Prices are merely signals. Mess with them at your peril.

Prices are signals.  Prices are not good, bad, high, low, right, wrong, inhumane, or incorrect.

Prices are merely prices.

A temperature or pressure gage conveys information about the temperature or pressure of the device or system it is measuring.

If your pressure gage says your tire pressure is low (say 15 psi), and you trust this pressure gage is accurate, you wouldn’t make a rule saying tire pressure shall never fall below 30 psi or grave consequences will ensue.

Instead, you’d find out why the pressure is low.  Then you’d fix it.

People generally accept that prices can be constrained, propped up, kept “affordable,” made “more humane,” or generally adjusted and tweaked by the smart people in the room.

They can’t.

People can (and very often do) mess with prices.  They may mask the downstream consequences for a short time.  Sometimes they get away with it for a while.  But prices always win in the end.

Price Floors

Price floors punish prices that are deemed “too low.”  Bad prices!  Too low!  Honestly, who has ever said that after they have purchased anything, anywhere, at any time in human history?

Well, nobody that buys anything has said that, but plenty of people who are selling something have said it.

Here’s a hint:  Labor is also a price.  Price floors are rampant.  They’re just called minimum wage laws.

Except when it’s labor calling for a price floor, they are forgetting basic economics.  Consider this:

Supply of unskilled labor and demand for unskilled labor is the same as it was yesterday.  Price of unskilled labor increases today.  Less unskilled labor is demanded today.  Supply and demand have not changed.  The quality or productivity of the labor has not changed since yesterday, but the price has increased today.  The very act of increasing the price has decreased the demand.

Another way of saying that the demand for unskilled labor is reduced is to say the unemployment rate of unskilled laborers is increased.

Probably not the intention – but definitely the result.

This can’t be repealed.  You can’t escape it.  You can delay it at best, but prices always win.  You might not like it, but prices, like pressure gages, don’t care what you like.

Prices merely report what they see.

I understand the intentions are noble, but all that happens by increasing the wage an employer must pay their employee is making them at much higher risk of getting no wage at all.  Robotic burger flipping machines don’t just flip burgers:  At a certain wage, they also flip from unaffordable to affordable.

Don’t believe me, ask all the “bottle boys” that now have robots doing their jobs.  Those automated bottle return machines were once the “too expensive” burger flipping robots of their day.

How about the full service gas station attendants?  What about the ushers in movie theaters?  Where did they all go?  Same place.

Price Ceilings

Price controls and “anti-gouging” laws put a ceiling on prices.  Well, at least they try anyway.

Let’s look at when prices get “too high.”

This is often referred to as price “gouging.”  Let’s say a natural disaster strikes some populous area.  Power is out for miles and miles and miles.  Those greedy gas stations then hike their prices up 1000% of what they were before the disaster stuck.  How inhumane!  Let’s make a law against this insidious behavior.  Let’s make it a felony to charge more than (whatever arbitrary number some bureaucrat comes up with) – say 15%.  So instead of gas prices going up 1000% they only go up 15%.

We’re saved!  Hurray!  Gas is still “affordable.”

Except you’re not saved.  You are in fact in very sorry shape – if you need gas that is.  All of the gas is now gone on the very first night and you aren’t getting any gas, for any price, until God knows when.

The high price of gas during a disaster is sending a signal.  This is the signal:   The supply of gas has been cut – indefinitely.  In other words:  We don’t know when we’re going to get any more gas, at any price.  When supply is cut and demand remains the same, the price rises.  Except during a massive power outage, demand has not remained the same.  People still need gas for their cars and their whatnots.  They also need it – and a lot more of it – for their generators.  Demand has in fact increased – substantially.

The high price of gas is sending customers this message.  This – signal – if you will:  Unless you really, really, really need this gas, you might want to wait to buy it.  It encourages say, boat owners to think about a different day to filler’ up for the weekend joyride.  Maybe wait a few days to mow that lawn.  It encourages exactly what should be encouraged during a gas shortage:  Extreme thrift of gas.

Just like when the temperature gage is high on your car, maybe you shouldn’t be racing around like you normally would.  When prices are high, maybe you shouldn’t be buying unless you really, really, really need it.

Here is the other side of the signal this high gas price is sending.  This is the part of the price signal it seems everybody forgets when they want to punish the “gougers.”  This outrageously high price signal is also received by another group:  Gas suppliers.  Here is the signal the gas suppliers see:

Anybody that can get a tanker truck through this nightmarish landscape to my gas station is also going to get paid a LOT of money for the gasoline inside it.  Word of this gets out, and a lot of people suddenly get motived for the daunting task of piloting a tanker truck through downed trees, standing water, washed out roads, downed power lines, or a dozen other things that can easily kill them.  That is exactly what you do what to happen.  As supply is restored – price comes back down.

Risking your very life and limb doesn’t sound like a smart plan for 15% bonus.  Would you do it?  I sure wouldn’t.  Hence no gas at any price.

This is why price ceilings, on any good or service, always and everywhere lead to shortages.  Price floors on any good or service, always and everywhere, lead to surpluses.  It matters not how useful, necessary, life-sustaining or even life-saving you think the good or service is.

You mess with prices, bad things happen.  Push them down – bad things happen.  Prop them up – bad things happen.  There are thousands of ways people try to make prices bend to their will.

To reiterate:  Prices are not good, bad, high, low, right, wrong, inhumane, or incorrect.

Prices are merely prices.  Don’t mess with them.

Prices are merely signals.  Interpret them.  They are telling you a story if you’d bother to look past the headline.

When looking at any price, consider both sides of it.  What signal is it sending to consumers?  What signal is it sending to suppliers?

Prices are smarter than you.  Prices are smarter than me.  Prices are smarter than dozens of economists with impressive credentials from name brand colleges.  Prices are smarter than everybody.

 

Why banning “hate speech” may be the worst idea ever conceived

Let’s start with a premise few in this discussion seem to grasp:

Words can, should, and do have consequences.  I’m not arguing that anybody should like disgusting speech.  Nor am I arguing that anybody should be forced to listen to some whack job.  Note the key word:  Forced.

If someone has paid for a platform, and others have paid to listen, you have no right to keep them from spewing whatever nonsense you believe they are spewing.

No matter how rank, rancid, or repulsive someone’s words seem (to you), that person has every right to say them.  If someone’s beliefs are twisted, psychopathic, or just plain wrong, the only way they are ever going to find out how far off base they are is to share that lunacy with others.

The problem with calling anything “hate speech” is precisely this:  Who decides what is “hate?”

Some of those calling for banning “hate speech” are likely not fans of the current president.  That last sentence is almost certainly a gross understatement.  Do they want him deciding what constitutes hate speech?  Are you going to tell me that with a straight face?

The people calling for these bans obviously haven’t thought this through very far.

Who decides?

I’ll tell you who decides:  The last person you’d ever want deciding will decide.  The biggest bully on the planet will decide.  Your mortal enemy will decide.  Your crazy ex-spouse will decide.  Every time.  Count on it.

Nobody has any right to not be offended.  I’m offended every day by things I read.  I want to maintain my right to be offended.  This allows me to either:

A:  Try to persuade the offensive / “hateful” / crazy person why their views are incorrect, or if that fails:

B:  Stay very far away from the offensive / “hateful” / crazy person and warn my friends and family about them.

There are crazies everywhere.

By banning the crazies from speaking, as some people think a swell idea, we wont know who the crazies are.  We also wont know how many people actually believe the craziness.

Your good intentions have now made it impossible for me to know who might actually be dangerous.  Now – the person I should know to stay away from is invisible to me.

Bravo.

If you haven’t read my previuos articles, know that I don’t care – at all – about your intentions.

Banning “hate speech” (however impossible to define) in some misguided effort to prevent violent actions would work about as well as removing the rattle from a rattlesnake to prevent it from biting you.

It would work about as well as disabling the temperature gauge from your car to prevent your engine from overheating.

It would work about as well as destroying the emergency alert sirens to prevent a nuclear strike.

Speech is a window into what someone believes.  Even if you theoretically could ban speech (hint:  you can’t), the belief remains.  In fact, the belief might grow even stronger by preventing it from being put into words.

When any group, organization, political party, or person wants to limit my access to information, I ask why.  Why do they not want me seeing other information?  Might this other information contradict the information they’d have me believe?  What – their sources are superior to the ones they’re trying to keep me from seeing?  Says who?  Says you?  Who the heck are you?

If you think I can’t handle what some whack job is saying, then that’s your problem.  It is not mine.  If you can’t immediately refute the speech of the person you want to ban me from hearing (without shouting over them), then perhaps you need to reconsider your position.

Maybe, just maybe, you are the whack job.

Telling adults:  “Never listen to this person” will work about as well as telling kids:  “Never look in this drawer.”  Good luck with that.

The aura and mystique of the speech you’re trying to prevent from being heard will be amplified by the very fact that you are trying to prevent people from hearing it.

Actions have consequences.  Think things through past what feel good for a couple hours.

The best remedy for “hate speech” is a well-reasoned critique on why the person writing it is wrong.

Not a personal attack on how ugly they are.

Not a threat to their kids.

Not marching like an idiot while screaming 5 syllable chants that have nothing to do with refuting the position you find incorrect.

Not making fun of their apostrophe misplacement.

Not calling them names that don’t even remotely apply to their position (Antifa – I’m talking to you.  Please look up the actual definition of fascism.)

Not typing in size 96 red font all caps quadruple exclamation point.

Not building up a giant but extremely weak straw-man and slaying it in front of all your adoring fans.

A well-reasoned critique.

Banning “hate speech” will not eliminate the monsters.  It will only make the monsters invisible.

The only thing more dangerous than a monster is an invisible monster.

 

Why most people get more stubborn as they grow older

Being “set in your ways” isn’t just a cliché.  It’s a pretty accurate observation.

The same thing that applies to business applies to long held personal beliefs:

This is the idea of sunk cost.

In business, a project that exposes itself as a money loser will take much longer to be cancelled if a large sum of time and money had already been spent in development and support of it.

Once a project proves irredeemable unprofitable, the amount of money sunk thus far into it should have zero influence on to the decision to cancel it.  None.

This is not how it works in the real world.

There are egos at stake.  People are hesitant to accept responsibility for bad outcomes.  The more money wasted, the less likely people will be willing to accept this responsibility.  Bad projects then become zombies, feasting on, and often killing, the good projects supporting them.

The amount of money spent should not matter.  If you’re 3 years and $10,000,000 in the hole for development and now losing $60,000 per week selling it, you’re losing $60,000 a week.  If you spent nothing and are now losing $60,000 per week selling it, you’re losing $60,000 a week.

The former project is likely to drag on for years.  The latter would be cancelled immediately.

It should not be this way – but it is.

The same goes for why old people are so obstinate:

If you’ve believed something for a few minutes or a few days, your opinion could easily be changed by even plausible evidence to the contrary.

However, if you’ve believed something for years, for decades, or even large fractions of a century, your mind may (and often does) ignore even overwhelming evidence to the contrary because of what this means to your ego:

It means you believed something that was (in retrospect) really stupid, for the majority of your pathetic life.  Yes – I’ve been there.  It is a painful realization.

Many egos can’t take this – so they don’t.  Evidence is ignored.  Rationalizations take hold.  Circles of friends shrink if the newly excluded friends hold the opinion you can’t accept.  Your mind says it can’t be right – so you mind makes sure that it isn’t.  You’ve got enough problems without also having been a sucker for decades, right?

Kids will believe anything you tell them.  If you’re not nice, Santa will not bring you presents.

However, when kids hear there is no Santa Claus, they do eventually accept this.  There is, after all, plenty of plausible evidence to the contrary.

However, when candidate A says candidate B is going to raid your Social Security trust fund, the oldsters will come out in droves to crucify candidate B.

Team red and team blue don’t dare touch this subject.  This is not the elephant in the room.  It is the monster that snacks on elephants in the room.

Kids:  There is no Santa Claus.  No link necessary I trust.

Oldsters:  There is no Social Security trust fund.  There never has been.  The FICA withholdings from your kids’ and grandkids’ paychecks are actually financing your retirement.

I’ve been wrong about more stuff that I’ve been right about.   Also – almost everybody knows something I don’t.

If you think you are so smart you can’t learn anything from anybody, you will die bitter and lonely.  I don’t recommend it.

The likelihood of you changing your mind when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary should not be inversely proportional to how long you’ve believed the specific falsehood.

The amount of time and energy you’ve sunk into a belief should have no bearing on your willingness to change it.  However, this is almost never true.

See also:  What you want to believe should have no bearing on what you should believe.

The monster is real, and it still plans to eat you.  This is still true no matter how tightly you close your eyes.

 

 

Who are “they,” who is “we,” and why would all “communities” think exactly the same way?

The pronouns “they’ and “we” need to take a vacation from rational conversation.

I find myself grouped into “we” and “they” far more often than I’m comfortable with.

This is particularly true when reading stories about political issues.

Last I checked, the only person that speaks for me is me.  Count me out of your we, whatever it is.  We don’t need to do anything.  If it’s so important to you, then why don’t you do something about it.  I never agreed to be part of your we.

Just be careful about fixing it, because you might just make it worse.

Good intentions mean nothing.  How you feel about it means nothing.  How hard you work on it means nothing.  If you make it worse – it’s still your fault.  Be careful “fixing” things you know very little to nothing about.

We and they are divisive terms when applied against those who did not agree to be included.

Here’s the scam, some article says:

“As (insert generic large population group here), we feel …”

See what happened there?  The author is suddenly a spokesman for everybody  in a large population group.  Except he’s not.  At all.  Nobody elected this person spokesman for the entire group.  I sure as heck didn’t.  In fact, I bet not a single person in that group gave this person permission to speak for them.

Starting out statements like that means intellectual dishonesty is approaching.  If you continue reading, you’re wasting your time.

Many people are fooled into thinking that because so many people (the generic large population group) feel this way, the author’s point must be valid.

Except “so many people” don’t feel this way.  Only one person feels this way:  The author.  You’ve been duped.

Even if so many people feel this way – it still doesn’t make it right.  There’s that too.

“They” is most often used with a negative connotation:  Who’s responsible for the latest atrocity?  They are!  Who needs to die?  They do!  Who is taking advantage of you?  Them!  Who doesn’t care?  They don’t!

Demand precision:  First and last names of those responsible, and incontrovertible proof of the compromising or illegal action being alleged.  Motive, means, opportunity, and hard evidence.

The Black community.  The Latino community.  The Irish community.  The White community. The Asian community.  The Arabic community.  The Indian community.  The gay community.  The trans community.

Please stop using the word community as if it means that all people who belong to it think the same way.  If you don’t use it yourself, stop reading articles that pretend to tell you that all “communities” think this way.  They don’t.

Read some history.   Actual books.  Several of them, written by people with differing viewpoints.  Not just an article, or worse, the headline from an article.

Every community has disputes with its own members as much or more than it does with other “communities.”  Heck, more than half the marriages can’t even stay together.  Why would you expect entire communities to come to agreement?

Have you ever heard of a civil war?  Local crime?  Local violent crime?  There is no community.  There never was.  There never will be.

If people within a single community routinely kill each-other over irreconcilable differences, and have throughout the pages of history, how can anyone possibly be a spokesman for an entire “community?”

There are jerks in every community.  This is why I associate myself with none of them.  I am responsible for my actions and mine alone, not those of however you randomly define my “community.”

Common language naturally means you’ll have more in common.  Customs too.  It sure doesn’t mean you agree with everyone that speaks your language.  Nor does it mean you agree with everyone that shares your customs.  That is insane.

As a longstanding member of the white community, I must have missed the invitation to the annual “White guy top priorities” meeting for the last 48 years.

I am not a member of your we, the subject of your they, or member of your community.

My priorities are not yours, nor yours mine.  Stop presuming you have any capacity to speak for me.  I never granted it – so you don’t.

 

 

 

 

Why (besides horrific depreciation) I will never buy another new car

For those that haven’t read the rest of my posts, I work in the automotive industry.  If you all take my advice, I’ll be unemployed (just kidding – nobody actually reads this site).  I’m not so sure that would be a bad thing right now.  There are financial reasons why brand new cars can be a bad idea for some people.  They are a bad financial move for anybody, but some people can afford to make bad financial decisions.

This article is not about that.  It is about the massive and expensive mandatory content of new cars I can’t deal with.

I went into mechanical engineering as a “gearhead” who loved cars.  Past tense intentional.  That was 25 years ago.  They’ve slowly evolved into bloated, disconnected safety cages on wheels and I’m having none of it.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate how good new cars are in terms of quality and reliability.  Even power is better than ever.  The lowest cost ones have more options than the loaded ones did 25 years ago.

They are all also very “safe,” compared to cars 25 years ago.  “Safe” in scare quotes since they are only safer in the event of a collision.  I will argue they are less safe from the point of view that you are more likely to experience a collision in a new car than in a car 25 years ago.

Again, don’t get me wrong:  I have no problem, at all, with “safe” cars.

My problem is this:  All of them have to be safe.

That used to be Volvo’s thing.  Volvo made the cars for people whose primary concern was vehicle safety.  Now – every car has to be a Volvo.  Says who?  Says NHTSA.  Says FMVSS.  You can’t say no to NHTSA.  You can’t say no to FMVSS.  Funny:  I can’t seem to recall when we had the vote to make all new cars just as safe as Volvos or face the death penalty.

Think I exaggerate?

Try building and selling a new car in the United States that doesn’t meet NHTSA’s and FMVSS’ volumes of rules and regulations (again – that nobody voted for) and see what happens next:

If you don’t turn yourself in – men with guns will come for you.  These men will be trained killers.  If you fail to comply with these men – they will kill you.  These men will feel no remorse.  These men will be lauded as heroes by a disconcertingly significant percentage of the population.  I don’t recommend it.

This mandatory “safety” comes at a price:  Weight and cost – enforced at gunpoint.

How much weight you ask?

This much weight:

Fat Cars

You can’t buy a new car without all this expensive, heavy, vision blocking, and almost never actually utilized safety equipment.  But you can:

  • Buy a ’34 Ford with daggers sticking out of the dashboard and drive it on the same roads.
  • Buy one of several 200 mph capable motorcycles and ride it on the same roads.
  • Climb up 3000 ft. sheer rock cliffs with no harness.
  • Cross the street not only without looking both ways, but without looking either way.
  • Drink until you blackout every night.
  • Skydive not only without any backup chute, but with just a piece of junk primary chute.

I could go on – forever.  And ever.  And ever.  You get the point.

If you think the things listed above also need to be banned, then you are the problem.

You are the reason cars cost so much.  You are the reason cars weigh so much.  You are the reason cars don’t get any better gas mileage than they did 25 years ago – despite major efficiency breakthroughs since.  You are the reason for 8 year new car loans.  You are the reason why you can barely see if there is anybody in the crosswalk while making a left turn in any new car.

You are reason why I’ll never buy a new car again.

And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Na-na-na-na-na!

 

Why “just do what you love” is almost always horrible career advice

Parents, don’t lie to your kids.  There are several factors that come into play when deciding a career path:

  1. Do what people are willing to pay for
  2. Do what you are competent at doing
  3. Do what you love

Doing what you love only makes sense if you are competent and people are wiling to pay for it.

Let’s say you are not only competent, but the very best in the world at whatever skill you have. You aren’t, but let’s assume that you are for now.   Let’s further assume you love performing this skill.

It still doesn’t guarantee success.  Life is rough.

If you are doing what you love, but are incompetent,  you are going to go broke by doing what you love.  Stop trying.  Do something else.  It’s OK.  We all stink at almost everything.  Find the thing you don’t stink at.  Start there.

Nobody cares what you love.  Nobody cares what you are competent at doing.  They only care what you can do for them.  Nobody owes you anything – stop thinking they do.

Almost everybody has unlimited wants, but only enough money to satisfy a very small fraction of them.  You are competing with every other thing people want or need.  You’ve got some stiff competition.

Ask yourself:  Do I owe some harebrained business that just opened up down the block for God only knows what reason my hard earned dollars?  When you answer honestly, you answer no.  No.  You don’t owe them anything.

Then why to you think they owe you?  “They” owe you nothing.  By purchasing from you, they are foregoing all the rest of their unlimited wants or needs and instead buying from you.

When you have a skill that relatively few people (or increasingly, robots) can do, and people are willing to pay for it, you are in decent shape.  Even if you hate it, don’t dismiss it.  Be careful hating your job too much.  There’s a reason you get a paycheck.  It’s not supposed to be rainbows and unicorns all the time.

That’s why they’re called colleagues, not necessarily friends.

Your employer thinks hiring you will add more money to their bottom line.  That’s why they hired you.  If they are a smart employer, it’s the only reason they hired you.  They’d like to pay you nothing, but have to pay you about what people who can do what you can do are being paid.  Otherwise – you’d go down the street to their competition and be paid more.

You think the amount of money you are being paid by your employer is better than what you could get from their competition down the street.  That’s why you work there.  If you are a smart employee, it’s the only reason you work there. You’d like to paid a lot more, but you have to settle for about what people who do what you can do are being paid.  Otherwise – you’d go down the street to their competition and be paid more.

Notice the common theme here:  The business and the employee side of the story both end in the same sentence.

The biggest mistake people make is thinking that this relationship is employer vs. employee.  This is absolutely wrong.  It is employee vs. employee and employer vs. employer.

Employees dream about an interview where they are the only applicant.

Employers dream about a business where they are the only employer in town.

Both your greedy dreams are squashed by competition.

Deal with it.

Company A is not at war with Joe in accounting.  Company A is at war with company B.

Joe in accounting is not at war with company A.  Joe, who holds a degree in accounting,  is at war with Janice, who holds a degree in accounting.

If you actually find something that people are willing to pay for, that you are competent at doing, and you love doing, you’ve hit the lottery.  Almost nobody gets this.  It is sad but true.

Nobody should plan on hitting the lottery.  Hence the title of this blog.

 

 

Beware of charts that are trying to make you outraged, afraid, or sell you something

We’ve all seen them:  Articles with charts expressing how “We really need to do something about A!”  Any moron looking at this chart can tell you that A causes B.  Case closed.  Double burned.  Owned.  Fact-checked.

To use an example from the link:  We really need to eliminate U.S. spending on science, space, and technology!  Any moron can tell you that U.S. spending on science, space, and technology causes suicides by hanging, strangling, and suffocation.

Or maybe it’s suicides by hanging, strangling, and suffocation causing increased U.S. spending on science, space, and technology?

For a decade, these were correlated over 99.7%.  That correlation level is unheard of – even for stuff we know for certain is correlated 100%.

Correlation does not equal causality.  To prove causality, you absolutely need correlation.  This is true.  However, just because you have correlation doesn’t mean anything at all.  You have correlation eh?  Good for you.  You want a cookie with that correlation?

To believe correlation = causality is to believe everyone with the opportunity to murder someone must have murdered them.  They all did it:  The coworker,  The FedEx driver.  The spouse.  The gas station clerk.  Colonel Mustard.  All of ’em.

The media loves to play this trick on people.  Just because someone is on TV, wears nice clothes, speaks well, is passionate, and may even be attractive, doesn’t mean they understand statistics – at all.  Every reporter should have to learn this, but I’m afraid almost none do.

It may be too harsh saying they are “playing tricks,” because many truly believe what they are reporting.  Many are even passionate about it.  When people believe the lie they are propagating, that makes it all the more convincing for the rest of us.

You don’t have to be a good actor when you actually believe the lie you are reporting.

Most charts are trying to make you angry, afraid, or sell you something.  This correlation and causality can fool you – especially when they seem somehow related.

I read this somewhere but can’t remember who to credit, but here is the paraphrase:

Lets say you see a shocking graph showing a high correlation of people who live near high power transmission lines with cancer.  Therefore:  Power lines cause cancer.  Sorry – not so simple:

High power transmission lines are considered an eyesore.  This is not controversial.  Therefore, houses near high power transmission lines sell for less that those without them.  Lower income people generally buy lower cost houses.  This is also not controversial.  Lower income people, on average, also have more unhealthy habits that higher income people, on average.  I’m not saying all, person about to “burn” me with the all caps quadruple exclamation point comment.  Take it easy:  Step away from the caps lock button.

So is it the unhealthy habits or the power lines (or something completely unrelated to either) that’s giving them cancer?

You need more data to know anything.  You need to look at multiple variables to know anything.  A single variable “study” is for suckers.  Your one, single variable chart doesn’t prove a darn thing.

If your variable is people, then it gets even tougher.  Each person has a unique history.  Say you are measuring the impact of (for example) drug A on health characteristic B.  Group C is on placebo and group D is on drug A.

Group C has many people with unhealthy habits.  Group D has few people with unhealthy habits.  The people running the studies ask about health habits though questionnaires, but can’t possibly cover them all.  The people answering the questionnaires may be honest or they may lie.  The people answering may not remember.  Each person has a unique, little known  genetic history and lives in unique, little known environmental conditions as well.

In the end, the group on drug A (group D) had 3x as many favorable results as group C, on placebo.  Therefore:  Drug A is 300% as effective as placebo at improving health characteristic B.  “Ask your doctor about expensive drug A!”

Lunacy.

Comparing one person to the next to try to predict what effect A has on their health, behavior, or other trait is challenging to put it mildly.  If a human study is not also double blind, then it is utterly useless.

I’m not saying all medical studies are useless, but you need to look at far more than a single variable to determine anything at all.  Show me a dozen different variables.  They better all point the same direction.  The variables studied on one should ideally have financial interests opposite the financial interests of the variables studied on the other.

When that happens, and they’re both pointing the same direction, then you’ve got my interest.  Then I might consider investigating further.  Until you show me this, I don’t care what your study says.

Also – You must be able to document, for each data point:

  • Where was it gathered?
  • Was the instrumentation collecting each data point the same as the rest?
  • Was the instrumentation calibrated?
  • Did the environment around the instrumentation change over time?
  • If the environment around the instrumentation changed over time, does it impact the data?
  • What is the error band around each data point?
  • Are you are looking at raw data or smoothed data?
  • If smoothed data, how was smoothing applied?
  • Were there any “adjustments” performed?
  • If so, why was the data “adjusted?”

And in general:

  • Who paid for the data to be collected?
  • Does the data collector have a vested interest in the data pointing a certain direction?
  • Is the data collector employed by someone who has a vested interest in the data pointing a certain direction?
  • Who benefits (or is harmed) if I believe this?
  • Who benefits (or is harmed) if I don’t?
  • Why was the starting date chosen (for data changes over time)?
  • Why was the end date chosen (for data changes over time)?

Until you know all these things, you really don’t know anything about that chart.  You have absolutely no business being outraged by it, let alone protesting about it.

You don’t know anything and neither do I.  Quit being a sucker who believes you actually do.

Do you know who’s smarter than you?  You – 5 years from today.  Do you know who gets it wrong more often than not?  Most people.  Even most “smart” people.

See:  Salem witch trials.  Bloodletting.  Leeches.  Cocaine as a miracle drug.  The Nazi party.  All manner of religious persecutions over time.

The cool kids are stupid.  Stay away from them.  Don’t even let the smart kids tell you what to think.  They get it wrong an awful lot.  Think for yourself.