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."
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?
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
Then I have good news for you: Over here people say: "3 beers is like one steak". My only concern is that I feel kind of different after 3 beers at lunch. Coming to think of it I never had 3 before the evening - even one makes me sleepy during daytime...
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.
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?'
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).
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
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.
If by "american beer" you mean Bud/Miller/Coors. However there are hundreds of American micros that produce excellent beer in far more styles than you'll find in Europe. American beer is far from being limited to the mass produced light lager produced by the aforementioned major breweries.
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.
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!
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...
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)...
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).
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.
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.
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
Simply put (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simply put (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Simply put (Score:4, Funny)
what is this mythical substance of which you speak?
Parent
Re:Simply put (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Simply put (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Hmm... do we need either of these studies? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm... do we need either of these studies? (Score:5, Funny)
Disclaimer, I am non of the above.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... do we need either of these studies? (Score:5, Funny)
Here [xkcd.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... do we need either of these studies? (Score:5, Funny)
I refuse to give up one entire food group!!!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not only that (Score:5, Funny)
If you consume beer through an IV I think you're a different type of drinker.
Parent
earth to Cap'n Obvious... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:earth to Cap'n Obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
In Other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other news (Score:5, Funny)
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?'
Parent
Maybe (Score:2, Funny)
Performance enhancing drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Performance enhancing drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure it would. I can see it now:
"I just got the results of your drug test
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Also, the famous mathematician Paul Erdos [wikipedia.org] used amphetamines for this purpose:
-metric
Parent
Sketch... (Score:5, Funny)
This has to be a lost Monty Python sketch, right?
Re:Sketch... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
We all know what to do now: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We all know what to do now: (Score:4, Funny)
Some suggestions:
Pilsener Urquell vs. Milwaukee's Best
Budvar vs. Old Milwaukee
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We all know what to do now: (Score:4, Informative)
If by "american beer" you mean Bud/Miller/Coors. However there are hundreds of American micros that produce excellent beer in far more styles than you'll find in Europe. American beer is far from being limited to the mass produced light lager produced by the aforementioned major breweries.
Parent
Few... (Score:4, Funny)
xkcd was there first (Score:2, Informative)
Re:xkcd was there first (Score:5, Informative)
"Ballmer peak" is, FYI, a joke [wikipedia.org] that's going over the heads of all you science-illiterate server monkeys.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't surprise me (Score:3)
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)
Perhaps there is a cause and effect (Score:5, Funny)
not just beer (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
So, how did the 5 ornithologists respond to him? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this really that surprising? (Score:2)
"Gentleman Scientist" is confused.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
And we are actually spending time talking about it?
R^2 = 0.5 Ain't Bad (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with the first part, but not with the second. R^2 of
For example, sociability might be highly correlated with beer drinking and performance. There is likely to be a lot
Whew! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)