Books ...

Some Great Books I've Read Recently:
Predictably Irrational
Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness

Some books I want to read
Buyology: Truth and Lies about Why We Buy
Call of the Mall
Guesstimation: Solving the World's Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin
Impossible?: Surprising Solutions to Counterintuitive Conundrums
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
The Logic of Life
Don't Believe Everything You Think
Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things
Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)
Innumeracy
Irreligion
Crimes Against Logic
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong
Gut Feelings
The Black Swan
The Two Headed Quarter
Thinking and Deciding
More Damned Lies and Statistics
Statistics and Data Analysis: From Elementary to Intermediate
Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart

Open Letter to Vikings Owner Zygi Wilf

Dear Mr. Wilf:

Yes, I know how the sunk cost effect and commitment/consistency theory make it difficult for you to pull the plug on Mr. Dead Man Walking (oops, I meant Mr. Childress). But, please have some pity on Mr. I Just Need to Play Better (a.k.a Mr. Tarvaris Jackson) and put a merciful end to their suffering? And, it may just minimize the misery of another lost season for us Vikings fans.

Actually, you know what terrifies me more than a string of losses this year? A string of wins this year. I am dreading the idea of your continued support for a clueless coach (and let’s not forget his “system”) and an incompetent QB instead of stopping the bleeding right now. I worry that you will feed this team some hemorrhaging medicine that results in a few victories in a row so they end up with a spectacular 9-7 season. Then, what if they somehow make the playoffs. Isn’t it going to be so much harder to fire them then? Why not rip the Band-Aid off now and give all of us some shred of hope for next year?

Let’s give credit where it is due. First, I am sure that Mr. Childress DOES have a brilliant offensive “system.” Too bad it is a LOSING SYSTEM. Second, I am sure that Mr. Jackson is the physical prototype of an NFL QB. Too bad that most of his muscle is between his ears. Third, let’s talk about prized free-agent signing, Mr. Bernard Berrian. Yes, I am sure he is fast. Too bad he’s so fast that his right foot managed to trip up his left foot on the one deep pass that poor Mr. Jackson tried to throw. Finally, let’s talk about the other prominent signing recommended by Mr. Childress. Yes, the guy who dropped the eminently catchable pass in the end zone against the Colts. Visanthe … Wait, isn’t his nickname “Vise-Grip” Shiancoe? ‘Nuff said.

Mr. Wilf, you nobly backed coach Childress when he asked you to open up your pocketbook and pay a fortune for big-name free agent signings. Your loyalty was impressive when you trusted coach Childress who claimed that he had the skill to identify and groom a top notch quarterback in Tarvaris Jackson. I saw you smiling and nodding your head when you stood beside the coach as he talked about how improved Jackson was and how ready he is to lead the offense this year.

Sorry to sound pedantic, but attribution theory (see Kelley 1967) suggests that when consistency is high (Childress’ coaching performance is equally incompetent in different game situations and over multiple years), distinctiveness is low (Childress’ displays the same ineptitude in every phase of the game – whether it be offensive pass effectiveness or defensive pass coverage – and against any team he plays), and consensus is low (other teams – even ones that perform pathetically against other teams – look like superstars against a Childress-coached Vikings), it is reasonable to make an internal attribution (the cause of the failure is Childress). Kelley (1967) says that when the information available forms such a pattern, a clear attribution can be made to the “actor” (Childress). My guess is that a simple analysis of the pattern of information relating to Tarvaris Jackson will also allow you to make a clear attribution as to his role in this fiasco. Given coach Childress’ degree in psychology, this research may actually be familiar to him.

Perhaps I can appeal to your sense of outrage to overcome the normal resistance to going back on your “support” for coach Childress. You gave this man everything he wanted in order to build a contending team today. It is clear you opened your pocketbook to buy him all the toys he could demand to make his mysterious “system” work. Given that his system (which seems to basically consist of carefully concealing his mouth so no one steals his electric plays) has been given many opportunities to prove itself and he cannot blame it on a lack of talented players, maybe it is time to question whether the system works. In fact, how about we even question whether there IS a system in the first place. You know what, I suspect the reason coach Childress covered his mouth when relaying plays is because he wanted to hide the fact that he hadn’t come up with a single play yet! I can imagine coach Childress covering his mouth and muttering “Okay, I’ve got my mouth covered, you think anyone knows that I don’t have any brilliant play thought up yet? What can we do? Hey, how about having our superstar speedster Adrian Peterson run up the middle? Make sure you ask him to find the thickest part of the pile up and run straight towards it with his head down?” Poor Adrian probably hasn’t been executing the way he has been asked to execute by the coach.

Coach Childress loves to say “we’re always looking to put the personnel on the field that give us the best chance to win.” Maybe you should gently suggest to him that he stay home one of these Sundays?

Driving Me To Drink!

Imagine you have a 20-year-old son. Now, you're having a party at home and need a 12-pack of beer to re-stock the refrigerator. Your son drives up, returning from school and you run out, hop in the car and ask him to take you to the liquor store so you can buy some beer for your party. You get to the store and hop out and pick up some beer while your son stays in the car bobbing his head to the rock band playing on the radio. You grab the beer, put it in the trunk and slide into the passenger's seat and ask your son to take you home.

Re-read that paragraph above and imagine yourself as the Dad in that situation.

Did you realize that you have just committed an illegal act?

Bizarre as it may seem, it appears that driving someone (who is of legal drinking age) to a liquor store if you are underage is illegal. Notre Dame quarterback, Jimmy Clausen found that out when he was arrested as he was waiting outside in his car while his 23-year-old friend bought some liquor at a store. He said he was just driving his friend to the store and the arresting officers admit that there was no evidence that the liquor was for any minor consumption. Still, they arrested him, charged him with the offense, and had him pay a fine of $170.

I don't get it. Sometimes we go so crazy over protecting our kids from drinking that we reach ridiculous extremes. You can read the full story on ESPN here.

Trust No One

Have you ever heard of a kid who averages 89% on quizzes, tests, and projects but gets a D in the class because his average on homework assignments is a pathetic 39%?

Why? Most homework assignments were not turned in and the rest were turned in late!

How can that be? I don't get it. Isn't it reasonable to expect some effort at ensuring that the homework gets done on time and is done correctly?

Trapping Child Sex Offenders

Okay, so let's start with the basic premise over which there is no disagreement - pedophiles are scum. How desperate can you be that you can't find a consenting adult for your sex?

But, that's not the point of the post. The other excellent article in Rolling Stone is about this group called Perverted Justice that along with Dateline NBC is trying to trap these sexual predators into situations where they can be arrested and thrown in jail. Now that sounds like a perfectly admirable and laudable effort on the surface. However, the article is unnerving in terms of the lengths these guys go to in order to trap these people. Further, it makes the interesting point of whether all this money and effort is really being targeted at the people most likely to harm children. Ninety percent of the people caught in their nice little made for TV show have no rap sheet for sex offenses or arrest record of any kind. If you watch the show, it almost seems like some of these people have been tempted into these situations by pushy pretenders. Further, interestingly, by focusing on these online stranger encounters, attention is diverted from the real danger - not strangers, but family & friends. Looking at data on reported sex offenses, over ninety percent of perpetrators of child sex abuse are known to the child.

Apparently, there is already some increasing concern about this show that cloaks itself in virtue and morality. And, if the article is to be believed (who knows how biased the reporting is in the article), the leader of the movement is a strange dude himself - not someone I want my kids hanging out with.

You can read the full article by Vanessa Grigoriadis here.

If You Don't Support Corn Ethanol, You Must be a Terrorist!

There were a couple of outstanding articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine that are worth reading. One is about Ethanol as a substitute fuel and the other (which I may discuss in a later post) is about Dateline's show To Catch a Predator. Both are excellent because they reasonably and rationally build arguments that buck the conventional wisdom. Think due process and legal protection are worth sacrificing to catch potential pedophiles? Think again - if you want to bother considering where those resources could be better spent to achieve the broader goal of protecting children.

But, let's focus now on corn-based Ethanol - the biofuel that's going to save the earth! According to former CIA Director John Woolsey, "American farmers, by making a commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." Here are some quick facts from the article - summarized here for your protection:

• Last month, the Senate mandated the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.
• Corn is today the most subsidized crop in America (getting twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans). Ethanol is further subsidized (including a 51-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners)
• Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5% of our gasoline consumption, but consumer 20% of the entire U.S. corn crop.
• The resulting increase in the price of corn means ...
• ...devoting more acreage to the production of corn (less land for other staple crops)
• ...giving incentive for South American farmers to destroy more tropical forests for corn fields
• Even corn growers admit that turning more grain into fuel would disrupt global food supplies.
• Ethanol's energy density (how much power you can generate from a certain amount of the fuel) is one-third less than gasoline.
• Since it has a tendency to absorb water, it can't be transported by pipelines, but must use truck or rail, which is inefficient and results in an increase in consumption of fossil fuels for delivery.
• When you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, transport, refine and grow corn into usable ethanol, its energy balance is 1.3-to-1 (the energy balance of gasoline is 5-to-1). Huge amount of fossil fuels are burned to produce corn.
• When corn ethanol is burned in automobiles, it is as "dirty" as conventional gasoline and does not help global warming.
• Even if ethanol producers manage to hit the mandated 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, that will replace only 7% of our current oil needs.
• Even if you were willing to give up ALL corn consumption and devote 100% of the U.S. corn crop for making ethanol, it would replace only 12% of current gasoline use. Ethanol is not the magic bullet to free us from dependence on foreign oil.
• Runoff from industrial-scale cornfields silts up the Mississippi river creating the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.
• Creating the equivalent of one SUV fill-up of pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn - enough calories to feed one person for a year.
• The increased devotion of corn to ethanol production has resulted in massive increases in the price of poultry , beef, and pork as farmers can't afford the corn to feed the animals.
• The biggest corporate beneficiary of corn subsidies and related tax breaks, ADM has cozy link to ethanol supporting politicians.
• The closer we get to the Iowa primary, the greater the rush among politicians to publicly shout their support for corn ethanol.

So forget the fact that ethanol is bad for the environment, does not help with global warming, does not reduce dependence on foreign oil (and may actually increase it), and may leave more of the world's poorest hungry. Because, as our friendly, caring politicians will let you know, if you don't support corn ethanol, you obviously hate our country, you unpatriotic SOB!

I urge you to read the full article in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell, here.

How Can You Absolutely Ensure We'll All Be OK?

Speaking of the Minnesota bridge collapse, I really need to chill sometimes. I don't know why idiocy bugs me so much. I've got to learn to tune it out!

I was at the Doctor's office on Friday and the TV was turned to CNN. A pretty blonde was interviewing the Secretary of Transportation. She asked such ridiculous questions that I felt like jumping up and yelling at the TV asking the woman to just shut up. However, I was luckily able to restrain myself and didn't alarm any of the elderly patients sitting in the lounge with me. Still, I was incensed enough to quickly write down the dumb questions on a sheet of paper (is that a normal response to being incensed?). Here's some of what the pretty blonde (PB) asked "What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?" (PB actually emphasized the word "ensure" even tapping her pen on the table to make the point) and "Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?" Remember, PB was not interviewing some dimwitted joe blow on the street with these questions - they were directed at the Secretary for Transportation! I know I could never hold public office because my responses to these questions would not have been as polite as Madam Secretary. Even if I'd managed to control myself, it may have gone something like this:

PB: What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?
ME: Well, PB, if you're so confident you can absolutely ensure (in a tone that mocks hers) that a future event does not happen, we'd love to employ you in our government. Perhaps I should ask what you are doing to ensure (continued mocking tone) that your vehicle does not fail tonight. In fact, I'm curious to know what you have done to ensure (mocking tone) that your jacket doesn't crumble while you are on the air embarrassing yourself and the network. To be serious, PB, we will do all we must to reduce the likelihood that such events don't happen again. I would argue the fact that this is such a rare and tragic event underscores that we're doing a good job of minimizing that likelihood. Do you realize how many bridges there are in this country and how many cars travel over these bridges every day? How about you calculate the likelihood of a bridge collapse causing a fatality. Surely there are more likely dangers we also need to focus our attention and resources on? Speaking of more likely dangers, I'd love to know what you've done to ensure (even more mocking tone) you or your family are not killed by lightning this week. But, I go on too long. I'd like to hear your next question.

PB: Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?"
ME: Well, PB, what else do you suggest should draw attention to the condition of bridges? Didn't you answer your question in your question? The very fact that you want attention (point emphasized by tapping a pen on the camera) drawn to something means that something has to happen to draw attention to it. The point, I think you are trying to make is whether this tragedy was preventable. And that is worthy of investigation. However, all of us are constantly making trade-offs between protecting our lives and reasonably getting on with things. By sitting under those heavy, hot studio lights, PB, you have essentially made the decision that the likelihood of those lights falling and killing you right now is not large enough for you to avoid sitting where you are and getting on with your job. A more intelligent question for you to have asked is: Could we reasonably have predicted this bridge collapsing at that time? Current indications are that the answer to that question is NO.

PB: Uh, well. I guess that's all ... We now take you to an interview with a victim of the collapse who was in a car when the bridge fell out from underneath her. Maam, how did you feel when you realized the bridge under you was collapsing?
ME: (muttering in the background assuming the mic is off) Dimwit!