Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Beer-Drinking Scientist Debunks Productivity Correlation

Posted by kdawson on Sun Mar 23, 2008 09:02 PM
from the sipping-a-magnificent-pacific-northwest-microbrew-porter dept.
Science Entertainment
austinpoet writes in with a blog post debunking the theory we discussed a few days back that scientists' beer consumption is linearly correlated with the quality of their work. Chris Mack, Gentleman Scientist and beer drinker, has analyzed the paper and found it is severely flawed. From his analysis: "The discovered linear relationship between beer consumption and scientific output had a correlation coefficient (R-squared) of only about 0.5 — not very high by my standards, though I suspect many biologists would be happy to get one that high in their work... Thus, the entire study came down to only one conclusion: the five worst ornithologists in the Czech Republic drank a lot of beer."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Scientists' Success Or Failure Correlated With Beer 349 comments
mernil sends in an article from the NYTimes that casts a glance at a study done in the Czech Republic (natch) on what divides the successful scientists from the duffers. "Ever since there have been scientists, there have been those who are wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after another, and those who are not. And since nearly the same time, there have been scholars arguing over what makes the difference. What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud? After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex, and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer."
Submission: Beer Drinking Scientist debunks NY Times article by austinpoet (789122)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Beer-Drinking Scientist Debunks Productivity Correlation 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Simply put (Score:5, Funny)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:03PM (#22841202)
    beer > coffee/caffeine
  • C'mon, I thought the (ancedotal) evidence proving(?) that beer is and isn't good for productivity is adequete! It should say that beer, in certain levels, is good for productivity, and in excess ... it is bad. Really, people write papers to prove this?
    • When bored, hackers write viruses, scientists - papers.

      Disclaimer, I am non of the above.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Hm, I'd bet you're bored; that's probably why you're on Slashdot.
    • I think what you refer to is known as the "Ballmer Peak" shown on this graph:

      Here [xkcd.com]
    • To add another point against such studies: They don't investigate cause and effect, they simply say that scientists consuming beer will produce worse/better results. Let's assume I love beer (right) but I don't drink any because I fear the consequences of alcohol consumption (wrong). Of course people can argue that my consumption will have an impact on the work I do*. But my opinion about alcohol consumption also says something about my personality - I love to do things which are not in my best interest and

    • Not only that (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lakeland (218447) <lakeland@acm.org> on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:39PM (#22841438) Homepage
      They've looked for a linear correlation, so if what you've said is true then the analysis they used wouldn't find it.

      In order to find a correlation where the input IV (beer consumption) has an optimal value, you would have to do the regression on a transformation of the variable. Perhaps a quadratic would suffice, or else abs(X - k) for some unknown value of k.

  • earth to Cap'n Obvious... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think it's safe to say that the paper they are "debunking" was meant as a joke.

  • In Other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by omarmarosh (1261102) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:09PM (#22841246) Journal
    Scientists Claim there is a direct correlation b/w pot smokers and an amazing talent to link string theory with life on mars

    • Re:In Other news (Score:5, Funny)

      by dreamchaser (49529) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:30PM (#22841376) Homepage Journal
      Scientists Claim there is a direct correlation b/w pot smokers and an amazing talent to link string theory with life on mars


      That was based on a misquote. The original conversation was 'Dude...do you think they have string cheese on Mars...like that would be so coool. Pass the Doritos?'
  • It's more about the quality of their beer. Not that I have anything against Pilsen. I think they make a perfectly fine beer over there.

  • Performance enhancing drugs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blackC0pter (1013737) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:27PM (#22841352)
    So beer may or may not hinder a scientist's creative abilities. On the flip side, will scientists ever start taking drugs in order to improve their skills? Would this ever lead to drug testing researchers that announce amazing new scientific breakthroughs? (sort of far fetched but an interesting idea nonetheless).

    • Re:Performance enhancing drugs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:32PM (#22841400)
      Would this ever lead to drug testing researchers that announce amazing new scientific breakthroughs? (sort of far fetched but an interesting idea nonetheless).

      Sure it would. I can see it now:

      "I just got the results of your drug test ... apparently you've not been taking your drugs. They're a job requirement you know. I understand that the enhancer pills give you migraines, but we promised BigMegaCorp that breakthrough they've been wanting, and you do like your job, don't you?"

    • On the flip side, will scientists ever start taking drugs in order to improve their skills?
      They've been doing it since the dawn of human civilization. Coffee, Cigarettes, and Alcohol are all imbibed by white-collar workers chiefly for the effect they have on the psyche.
    • I've read before that a nobel price winner formulated his theory utilizing psychedelics.

      Would this ever lead to drug testing researchers that announce amazing new scientific breakthroughs

      No.

      Science is not a "competition", thus using "performance enhancing products" cannot invalidate the result. The result in science is approximation of truth and understanding. If it helps being high to formulate a certain theory, formulate it and eventually create the foundations for others to build further on, it isn't s

      • Re:Performance enhancing drugs (Score:5, Informative)

        by hitchhacker (122525) on Sunday March 23 2008, @11:56PM (#22842174) Homepage

        I've read before that a nobel price winner formulated his theory utilizing psychedelics.
        I believe you are referring to Kary Mullis [wikipedia.org]. He wrote a book about it titled "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" [amazon.com]:

        Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction, a chemical procedure that allows scientists to "see" the structures of the molecules of genes. Mullis is no shy, socially inept bench chemist, though; on the contrary, he has led as big and full a life as possible, opening himself to experiences like hallucinogenic drugs, surfing, casually handling dangerous chemicals, and taking shots at the sacred cows of science.

        Also, the famous mathematician Paul Erdos [wikipedia.org] used amphetamines for this purpose:

        His colleague Alfréd Rényi said, "a mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems", and Erdos drank copious quantities. (This quotation is often attributed incorrectly to Erdos.) After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdos won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit.

        -metric

  • Sketch... (Score:5, Funny)

    by amccaf1 (813772) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:29PM (#22841362)

    [...] the five worst ornithologists in the Czech Republic drank a lot of beer [...]


    This has to be a lost Monty Python sketch, right?

  • We all know what to do now: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:31PM (#22841396)
    More research is needed.

  • Few... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Josh Booth (588074) <joshbooth2000NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:37PM (#22841426)
    So it's safe to drink beer again. And to think I was actually going to cut down!
  • The comic xkcd was there first and called this effect the Ballmer Peak [xkcd.com]. Most likely, this effect was also tried in Vista and Vista SP1 design meetings, but the balance was all wrong and didn't come out as (they) expected.

    • Re:xkcd was there first (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 23 2008, @10:07PM (#22841662)
      The comic xkcd was there first and called this effect the Ballmer Peak.

      "Ballmer peak" is, FYI, a joke [wikipedia.org] that's going over the heads of all you science-illiterate server monkeys.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MrMunkey (1039894)
        I used to work with someone who was on the team that worked on Visual Fox Pro back in the early days. She said that the company did provide alcohol from time to time (I think it was Fridays, but I could be remembering wrong). I'm not saying that xkcd wasn't a joke, I just wanted to point out that there might be a grain of truth to it.
  • I know scientists who devote their entire lives to their work, never go out, never have a good time, have no children (or never see them), etc. etc.

      Are they *better* scientists? I don't think so.

      Are they *more productive* scientists? Not in every case, but on average, yeah, I'd say they are. There are situations where spending all your time on work and neglecting other aspects of your life is a self-defeating proposition, especially in creative work (which generally includes science, although what scientists actually *do* varies a lot from one scientist to another.)

      But burn-out aside, if you're willing to sacrifice other aspects of your life, you can get more science done. Pretending that this is not, generally speaking, true, because you want to pretend that it doesn't cost you anything to have a life, is not productive.

      That said, the article-author is right about the statistics. Bad Czechs!

  • That Explains... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Black-Man (198831) on Sunday March 23 2008, @09:44PM (#22841484)
    I had a friend who always cracked open a cold one when he sat down to work (while at home, of course). I could never understand it - but he worked like a maniac. And he did it for years... until he failed a drug test and was fired. He was a manager for a large pharmaceutical manufacturer. Go figure...

  • Perhaps there is a cause and effect (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peter Cooper (660482) on Sunday March 23 2008, @10:02PM (#22841618) Journal
    If you were one of the five worst scientists in a field in the Czech Republic, you'd probably turn to drink, right?

  • not just beer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Sunday March 23 2008, @10:04PM (#22841644)
    it depends on the kind of drinker you are, do you drink moderately and only open that first alcoholic beverage later in the evening (after supper)? you know anybody that pops the top off any alcoholic beverage too early in the day and drinks excessively until they are slobbering & stumbling recklessly wont be a good anything (especially a scientist)...

    i drink a mixed drink every evening after supper daily and only one, using a shotglass to measure the amount, i do enjoy a mild buzz but i hate being drunk and i dislike drunks since they can cause lots of problems (loss of careers/jobs, wrecked marriages, even cause fatal traffic accidents on the road)...

    moderation is the key...
  • They gave him the bird!
  • Seems to me that the authors of this study were heavy beer drinkers.

  • "Gentleman Scientist" is confused.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ardeaem (625311) on Sunday March 23 2008, @10:27PM (#22841776)
    The "debunker" has confused two related statistical concepts: correlation, measured by r, and proportion of variance accounted for, measured by R^2. if the R^2 is truly .5, that would be fantastically high; it would mean that 50% of the variance in the "quality of work" measure is explained by beer drinking. Think about that for a minute. To determine how low or high an R^2 measure is, you have to look at what is being modeled, in this case R^2=.5 is very high.

    If, on the other hand, he means the correlation coefficient r=.5, that means that R^2=.25. Still, a quarter of the variance in "work quality" is explained by beer drinking. That is still very high.

    His point about outlying ornithologists and the points not being independent may still be valid; determining if they are is an empirical matter. Do these outlying scientists, in fact, socialize together? What other sources of nonindependence might there be, and do they affect THIS data set? Also should we really claim that 5 out of 34 (15% of the sample!) constitute OUTLIERS? Those aren't outliers, those are a subpopulation.

    He didn't debunk the study; he rather raised some interesting questions.

    • There are times when real science transcends mere mathematics. So kindly quit making sense, shut up, and drink this (if I were nearby, a beer would be in your immediate future).

      Cheers!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by glwtta (532858)
      Wait a minute, this "study" was done on 34 people? And the method for choosing them was "that guy's buddies"?

      And we are actually spending time talking about it?

  • R^2 = 0.5 Ain't Bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Sunday March 23 2008, @10:32PM (#22841806) Journal
    R-squared is the amount of variance accounted for by the variable in question. That means half their productivity is explained by beer drinking, and half on all other variables combined.

    As a comparison, 0.3 is pretty much the top end R-squared in personality psychology. that field is built on correlations that account for no more than 10% of the observed variance.

    To combine the two, it's far more likely that TFA didn't actually measure beer drinking, but rather how much beer those scientists who drank beer would admit to drinking. Those who'll drink it are probably more likely to relax, which will make them more productive, and those who will admit it are less likely to fall prey to negative opinions of others, a major source of which is reviewers' comments on papers submitted for publication. Such comments are often undeservedly harsh, and in many cases coming from someone who doesn't know as much as the author about the topic. That can turn away those who place great store in the opinions of others, especially perceived authorities.

    Next, on to Russia and WOTKA!

    • Re:R^2 = 0.5 Ain't Bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by symes (835608) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:38AM (#22843198) Journal
      Indeed - but with such a small sample size the researchers would not have been able to adjust for exposure, or age in this case. My guess is that beer consumption declines with age and science is generally cumulative (the longer you do science the more papers you produce and therefore the higher the probability of writing something of interest). In other words, age could easily explain this beer/science relationship - younger scientists drink more - as could a whole host of other variables.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cvd6262 (180823)
      That means half their productivity is explained by beer drinking, and half on all other variables combined.

      I agree with the first part, but not with the second. R^2 of .5 is quite good in social/behavioral sciences*, but it does not mean that "all other variables" only account for half the variance in performance because other variables could "share" the variance associated with beer drinking.

      For example, sociability might be highly correlated with beer drinking and performance. There is likely to be a lot
  • Excellent article. My faith in the scientific community is restored.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SL Baur (19540)
      It beats the daily Microsoft Windows Vista article(s). Those don't get interesting no matter how many beers you drink before reading them.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.