle and dissipate the initial pressure pulse, while the diastolic pressure indicates a more general dissipation of blood into the capillaries.


Is High Blood Pressure Bad?
Medical people have said that high blood pressure (hypertension) increases the risk of kidney failure, stroke, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and events such as an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). From what I can determine, there is actually very little evidence that high pressure by itself is the cause of those issues.

The problem is more likely with the factors that cause the high blood pressure; the pressure is just a symptom. There is something called hypertensive heart disease, which is a thickening of the heart muscle caused by high blood pressure. The heart has to work harder to pump blood, so it bulks up. This larger heart needs a larger blood supply, and if it can't get it, problems ensue. From what I interpret in my readings, it is unclear if the enlarged heart is a primary cause, or if obstructed coronary blood vessels are what prevents the heart from getting blood supply. Wikipedia has a good article on Hypertension.

The hypothesis that hypertension causes these issues goes something like this from MedicineNet:
"High blood pressure makes your heart work harder and, over time, can damage blood vessels throughout your body. If the blood vessels in your kidneys are damaged, they may stop removing wastes and extra fluid from your body. The extra fluid in your blood vessels may then raise blood pressure even more. It's a dangerous cycle."

E4E Take

E4E thinks that the arrow of causality may be reversed. The above quote never addresses what caused hypertension in the first place. I believe that blood factors damage arteries (inflammation), which causes hypertension. The damage to the blood vessels also damages the blood vessels in the kidneys. Once the blood vessels are damaged, I suspect that elevation of blood pressure can rupture blood vessels, leading to events like AAA and stroke. So if your blood vessels are already damaged, it might be worth using drugs to lower BP. In my paradigm, though, that does not prevent further damage to the blood vessels, but might prevent a catastrophic event in the short term.

I would guess that the "high blood pressure causes bad things" paradigm is a relic of the history of medicine. They could measure it, so they did. They found a correlation, and then rationalized a causality story.

I wonder if somewhere, there is primary research, perhaps in animals, in which the researchers elevated blood pressure prior to causing damage to the circulatory system, for example, with a small pump just past the exit from the heart to somehow elevate overall pressure. That might give us a sense of whether elevated BP actually causes damage to otherwise healthy blood vessels.


[Edit: For several days after this post, the issue of blood pressure has been rattling around in my brain. There is a circularity that has confounded me somewhat, so here is what I am thinking:

A damaged vascular system causes high blood pressure. Damaged blood vessels are more prone to failure. The damage creates the danger, and also elevated blood pressure. High blood pressure can, in turn, cause failure and further damage in damaged blood vessels.

In the absence of damage, high blood pressure is not dangerous; after all, systolic blood pressure can go over 300 in times of intense exercise. Moderately high blood pressure, e.g 140/90, is indicative that there is damage, but it may not have progressed to dangerous levels. It is important to do everything you can to prevent further damage that would drive your BP higher. Clean up your diet, lay off junk food, eat naturally nutritionally dense foods (not barren foods that are enriched), stick with natural fats (rather than highly-processed ones), layoff sugar, exercise.

Drugs that lower BP do not repair or reverse the damage. They may help prevent or delay the catastrophic failure, but they do not fix the real problem, which is the damage to your arteries.

When a water main blows and floods city streets, we don't blame the pumps for creating the pressure, we blame the pipes. Blood pressure is analogous.]


Notes and Sources

Malcolm Kendrick's series on cardiovascular disease no 57 - He writes on blood pressure - to be continued.

Kendrick seems to be well aligned with this post Heart disease No 58. Yay!



Blood Pressure During Exercise

Blood pressure is determined by the force of the heart's contraction times the resistance in the blood vessels. "Normal" blood pressure is 120 when the heart contracts and 80 when it relaxes. During exercise, the heart beats with increased force to raise blood pressure. It is normal for blood pressure to rise up to 200 over 80 during running, and to 300 over 200 while doing a leg press with very heavy weights. If high blood pressure is bad, why is exercise good? Again, the pressure is not what causes damage, however, high blood pressure can cause ruptures of already damaged blood vessels.

Salt and Blood Pressure
The press and medical establishment have, for years, warned us to reduce salt intake to reduce our incidence of high blood pressure. Unless you have some kind of physical problem processing salt, your blood pressure might rise by up to 6 mm Hg after ingesting salt. Notice "might" and "up to" in the last sentence. Salt is not what causes your pressure to go from 120/80 to 160/100.

Recent New England Journal of Medicine paper on reductions of death that could result from a reduction in salt intake.

This paper on the Hypertension Paradox addresses the fact that despite improved means to treat hypertension, it continues to increase in the population. It seems they are considering hypertension as a disease rather than as a symptom. This is the problem with aggressive drug treatment of cholesterol as well.

Gary Taubes wrote an article in Science magazine entitled "The (Political) Science of Salt." (That is a free link. Science charges for the article.) The article is written in the vein of Good Calories, Bad Calories, and Taubes received the 1999 National Association of Science Writers' Science in Journalism Award award for writing it. His conclusions were that the research supports the concept that salt is, at most, the cause of a few point of blood pressure.

Here's what he said in this article in the Daily Bell:
"Daily Bell: Can you explain more about salt in diet and blood pressure, etc?"

"Taubes: For fifty years, researchers have been trying to causally link salt consumption to hypertension and the data has continued to be, at best, ambiguous. It's a nice hypothesis, but it just hasn't panned out in human trials or even, really, in the observational studies. On the other hand, it's been known since the 1870s that carbohydrates cause water retention and the more water you retain, simplistically speaking, the higher your blood pressure will be. It's been known since the 1950s that when people go on carbohydrate-restricted diets their blood pressure drops dramatically because of that water loss, and it's been known since the 1980s that one of the many things insulin does is regulate blood pressure. Moreover, hypertension is associated with obesity and diabetes so, in one sense, whatever causes obesity and diabetes also causes hypertension, and obesity and diabetes, as I explain in GCBC, are almost assuredly caused by the quality and quantity of carbohydrates in our diet."

From everything I can tell, high blood pressure is associated with cardiovascular disease--it is not a cause of the disease. Tom Naughton (creator of Fat Head) expressed a number of alternative hypotheses on the Fat Head blog.
  • "Refined carbohydrates produce high blood sugar and high levels of insulin, which in turn are both bad news for your arteries.  Refined carbohydrates also cause water retention, which raises your blood pressure.  (So if you really want to reduce your blood pressure, give up the sugar and starch.)"
  • "Blood pressure tends to go up as we get older.  (Mine hasn’t, but bear with me here.)  We’re also more likely to suffer heart attacks and strokes as we get older.
  • "Stress causes your body to produce more cortisol, which can damage your arteries.  Stress also raises your blood pressure.
  • "Eating lots of vegetables may be good for your heart.  Vegetables are also high in potassium, which lowers blood pressure."



John Briffa - Blood pressure is a symptom. Fixing the symptom may not fix the underlying problem.
John Briffa - is lower blood pressure always better? This report on a study that shows that lowering blood pressure below140/90 did not result in any changes to outcomes. The pressure was changed through chemical/medicinal means.

There has recently been a call to arms to reduce salt in food, under the premise that doing so will save "between 44,000 and 92,000" lives every year. The articles I read didn't go into detail, but the thinking in the past has gone something like this. (WebMD, New York Times, LA Times)
1. Salt causes high blood pressure
2. High blood pressure causes heart attack and stroke
3. Reduction in blood pressure of x points reduces the probability of heart attack or stroke by y%
4. Therefore, reduction of salt will reduce deaths by total susceptible population * y%

Of the above points, the basic premises (1 and 2) are not supported by research and science. The extrapolation (3) is based on a correlation in the data with no implicit causality. The conclusion is just speculation that follows from 1, 2, and 3. Repeat after me "Correlation is not Causation."

The Diet Doctor blog

Bad Science Leads to Bad Government

A related subject is the link between high blood pressure and heart disease and stroke. The latest class of anti-hypertensives, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, which includes such brands as Benicar, Cozaar, and Valtran, do a great job reducing blood pressure but the scientific evidence shows they do not decrease the incidence of myocardial infarction (heart attacks). The older ACE inhibitors, such as lisinopril, reduce blood pressure and also reduce the incidence of heart attacks and death, and they are also available for $0.11 a day. Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/why-cholesterol-may-not-b_b_290687.html

Recent Research
The British Medical Journal published a paper recently called Hypertension: empirical evidence and implications in 2014. Their finding is that there is no evidence that reducing blood pressure in people with mild hypertension with antihypertensive therapy will reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.


Some Additional Links:

Chris Kresser post on Blood Pressure and how to lower it naturally

Insulin and Hypertension from an evolutionary  perspective


Tierney NYT article



Blood Pressure reduction does not reduce cardiovascular risk in Diabetics


There is a question about the impact of Isolated Diastolic hypertension, i.e. the high number's low and the low number's high. The Wiley article below concludes that there is little evidence of danger from IDH. There is evidence that using aural measurement of BP (with a stethoscope) can result in systematically higher readings of BP. E4E wonders whether, with accurate readings of the diastolic, this might be shown to have a high risk.

Isolated Diastolic Hypertension -

Another Isolated Diastolic Hypertension (Wiley) article - doesn't find much association with adverse issues.

12 June 2011

Coming Into the Light

I have given it a lot of thought. When I started Emotions For Engineers (e4e), I decided to keep it as anonymous as I reasonably could. I am not a saint, and my life is not perfect. I was concerned about a couple of scenarios. First, that I would say something here that would have a negative impact on my work, or alternatively, that people would assume that I was writing autobiographically when I wasn't. That, and frankly, it's a little embarrassing to me personally just how late in life it was before I began to understand so many thing about relationships, health, love.

In the first case it could affect my ability to earn a living, in the second, I was concerned how people might treat my wife or other members of my family.

I am still concerned about those things. But I am going to come clean anyway.

Angelo Coppola, who has a blog and a podcast called Latest in Paleo in his March 28, 2011 podcast  (at 14:35) mentioned the e4e blog post about the JAMA recommendations, and I realized that I want personal recognition for what I do here. Even more than the recognition though, I think that having a person associated with the writing will make it more effective. This is not a moneymaker for me (although I have made about $15 from Amazon).

Also, my wife tells me it's good for transparency and to show vulnerability. Plus, I was tired of trying to be careful about this, although I am confident that anyone with reasonable skill in the art of google-fu could figure out who I am.

So, my name is Tony Kenck. I live in Oakland, CA, and work for Chevron as a Manager of Strategic Planning. I am married to my second wife, my first marriage having ended in divorce after two children. I have a BSc in Geophysical Engineering from Colorado School of Mines, and I have an MBA from the University of St. Thomas in Houston.

I was born in 1957 and have no religious affiliation. My wife and I each have two children from previous marriages. Hers have lived with us. All are either in college or out on their own now.

I also have a personal blog where I write about various subjects including politics, business planning, portfolio analysis, or whatever strikes my fancy.

And by the way, you may have noticed a dearth of postings lately. We were in the process of empty nesting and moving out of our family-sized San Ramon home to a small condo in Oakland. Over the last six months we have been busy selling, buying, moving, disposing, storing, borrowing, negotiating, buying, and planning. Thanks for your patience and understanding. More posts to come.

20 November 2010

Government in Our Kitchens

This recent article about Sarah Palin serving cookies to kids to protest government incursions into our food choices caught my eye. (Disclaimer: I am not a Sarah Palin fan, but this article is not much about her anyway.)

I agree with her sentiment, government should not be involved in our food choices. There are some unfortunate realities to deal with however.


  1. They are already in our food choices. The USDA has pushed US Agriculture on the American public for over 100 years. Remember that their mission has historically been to promote American agriculture. It was NOT to ensure the health of Americans by better food choices. There is damage to undo. Recently they added the following words to their strategic plan "... improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion..."
  2. Various food programs exist, e.g. school lunches, and follow the unfortunate guidelines laid out by the food pyramid.
  3. Government does have a clearly legitimate role in feeding our armed forces.
  4. The food industry, left to its own devices, has repeatedly shown preference to profits over food safety. This applies to other industries as well.

On the first two issues, it is no secret that I believe that the grain-based food pyramid has directly led to the epidemic of metabolic syndrome including increased diabetes and heart disease. The USDA has an institutional mandate to promote the agricultural industry in the US. They do not have a mandate to improve the health of US citizens.

I believe that the employees of the USDA are good people and that most have convinced themselves that they are also acting in the best interests of the health of the American people. It's the only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the actual results of their recommendations. Face it. We eat more carbs, less fat, the mix of fats changed to more polyunsaturated and less saturated fats, we exercise more as a society. We followed their advice.

And we're dying.

The third issue is important in that, we need to feed our warriors. I wish we were feeding them well, I don't know the facts around the food in the armed forces. I'm not going to look into it now because it's not relevant to the point I am trying to make.

The fourth one is tricky. I am a libertarian at heart, but industries have shown repeatedly that left to their own devices, they poison the environment, do not look out for worker safety, and do not follow safe practices in their products. There are plenty of examples and counterexamples, but corners get cut in the pursuit of profits time and again. I think over the long term, companies that protect its workers and the environment will win. In the short term though, they seem to have no problem killing people.

I am not saying that government gets it all right. They assuredly do not. But contrary to the fantasies of Ayn Rand, government may be the only force large enough and with enough stroke to counter destructive industrial practices in the short term. It could be done better, e.g. I believe that the recent classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant exceeds their authority and common sense. But overall, I am glad that OSHA and EPA exist. I believe that the net impact is positive.

Back To Sarah and the USDA

So Sarah brought cookies to the kids. This is just as wrong as the food pyramid. At least local governments are trying to undo some of the damage caused by the food pyramid by banning sweetened wheat. We can argue about whether they should have a role in it, but at least, finally, the message is good. Sweet wheat is bad for you. Maybe, just maybe, they can begin to undo some of the damage wrought by the USDA.

Note to Sarah: Next time you do this, please have a barbecue with bacon wrapped grass-fed filets, sweet potatoes (no marshmallows), and whole raw milk.

It will send the right message on both the government meddling and on healthy dietary choices. And by the way, it would probably be the best meal the kids have had in their lives.

And USDA, please fix the pyramid. It has been proven dangerous because people comply. Consider something like this food pyramid from Castle Grok.


Addendum: I stumbled across some information on miltary food (MREs), which is what the soldiers eat in the field.


They are 51% carbs, 13% protein, 36% fat, and 1200 Calories. The idea is that they eat 3 of these per day.

For more on Cognitive Dissonance check out:


















For more on diet science and health check out:
Good Calories, Bad Calories

21 April 2010

Short Term Personal Healing vs. Long Term Public Health

The Rise of the Superbugs has been in the news lately. 

Dave at Spark of Reason tweeted an article about disinfectants promoting the growth of superbugs.

The New York Times had an op-ed piece on antibiotics in the the food supply (Cows on Drugs).

Nicholas Kristof at the NY Times did a good article about this. The Rise of the Superbugs the view expressed in that column is that the large scale use of antibiotics that we feed to cattle is the leading cause of the evolution of the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The articles are about microevolution in action, and more broadly about the tragedy of the commons.

In simple terms, it works like this. If you clean something with a disinfectant, there is a chance that some of the bacteria and germs will survive. The ones that survive are, in principle, those best adapted to repel the disinfectant. Their offspring will then be more fit, meaning that we would need stronger or different disinfectants to kill them, etc. The Kristof article goes further, and in fact, the microbes become more immune to antibiotics as well.

This is one of the reasons that when you get antibiotics from your doctor they tell you to finish the prescription. If you take a few pills and it kills only some of the microbes--enough to make you feel better--the remaining microbes will be those most immune to the drug.

It's escalation at a microscopic level. The more people that use disinfectants and clean the beejeezus out of themselves, the more likely that strong bugs will proliferate. So for all of us, keeping ourselves clean with soap and other anti-bacterial agents is, at some level a disservice to society. Just sayin'.

Many workplaces have taken to putting out alcohol based hand cleansers to help prevent the spread of colds and flu. Is there an unintended consequence waiting to happen. I would recommend vitamin D, over using sanitizers.

There is also an idea that our children are more prone to disease and autoimmune issues because of the relatively sterile environments in which we live today (hygiene hypothesis).  There is even a type of therapy called helminthic therapy in which you are infected with hookworms, which has the effect of reducing allery symptoms.

My father was a doctor. Some years ago, I asked him about antibiotics and strengthening the enemy. His response was that if a patient came to him with a disease that could be treated by antibiotics, he would not hesitate to prescribe them. His focus was on treating the person, and for him a worse case scenario was something like, person comes in, he doesn't prescribe, and that person dies.

In my own mind, I have arrived to the conclusion, after reading the articles above that fundamentally, my father's view is a good perspective.

Judicious treatment of large numbers of symptomatic people with antibiotics, may result in some cases of creating stronger bugs, but the benefit to individual humans can't be ignored. However, blanket antibiotic treatment, as happens in the meat and dairy industry, is not good for anyone.

E4E Recommendations:
1. Keep adequate vitamin D levels in your body. It strengthens your body's ability to repel the invaders.
2. Consider organic and grass fed meat raised without the use of antibiotics. Corn is not a normal diet for cattle, and they tend to get sicker on that diet, thus the antibiotics. If you're worried about some of the recent press around beef and global warming, Spark of Reason has something to say about it.
3. I won't recommend hookworm (helminthic) therapy, don't worry. It is intriguing though.
4. If you are sick, and your doctor recommends antibiotics, take them, get yourself well. Consume the entire bottle, don't stop partway through the course.
5. You should still wash your hands with soap after using the toilet and before cooking. There are nasty bugs that can live in the digestive tract and nether regions.
6. Consider going soapless. I don't do it myself, but personally know one person who has done it, and Richard over at Free The Animal has also done it. Wash yourself, but use cloths, brushes, and water to get clean, not soap.

Thanks for reading. I hope you follow my tweets on twitter as well. My tweet handle is ee4ee.

30 December 2009

Interpreting Science Writing

Note to readers: This column is coming out much later than I had intended. I apologize for that. I think I may have blown my resolution from earlier this year to put out one post per month. I really struggled with this one. As I wrote, the article kept getting longer and more detailed. There is no shortage of bad science coverage out there. I was stalled and my wife helped me break out of it (thanks). Ultimately, I probably should treat this as an overview post, then put in detailed posts in the future on some of the individual points.

So please let me know in the comments if you are interested in reading more detail about any of the points made in this post. --e4e


Writing about science writing is like writing about vocabulary or word usage. There is a really good chance that you will find inconsistencies in some of your own practices. Shame and ridicule have never stopped me though, so here goes.

Sensational headlines call to us to stop eating saturated fat. Or to stay out of the sun. Do more cardio (or less). How can we make sense of this hodge-podge?

First, research has a well-defined and specific structure and process. The researcher states a null hypothesis, e.g. saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Then they determine a protocol for testing that hypothesis. Run the research and analyze the results. In standard scientific method, the results do not prove the hypothesis--they either reject it or fail to reject it. This is similar to a court case, where a defendant is found guilty or not guilty. A "Not guilty" verdict does not prove innocence, only that there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

Repeating studies and testing variations of the hypothesis are an important part of this as well. For example, if the researchers use palmitic acid (a saturated fat) in the original protocol, someone else might try a similar experiment with lauric acid (another saturated fat) to see if the result is generalizable to another saturated fat. Or perhaps they would try a similar test with fewer refined carbohydrates in the diet to test a suspected interaction.

In the final analysis, only when a hypothesis has been tested multiple times with valid well-designed studies, along with reasonable variations, and has been peer-reviewed, can we begin to say that the hypothesis or its evolved state is very likely. This is even more true in human studies, where numerous factors can confound results.

Sadly, in the current state of our society and even perhaps in research communities, we take as given, hypotheses that are much less well-founded. A typical flow is more like this. A researcher analyzes a data set and looks for relationships in the data. If he or she finds one, he builds a hypothesis that rationalizes what he thinks he sees in the full data set, or even worse, a filtered or smoothed one. So far, it's not too bad. If he then takes his analysis and designs a good intervention study he may be on to something.

Unfortunately, too often, a science writer gets wind of his hypothesis (the researchers are not innocent in this), and publishes a sensational story before the real work begins.

As always, you are your own n = 1. Read carefully, learn voraciously, and caveat emptor.


Following are some considerations to think about when reaing and interpreting science writing.


1. Many, or perhaps most, mainstream science writers are much stronger at writing than science. They do not have the ability, inclination, or motivation to discriminate between important and unimportant results. Question mainstream media (MSM) reports of science. Gary Taubes is seen by many as one of the better science writers around. Who are some others?

2. Correlation does not imply causation, however, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation - If you are reading about an epidemiological (observational) study it proves nothing. Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations. Not long ago they tracked thousands of people over 10 years based on what they reported eating, then said that eating more red meat was "linked to early death." That's fine as far as it goes, but then the reporting (and the "scientists") took the next step and said that therefore, eating meat causes cancer. That's not science.

In a similar vein, beware the expression, "...is a risk factor for...", e.g. "Obesity is a risk factor for diabetes." When I read that I interpret causality, as in obesity causes diabetes. The truth of the matter is more like, "people who have diabetes tend also to be obese, both conditions are related to a insulin-resistant metabolic defect."

The epidemiological studies can point you in the direction of something to test further, i.e. they can generate a hypothesis, but it can not establish causality. A great comment by "seyont" from Dr. Eades' blog. "An observational study is sort of a triple-blind study. The researchers do not know what experiment was performed, on whom it was performed, or even if it was performed. They grab a bunch of people and dream up an experiment which could plausibly have produced the correlations they see."

3. Mouse studies are similar. They can point you in a direction for further study, but are not conclusive. I'm sure you get that mice are not people (although some people are rats). Here's an example and an alternate hypothesis.

4. Look out for the word "adjusted." There are always confounding factors in studies that researchers want to adjust for. It is impossible to adjust accurately and there is always slop in it. If there is an adjustment factor applied there is doubt in the conclusions. This is especially an issue when the size of the adjustments (the noise) is of a similar order of magnitude to the quantity being measured (the signal). It doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong necessarily, but the basis of the adjustments has to be really strong for the conclusions to be valid.
5. Watch out for weasel words like "probably," "potentially," and "may." It doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, but often those words are inserted to make the sensational headlines true. Brad Pilon of Eat Stop Eat fame talks about an article with plenty of weasel words here.

6. Details are important and usually not covered in a 1,000 word article.

7. Randomized double-blind placebo controlled intervention studies are the gold-standard for nutrition research. Unfortunately they can be extremely expensive, especially for long term effects.

8. Follow the money - Look to see who paid for the research. If the results fit their commercial or social agenda, doubt the conclusions. There is a very strong bias in research publications that results that do not support the sponsors agenda do not get published or get spun. This article hammers the statin people for treating their agenda as science.

9. Focus on what you care about. Many studies support a very narrow agenda. For example, the American dermatologists association says to always protect your skin from the sun with sun screen. Their agenda is to prevent skin cancer. However, lack of sun can cause lack of vitamin D, which is associated with (causality?) higher incidence of other cancers, flu, and colds.

10. Question results that are not consistent with how mankind has lived for two million years. Using sun exposure as an example again, our bodies are finely tuned to an ancient lifestyle. It seems crazy in that framework to think that exposure to "normal" amounts of sun would be overall detrimental to health. Your mileage may vary if you are very fair for example, but keep things in perspective.

11. Beware statistical significance. Statistical significance is a term that tells how sure you are that a difference or relationship exists. If a relationship between to variables is found to be "statistically significant", it means that it is unlikely that the observed relationship is random. The relationship may be small or meaningless, but they are highly likely (generally 95%) to be linked.

12. Paradoxes aren't paradoxes. They are information that disproves the hypothesis of some preconceived notion or prejudice. Perhaps the most famous paradox is the "French Paradox." the French eat more saturated fat, yet have better heart health than Americans. Lots of hypotheses have been generated to explain this (more smoking, more red wine, etc). Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket. Drinking and smoking actually protect you from heart disease. Oh, but not too much. That will kill you. Dave at Spark of Reason wrote this article on paradoxes. Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame had this to say.

Let's apply Occam's Razor. There is a much simpler conclusion--the original hypothesis is wrong: saturated fat does not cause heart disease. From Dave at Spark of Reason: "A true paradox would indicate inconsistency in the rules and assumptions used to build the system."

13. Many intervention studies do not test the reported factor, but rather something entirely different. As an example, if you want to test the impact of a low carbohydrate diet on lipid profiles, there should be control of the actual ingestion of carbohydrates. However, some studies are actually designed to test compliance to that type of diet as well as the impact. It then becomes difficult to draw conclusions about the physical effect of the diet.

14. Statements of certainty, e.g. "the science is settled" or "it is universally accepted that..." can be used to bully people into alignment. It takes a gutsy and very confident person to argue against the "consensus." This doesn't mean that the predominant view is wrong, just raises a red flag to the possibility that people are trying to cut off additional inquiry.

15. It is possible that most published research is wrong. Bayesian analysis of false positives and negatives, combined with human nature and biases conspire to place a scary-high likelihood that any given research results are incorrect. Here's the original paper for anyone interested.


16. Look at the logic. If the author is simply focusing on the qualifications (or lack thereof) of someone. It may indicate that the substance is weak.

Some Examples of Analysis of Science Writing

1. This article, "A High Fat Diet During Pregnancy Can Lead To Severe Liver Disease in Offspring," as skewered here by Chris Masterjohn is an excellent example of several of the points above. First, the article talks about the mother or the woman or the child in several places, the headline talks about high fat, while the researchers talk about high saturated fat. Incredibly, they fail to mention that the "woman and mother" in question is a mouse. Oh and by the way, that low fat control diet was higher in saturated fat as a percentage than the high fat diet.

From Masterjohn:
"...less than seven percent of the calories from the 'unhealthy saturated-fat-enriched diet' actually came from saturated fat.

"The "unhealthy saturated fat-enriched diet" actually contained 44 percent of its fat as polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and almost twenty percent of its total calories as PUFA. This is in great excess of the PUFA consumption seen even in the Standard American Diet (SAD), loaded in processed PUFA-rich vegetable oils."


2. Design of experiments, Hypothesis Testing and Bayesian Inference are critical aspects of understanding the validity of ideas. It seems that many researchers are not skilled in the application of those aspects, especially in nutrition and exercise. We're left then with unskilled reporters and broscience.

One of the more famous occurred some years ago when an epidemiological studies demonstrated a correlation between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women and better cancer rates. For years after that millions of women were put on HRT, post-menopause. Only recently did they actually perform a placebo-controlled study and find that (oops), HRT actually increases breast cancer and heart attack and can lead to early dementia. It can also have some positive effects such as decrease in hip fracture and colorectal cancer. It seems that in the early epidemiological studies, the women on HRT tended to be more health conscious in general. This then masked the negative impact of the HRT.

But, here are some of the details in this. Even with the good study, the timing of starting the HRT made a difference, and it showed age variation in the impacts. Also, it could be that it was an indictment of the specific hormones used in the study and not HRT in general.

3. Another significant epidemiological study that is looking worse every day is the Ancel Key's Seven Nations Study. This may be of the most devastatingly believed studies in the history of the world. In a nutshell, Keys plotted cardiovascular disease against animal fat consumption in seven countries and found a very high correlation. However, he omitted 14 countries with data that did not support his hypothesis. This in turn led directly to higher sugar and carbohydrate intake and to reduced fat consumption. Some believe that this is one of the main causes of the obesity and cardiovascular disease epidemic in the world today.

4. Read Gary Taubes' article on epidemiology or better yet, buy Good Calories, Bad Calories


5. Here's another Taubes interview on Good and Bad Science

6. Michael Eades on epidemiological research
7. Staggeringly good 4-part example (1), (2), (3), (4) of analyzing a study and generating an alternate hypothesis from Whole Health Source
8. Interesting perspective on good science from OvercomingBias

A quote from one of the commenters, daublin

"There is a lot of confusion in both the cited article and in this article about what science is. For sure, it’s not the “scientific method”. That doesn’t mean science doesn’t happen, but that it’s being misdescribed. Here’s what science means, in the tradition descending from the Enlightenment. Science is study with the following properties:

"1. It’s about objective claims. There is no place in science for claims that different observers will, by definition, never agree on.

"2. It’s about falsifiable claims. There is no place in science for claims that could never possibly be decisively proven false.

"3. The evidence must be repeatable by other scientists. In particular, experiments must be communicated in enough detail that other scientists can repeat the experiment so as to verify the result.

"4. It follows Occam’s Razor. Simple theories are better than complex ones."

03 August 2009

Emotions For Engineers on Twitter

I find tons of interesting things on the internet. I save the website fully intending to write a blog post about it, then never do.

Sometimes, the author has already done such a good job that there is little to add. Other times, there is not an Emotions for Engineers angle to put on it, so it sits in my drafts folder.

From now on, when I find something interesting, I will post it first on Twitter and then maybe I'll write about it or maybe not. But at least those of you who follow this blog will have a chance to see it.

To follow my tweets go to this link and press the follow button.

08 July 2009

Some Sample Correlations

We all know that correlation is not causation. Causation arrows are not always clear, and sometimes two factors that correlate to each other are actually caused by a third factor.

My favorite example of correlation not proving causation is that it is not appropriate to say that firemen cause fires because every time there's a fire there are firemen there.

Correlation is expressed as a decimal between -1 and 1.
1 is a perfect positive correlation. An increase in one variable yields a proportionate increase in another one.
-1 is a perfect negative correlation. An increase in one variable yields a proportionate decrease in another one.
0 is no correlation. A change in one variable has no relation to changes in another one.

Tom Naughton, who made the movie Fat Head writes a blog. A recent one discussed a large study called the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. A number of correlations between diet and health outcomes were observed with varying levels of correlation. He discusses the significance of the study and correlations and there are some really good comments after the post.

He talks about some of the correlations found in the study, and I realized that I didn't have a really good sense of what these correlations look like, so I generated some.

Here are the correlations assuming underlying uniform distributions between two variables. Note that even a 0.6 correlation has a lot of variability.



Here are the correlations assuming underlying normal distributions between the two variables. These points are more centrally grouped because of the nature of the underlying distributions.





A fun allegory on correlation and causation

Correlation is not causation

20 June 2009

Dear E4E. A Letter to Myself

Dear E4E,

My 20 year old son who lives across the country with his mother, seems to want to have nothing to do with me. I have called him, texted him, and left messages on his facebook page. I get no response from him.


Recently, he left his job (released for being late). Now he contacts me and wants to visit. Yay.


Except, when I try to contact him to set dates, he doesn't respond. It's really odd. For the life of me, I can't think of anything I've done to anger him or drive him away. I feel hurt and sad about this.


What the heck is going on?


Signed, Baffled Engineer




Dear Baffled,


Regardless of whether you slighted him, the answer is the same--continue to reach out. Hold out a hand of unconditional, non-judging love.


Yes, you feel hurt and maybe want to punish. Perhaps you think it's terribly undignified or weak to reach out unrequitedly. Forget that.


But he gave you the cold shoulder and maybe you didn't deserve it. It doesn't matter. But you're a dude. You learned a long time ago not to take crap from anyone. To return disrespect with greater disrespect.


That's OK in battle, but this is not battle. It's not a power or blame game. This is family. Families are not a democracy, they're more like a benevolent dictatorship, or even communism (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs).


You are the parent; you are the adult. That is your role in this scenario. Unless a family member is actively hurting the family, your job is to strive to maintain cohesiveness.


Now try to look at it from your son's perspective. He's 20 years old, he was out earning lots of money and feeling pretty independent. He probably lost sight of the importance of family; maybe he didn't really understand the importance of maintaining contact. Perhaps you could have done a better job over the years of keeping touch with him. (Remember Cat's in the Cradle by Harry Chapin?)


Perhaps, he didn't think that he was meeting your expectations (good grades, go to college, etc.) and was feeling ashamed about that. Perhaps he had a secret that he thought would disappoint you in some way. Again, it really doesn't matter.


Remember, it's not your job to judge him or try to change him. Regardless of his emotional age or maturity, he is an adult now. Accept him as he is and do what you can to help him succeed in his life. Be proactive in keeping communications open. Hope that he will come around.


Good luck.
E4E

31 March 2009

Live in the Now

It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end." --Ernest Hemingway

I have been living in the now recently (mostly at work) and as such, have had little time to focus on e4e this month.

The good news is that my job has been a big focus. That's also the bad news.

So this will be simply a short reminder to know what you want as your destination in life or in your tasks, but to live in the present as well. Sometimes your focus is drawn very much to one narrow aspect of your life. You can do that for a short time, but it is not sustainable for most people. Your loved ones want you to be a part of their lives. Take time out from the workday world. Find the correct balance between urgent and important, long and short term, physical and mental/spiritual.


Finding that balance is life's journey.

29 December 2008

SMART Resolutions

It's that time of year--time to make the dreaded New Year's Resolutions.

I have a few things to say about that. Some people say that they are horrible. They just give people an excuse to binge for a few more days before they start to fail yet again. I think people do that, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Another angle is that a quest for perfection can be damaging by itself. I'm not going to address that aspect, but for now, simply accept that people have worthwhile goals that they want to achieve.

The New Year can be a convenient time to take stock and refocus your efforts in important directions. But just like with your job evaluations at work, your resolutions or goals should have specific characteristics and there should be some kind of accountability.

Be Smart

The SMART framework is pretty good for goal setting. SMART is an acronym for:
1. Specific – The objectives should be specific. Don't leave rationalizable loopholes.
2. Measurable – You should be able to determine without ambiguity whether you are meeting the objective.
3. Achievable - Is the objective achievable and attainable at all within the time frame?
4. Relevant – Something you actually care about?
5. Time-Constrained – When do you want to achieve the set objectives?

So here's a bad objective: Cure most of world hunger.
It is not very specific or measurable, may not be achievable at all, and certainly not with the resources I have available, and there is no time frame specified, it is relevant to the world at large.

So in a world hunger frame, a better objective might be something like:
Write one blog post per month on the importance of nutrition for the poor. If you are President of the USA, you might have a more ambitious world hunger objective such as: Reduce the amount of non-voluntary hunger in the US by 10% by end of year 2012 as measured by World Health Organization standards..

Accountability

The other part of it is accountability or support. At work, there is typically some person who judges whether you achieve your objectives. If you do, you get a promotion or a better raise, or maybe you get to keep your job. If you fail to achieve your objectives, there may be negative consequences. The problem is that not all objectives are under the auspices of someone to reward or punish you, so you need another kind of accountability. A support network can be useful for that.

Ask your spouse or a friend, or even your boss to be your accountability partner on non-job related goals. Stickk.com can also give a framework for accountability and support. You specify a goal, name supporters and/or a referee, and you can even specify monetary consequences for failure to meet the objective(s). I am currently using Stickk for a weight loss objective.

X marks the spot in the diagram.

Why New Year's Day?

There is actually nothing magical about New Year's Day. Set your objective now. Don't allow the pre-start binge that some people object to. Just Do It!

Emotions For Engineers Resolution

I recognize that I have not been as diligent at posting here as I would like to be. I have about fifty posts and ideas started and in various levels of completion. So my resolution is the following:
I will publish at least one Emotions for Engineers post per month in 2009.

Specific - One post per month. Good.
Measurable - One post per month. Not 12 per year, but one per month.
Achievable - It should be. I can do it if I prioritize well. Resources are not an issue.
Relevant - It is relevant to my personal mission.
Time-Constrained - Monthly targets are good.

Accountability - I ask the readers of this blog to please get on my case if I do not fulfill this objective. Thanks, and a happy and prosperous 2009 to all.



Addendum: 1/1/2009

One other factor occurred to me regarding resolutions or goal-setting. If your goal is a long-term one, you should have milestone along the way. My resolution above is a good example. If I had said that I will make 12 posts in 2009, knowing me, I might do none until November, then try to cram them into two months. Making the goal one per month puts pressure on me not to procrastinate.

There was a very short
article in Business Week about research that demonstrates that shorter-term goals are more effective than longer-term ones.

Addendum 7/29/2010: Bob Lewis had an interesting talk where he said that S should stand for Specific and Strategic. I like that. It means that the goal should have some significance as well.