Why There Really ARE Coincidences
--------------------------------------------------------
People love to say "there are no coincidences," that somehow the universe occasionally smiles benevolently and nudges a few molecules around, JUST FOR US, so we can experience the sense of connection between two otherwise unconnected events. It's a not too subtle wish to be distinguished by the apparently uncaring void, to be the witness to a marvelous and largely invisible *network* of significance that makes all the existential angst go away, if only for a moment. 

Sorry. I think that's a bunch of hooey. You want to know the marvelous mysterious connection between those two random events you just experienced? It's YOU. One thing happened, and you noticed. That gets its own little spot in your brain, a memory location with a set of tags for when, where, what, why, and what it all means, generally not very much. A bit later, another thing happens. Your brain builds this new thing a spot too, makes connections for it, gives it its own tag. You, the boss, the runner of the software, then make a discovery: these two experiences, these two events, these two *memories* HAVE A MATCHING TAG! It's COSMIC! These two *totally* unrelated things actually have a secret significant link that reveals the intention of some higher or other power. And you, of all the billions who have lived and are living, you got to be there when the link appeared. How great is that?

Not great, and not that amazing, maybe not amazing at all. Especially once you realized, recognize, *admit*, that *you* stuck those matching tags on these two events. You are the signifier, the creator of the magical link. The only actual connection between these two events is that you noticed them, that traces of each of them ended up in your brain, ripe for pattern matching.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You did what humans have done for millenia. You saw two things happen, you selected features about them both that seem similar and you assigned significance to that similarity. Aren't you smart? Then, not so smart, you immediately ignored the fact that you did that, and by forgetting, you added a whole other layer of significance--this *happened*, this connection, there *must* be a reason, it *must* be a message, a sign of my importance, a sign that the universe loves me after all.

Nope. The only significance is what you wrote into, right before you read it back out. That's how clever you are.

How verb aspect influences memory and behavior

This research report on Physorg provides more support for examining our language for its influence on our behavior. Simply changing from "I was doing" to "I did" improved memory of actions and subsequent performance on word puzzles. The researchers theorized that the "imperfective" ("I was doing") caused participants to see action as ongoing, which gave them better access to detail. In contract, using "perfective" ("I did") seems to imply that the action is over and thus less accessible. This might have implications for cognitive behavioral therapy, where a change from "I was doing" to "I did" might help the patient see former negative behavior as "over" and thus less likely to be repeated.

Thus we can see a direct effect of deliberately changing how we describe events, even when the change is simply mandated as a part of a study. Imagine how much more such changes might have if we deliberately choose them expressly for the purpose of influencing our perceptions and experience of events!

Context

Actions speak louder than words, they tell us, but words create the context in which action unfolds.

--Christopher Hume, thestar.com

Heavy-Lift Rocket Behind Schedule - NYTimes.com

In this briefing on NASA's Heavy-Life Rocket project , we learn that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation believes that their legislative powers supersede the laws of physics, finance, and rationality. NASA recently told Congress they are behind schedule on the project and will need more money to finish. In response, Committee members Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson stated that the blueprint for building the rocket on time (2016) and within the allotted budget "is not an optional, advisory document: it is the law."

In other words, this *must* happen because *we say this should*. When the Committee on Science places more faith in wishful thinking than they do in science, what hope does science have?

It may not seem like a big thing, but you and I know it, and journalists know it, and so do marketers and political advisors: words matter. Consider today's Google News headlines regarding October unemployment rates.







On top of this block of stories about unemployment figures, the Wall Street Journal's headline says the jobless rate declines in 23 states, but the teaser from the article refers to the rate as "little changed in most states." Meanwhile, the article from Bloomberg claims that the rate in Nebraska "remained" 4.6 pct:

Nebraska's unemployment rate stayed steady at 4.6 percent in September

However, a few sentences later, they seem to suggest a different picture:

The state's July 2010 rate was 4.7 percent and June's was 4.9 percent.

But you might say, yeah, but that's a pretty small change, small enough to maybe qualify as "staying steady." But then, what do we make of another bit of data mentioned later in the article:

Unemployment also spiked in Lincoln, the capital city, to 4.1 percent, from August's 3.9 percent.

So a drop of .2 percent over two months is "staying steady", but an increase of .2 percent qualifies as a "spike".

One has to wonder if the Bloomberg has some vested interest in painting a picture of unrelenting gloom here.

The funniest thing about all this? These rates--the "steady" 4.6 percent for Nebraska and the "spike" to 4.1 percent for Lincoln are HALF the unemployment rate for the country as a whole. So these ten-of-a-percent changes that seem so intransigently headed up are in fact changes to a number that most cities in the US would kill for.

Again, one has to wonder....does this sound like news reporting to you?

What I believe -- by Isaac Asimov

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)

Real Life Cognitive Accuracy

The arguments over health care reform have produced a lot of wild claims, some for, lots against. How do we, as average American consumers of health care, distinguish the heat from the light? In this article from the New York Times, Paul Krugman demonstrates one method: look deeper, get more of the story than the headline, consider the numbers, etc.

Krugman addresses three myths he says are "believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin":

1. That Obama's plan is a "government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health." This argument fails on several levels, mainly for a lack of specificity. Krugman responds that two-thirds of the health dollars spent in the US either already comes from the US government or comes out of the pockets of those without health care coverage. Only one-third comes from insurance companies. Did you know that? I didn't! When you have those numbers at hand, the argument about a "take-over" falls apart.

2. That the health care reform bills coming up for a vote "do nothing to cut costs." Krugman notes:

To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.

The problem with this "fact" is that it leaves out the fact that the "slightly higher" spending, about 1% higher than what is predicted if reform fails, would actually include coverage for an additional 35 million Americans! So we pay a tiny bit more and get something closer to universal coverage. What's more, in the second decade after the passage of the current proposed program, the numbers look even better. Sounds like a good deal when you include more facts!

3. That the reform program doesn't pay for itself. This flies in the face of the CBO's report that shows it does in fact pay for itself while increasing coverage for those who need it most. Krugman notes that critics of the program justify this myth by saying that when things get tough, some future Congress will loosen the controls and let the costs rise. But that says nothing about the program, only about Congress, and Krugman notes that this has not happened with cost controls on Medicare--those already enacted have "stuck" despite changes in budgets and revenues.

So there you have it: a real-life exercise in how to read between the lines, or rather, how to read the whole sentence instead of just the part that supports your personal confirmation bias.