You're WELCOME, world.

You're welcome, for helping elect the distinguished senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, as President of the United States.

For the last several weeks, in what free time I had, I volunteered at the South Philadelphia Obama campaign headquarters. Normally, I don't get involved in politics, but this time was different. I cared because in the past eight years, I witnessed our country go from being a beacon of hope to being the world's most defiled nation, hated and scorned by nearly everyone. While there are a number of reasons for this, most can be traced back to the irresponsible actions of the George W. Bush administration.

It was most clear to me in 2004, when I was living in Kyoto, Japan, and a stumbled into an Iraq War protest. I have always been against all form of war, and was particularly confused about the Iraq war, because I never quite understood its necessity. But a group of Japanese approached me, trying to pick a fight, asking me if I am an American. Quickly, I responded in Japanese, "No, I am from Europe. I can't stand America."

I said those words. At the time, only one of them was a lie.

But I went back to my Japanese apartment and cried - literally. There was part of me I saw slipping - a patriotic side that respected the nation and saluted the flag. And in that moment, I spat on my country just to get out of a confrontation. I opened my computer and emailed my republican senator Rick Santorum, a notorious conservative Pennsylvanian who earned the nickname "Smegma" - that thanks to the republican neoconservative war, I am no longer proud to be an American. He must not have cared - I never received a response.

I couldn't stand what America had become - hawkish and arrogant, unilateral and imposing, unnecessarily menacing and fearful. Within America, I saw changes too. Just to take one small example, I saw in my own field that fewer and fewer scientific articles were published by authors at American Universities. To take another example, I watched as bridges collapsed and crushed unfortunate Americans. To take another example, I saw housing prices increase at insane and irrational levels, with no one stopping to question whether a humdrum 3 bedroom colonial in Florida should REALLY be worth 1.5 million dollars.

I stood by as America became an unrecognizable and bizarre country. Then we began to see the meteoric rise of Barack Hussein Obama. I knew Obama from my days at the University of Chicago, where I was a student. I'd pass him on campus, recognizing him from the cover of the book he wrote, which I saw on the shelves of the Coop bookstore. I thought at the time. He once came into a restaurant I was at and shook everyone's hand at my table, sitting down with us and asking for our support. I told him I was a student and registered in another state. He said, "Too bad, but it doesn't mean you can't stop by my campaign office and work for the cause." (I never did, and kick myself now for that lack of judgment...who knows what governmental post I might have gotten if I joined in those early days). People would always talk about this Obama guy, and I didn't really think much of the talk at the time because the guy was a state senator. "Big deal"

Boy was I wrong. I watched his speech during the 2004 campaign and thought, "damn." There was always speculation that he would run for office, but there was always a big mountain in the way: Hillary Clinton and her political machine. I watched the primary with great interest, although I was ambivalent - I wanted both Hillary and Obama as president, because I think the nation needed a symbol of what that represents: equality of gender, equality of race. But it was not to be. Obama somehow battled his way, gaining the support of African-Americans who pundits believed did not see Obama as one of their own, and prevailed. History spoke.

I am not much into politics but I would have continued to have sat in the sidelines but for one factor that mobilized me to action. You know what is coming.

The nomination of Sarah Palin. As an east coast elitist quasi-intellectual, I look at Palin and see her for what she is - someone who thinks Africa is a country, who can't name the signatories of NAFTA. Someone who can't even dredge up the Dred Scott Supreme Court case that legalized slavery in the territories in the 1850s as an example of a decision she would disagree with. Someone who can't name a single newspaper when asked what she reads, and subsequently blames her ignorance on her frustration at the question.

THAT Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin represents an American concept that disgusts me: exceptionalism. Exceptionalism, to me, is the notion that we as Americans are exceptional without having the excellence to back it up. It is a philosophy adopted by many Americans in their inflated self-esteem and self-indulgence that places the Joe the Plumbers and Tito the Builders as heroes, as if they are any different from the plumbers anywhere. The only difference is probably that in Japan, a plumber who says they will show up at noon comes not one minute late, unlike the American plumber I called a few months ago who failed even to show up, resulting in my having to run down the street to the corner wine bar to pee for a night. Exceptionalism is a philosophy that places dangerously unqualified people like Sarah Palin in dangerously powerfully positions of authority.

When McCain chose Palin, I read her biography, almost vomited, donated money to the Obama campaign, found where the nearest Obama headquarters was, left my apartment, slammed my door, walked to the Obama campaign headquarters, walked up to the first person I saw and said "use me."

I did a whole bunch of things while volunteering for the campaign, none of it very intellectual, but that was okay. I sat on South Street, asking people if they were registered to vote. I personally registered over 150 people, increasing my vote from 1 to 151. Other days I manufactured pins using the button-making machine (which was fun! I used to joke that I felt like I was in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but no one, except for an economics professor I met understood that joke! What? Me? Elitist?) Other days I knocked door to door, handing out information. Other days I entered data from people who had knocked on doors. Some days I would spend the whole day working, others I spent just a few hours.

And an amazing thing happened. People would come up to me, and thank me for what I was doing. A big guy in a military uniform approached - I thought he was going to knock out my teeth - but he shook my hand and said that as a member of the military he was unable to volunteer for a political campaign but that he's voting for Obama because the war in Iraq is hell. People would shake my hand while I sat at the table and ask if I wanted a coffee from the shop next door. They would high five me, chanting "GoBaMa!"

In my real life as an academic, I write journal articles that maybe a handful of people actually read, tiny and unseen bricks in the wall of knowledge. No one ever writes, "Thank you for that great chapter" - you send your work into the world, and the reaction is typically silence. But here, African Americans, Hispanics, Caucasians, whoever, would come in the office and say, in their own way, "use me." From perfect strangers, we would work on a common cause, however trivial it might seen, in order to elect a leader who doesn't see the world through a narrow ideological lens, and who not only knows that Africa is a continent, but has expressed enough interest in the place to visit the place.

In the end, I don't know in exactly what way my help changed the nature of this campaign, and I doubt that it was my individual influence that was the critical straw that broke the camel's back. Pennsylvania was won by far more votes than doors I knocked or pins I handed out.

But in the end, it was not just ME, but a city, and a state, and a nation of WEs, all of us who were so enraged at the status quo and the anti-intellectualism Palin represents collectively slamming the doors of our apartments and yelling ENOUGH! ENOUGH of this collective self-loathing of being American, ENOUGH of these collective excuses of being from Europe, ENOUGH of this Republican bullshit...America, WE ARE TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK. And we did, door by door, pin by pin, excel spreadsheet by excel spreadsheet...we who believed in change, created change we believed in.

I met many great people along the way. Juan, Matt, Sula, Greg, Seth - a whole community of people who like me, could not accept someone like Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and one finger press away from nuclear annihilation. Who were desperate for change.

There are those who question change as an empty promise, and in some ways it lacks solvency in itself. But what change means is something more fundamental and ephemeral, something that motivates the spirit. It means adopting a new philosophy for negotiating the challenges of the 21st century, something George Bush utterly failed to do. It means negotiating with words rather than with bombs. It means that instead of running off of a cliff, our nation may somehow redeem itself, reenter the 21st century, and reverse the course of history. It will be a tough mountain for all of us to climb, but I imagine the view is breathtaking and worth the work.

Election day volunteering

My last volunteer effort was to help manage lines at the polls. I found that unlike in other cities, Philadelphia does a pretty good job of managing elections (who would have thought?) Here are a few of the events of the days, via youtube, for posterity. note that I didn't try and make the best videos for an academy award - these are just some snapshots.

My friend Matt calls me from our poll at 7 AM, saying there is a long line and he needs help. I get there and there are lots of people waiting, so I go to a local coffee shop to get coffee. The coffee shop girl gives me a whole huge coffee dispenser full of coffee for free. There was a 45 minute wait.

Lines subside. There were no further lines during the day so we stood there handing out free coffee and doughnuts. I got to vote at my own polling station.

This is the polling place I was helping at. The guy electioneering was some republican who was described variously as "creepy" or "insane" - too bad he only garnered 55 votes against several hundred for his democratic opponent:



At some point a bunch of children walked by, chanting "Don't forget to vote!"



We waited all day and until 8 PM for lines to show up, but we knew they wouldn't because by noon, already about 2/3rds of registered voters had already voted. At 8 PM, they closed the polls.




Afterwards, Matt and I went to his girlfriend house, we had Vietnamese hoagies, and went to a local tavern where many people seemed to be filling in.

We watched as they called Pennsylvania and Virginia. We knew at that point that Obama had won (McCain would have had to win California for that to happen), but they did not announce the winner until 11 o'clock. Watch the reaction in South Philly when CNN calls the election:



We did not watch history last night, we MADE history last night, one button, one door, one vote at a time.

You're welcome, world. I'm an American, and I am once again proud to admit it.

Obama WILL NOT win Philadelphia so say window signs.

In the past few days, I have gone around counting political campaign signs in my neighborhood in Philadelphia. The purpose was to see whether the number of signs in the neighborhood would predict the election. Now - this was shoddy science - I know that this is a big country, and that a small sample of signs in the windows of some streets in Philadelphia is no way to call an election. But that was going to be my point.

But understand: I live in South Philadelphia, home of the Phillies Stadium and most of the neighborhood consists of hard core Phillies fans, the type who go to the games even as the Phillies are losing, which they have a long history of doing.

However, this year, the Phillies are most decidedly NOT losing - in fact, last night, they won the world series - the first time in 28 years. I walked to Broad Street after the win, where tens of thousands of fans literally were hooting and hollering well into the night, and woke up this morning to overturned newspaper boxes and almost every passerby wearing Phillies sweatshirts. It was an electric experience, and perhaps a once or at most twice in a lifetime event.

But in walking around, looking for campaign signs, I found that if I didn't know better, there was a third candidate for the general election for president, someone with the name "Phillies" who must be running in the election because his signs are literally everywhere. So the final tally of signs resulted in the following:

Obama signs: 135
McCain signs: 17
Phillies signs: 197

That's it. Sorry, distinguished senators from Arizona and Illinois - this guy Phillies has won in an electoral landslide! Who would have thought that a third-party candidate would have struck such a home run in this largely democratic section of the city of Brotherly Love? Maybe Chase Utley?

The social psychology of campaign signs

Recently, I have been volunteering a bit for one of the presidential candidates in the 2008 general election. A few weeks ago, people were approaching me at the campaign office requesting window signs so that they could show their support for the candidate. Unfortunately, we didn't have any at the office where I was working. People were devastated and desperate for these political signs, in no small part due to the historic nature of this election season, and also, for psychological reasons associated with the psychology of our political climate, on which I admit I am not an expert.

So I ask one of the head volunteers whether we could get some signs. This volunteer is a University of Pennsylvania student. Now, I have to admit I used to be an academic elitist. I thought that the fact that I was educated at THE University of Chicago meant that I was some kind of genius and could make carte blanche statements about just about anything. Penn is a very similar institution - Penn students think that because they are Penn students, the world should bow to them and that their farts smell like roses. I know better.

"The campaign doesn't want to waste resources with signs. Research shows that signs don't work."

Really? So for a while, I told people that they could go to the campaign website and print out signs as pdf files. People weren't convinced. "More money has been spent this year than any other, and you can't print signs? This is ridiculous." "I donated $100 to your campaign and I can't even have a sign? Go to hell." "I will stop by every day until you get them in." I didn't know that people were so connected with their political signs, but it was getting so bad that I went to kinkos and printed 100 xeroxed pages so these people would have something to put up in their damn windows. I ran out within an hour.



Later, I looked into how this research was conducted. Apparently, pollsters go around asking people questions like, "What factors were important to you in your decision to vote for X candidate." People then rank ordered the importance of the various factors. Somewhat unsurprisingly, people ranked things like the Iraq war and the economy very high. They ranked window signs near the bottom. Why not? People don't think they would be influenced by something as ridiculous as a little sign on one's lawn! Based on this evidence, the researchers concluded that candidate window signs were not effective in persuading people to vote for a particular candidate, and so people in the campaign have not provided signs.

This is also why, in my research methods courses, I am somewhat critical of a lot of survey research. Simply put, people don't understand themselves. Now this may seem elitist and pompous for me to say, and I don't mean it to be this way. I too, don't understand myself, at least in how I think and make decisions. When you ask me what 2 + 2 equals, I have no idea how I come up with the correct answer of 4. What influenced me to say 4 and not 5? I don't know. I can't see my thought processes, and I can hardly fathom them. I know something is going on up there, but I have no idea how it works. Much of psychology since behaviorism has been about illuminating those processes that work up there, and we're not all that much closer now than we were when we started.

So I don't know how I know that 2 + 2 = 4. Then how on earth will I know what factors, of the thousands of factors, that influence me to vote for a particular candidate? How am I supposed to remember all the many times I thought of economic issues, or thee Iraq war, or window signs I passed. Humans have limited processing capacity - although we spend our lives convincing ourselves otherwise. We take mental shortcuts, or heuristics, or we trust our gut over trusting our minds.



This all reminds me of two clever experiments. The first is a classic, performed by Solomon Asch (who spent part of his career at Penn, incidentally). Asch ran an experiment in which he had a naive participant come into a room. Then two confederates (actors) walk in who pretend to be other participants. Asch then shows the three lines that vary in length, and asks the participants to determine which is the longest.The two actors say that the medium sized line is in fact the largest, and far more often than not, the naive participant ends up agreeing with them, even though the line is clearly shorter.

The second is a more recent study by Robert Cialdini, of Arizona State University. He has one person standing below a high rise, staring up at the building. No one stops and looks up. But get a group of 2 or 3 people to be staring up at the top of the high rise, and suddenly you find scores of passersby stopping and looking up, wondering what the heck the original few were staring at.

What's my point here? Well, people are influenced by things they don't even recognize they are being influenced by. So when you ask the guy in the Asch experiement, he doesn't necessarily understand that the opinions of the others are tacitly influencing his perception of the length of the line. And second, that it is possible that a few window signs on each block might convince several other people on the block to look up and put a window sign up, or even vote for the candidate in question.

There is a lot of poorly designed research out there. There has to be - if not, there would be very little demand for researchers to improve upon what we know. But the first step in evaluating the world is to begin by noticing patterns. If every person who stops by a campaign office is asking for window signs, but you have some research report by some pollster showing that window signs are not very effective, then maybe you need to reevaluate whether the research report is in fact valid. Scientists are in the business of possibly being wrong. For no other reason than the fact that any result may be due to chance, or that some finding occurs because you don't have the tools necessary to evaluate your hypothesis.

But what disappointed me the most was the Penn student's response. "People are so stupid. Perhaps if they wern't such cows they would realize that their stupid window signs don't make an ounce of difference. It is so infuriating."

Tell that to the woman to contributed $100 and only wants, in return, a sign that costs less than a cent to manufacture. The worst thing a scientist can do is attribute a phenomenon to the stupidity of the participants. None of us should be presumptuous to have the intellect of a messiah, and we should always be both respectful, as well as skeptical, of any scientific finding. Just ask this guy:

What is chance?

Recently, I had a long conversation with my good friend Dave Falcone. Dave is a professor of psychology at LaSalle University, and it was his developmental psychology course that I took as a high school senior (as part of a program in which high school students could take a few courses at a local college) that was my first psychology course. As history had it, I ended up becoming a psychology professor myself, and we get together from time to time to discuss a variety of issues, usually at local restaurant Cocos, on 8th street in the heart of the jewelry district in Philadelphia.

Our conversations ramble as good conversations should, from topic to topic ranging from the politics of academia to Emerson's concept of nature. The other day, our discussion somehow stumbled upon the question of what is chance.

Chance is hard to define, and determining what exactly chance means is no easy task. To some, chance is an extension of the idea of probability - which is the idea of the likelihood that an event occurs. For instance, I am fairly sure that with all I know about probability, that the sun will rise tomorrow. How do I know this? Well, because the sun has risen today, and it did yesterday, and it did every day I personally remember, and historical records show no day that the sun didn't rise, so I am fairly sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, and in fact, if I had to bet my meager life savings on it, I would bet that the sun will in fact rise tomorrow. I will also bet that I will wake up tomorrow, in part because I am relatively young and healthy, and have no reason to suspect that when I lay myself to sleep, that my life and soul will keep. But, one of my favorite lines is from the movie Breaker Morant, in which a character to be executed the following day exclaims, "Live every day as if it were to be your last, for you're bound to be right some day." Someday, perhaps when I am older and my heart weaker, I will reassess the probability of waking up tomorrow.

What is all of this based on? Well, a considerable amount is due to empirical experience. I have a number of friends my age, and thus far, only a small number have died in their sleep. At 70 or 80, I will have a much larger number. But although probability has a lot to do with chance, it isn't exactly synonymous with chance. The other notion of chance has to do with randomness.

I take a die and roll it. As it flies through space, turning and moving, forces that go well beyond my understanding interact with the die and work on it, moving it left and right, spinning and bouncing against tables and walls, ultimately resulting in a 4 or a 3 or a 6. So, there is an element of what we call randomness in the process.

But is it really randomness? I once met a man in Chicago who told me he mastered the art of flipping coins. He could flip ten fair coins in a row and every time get a heads up. I bet him five bucks he couldn't, then gave him a coin from my pocket and watched him flip not 10 in a row, but 25. Understand: the guy wasn't fooling me with a two headed coin - I checked each time. Rather, he mastered his finger motions and hand movements so that the coin would flip in the air a specific number of times before he would catch it, revealing the face of good old George Washington.

From one perspective, chance is a force in the universe that somehow acts on coins and dice that are flying in the air. It is chance that, at the last moment, makes the coin end up tails or end up giving you a 5. But another perspective on chance - one that I probably subscribe to - is that chance is simply another term for ignorance. Ignorance of the myriad forces that interact with objects like coins and dice, such as air resistance, the coefficient of friction encountered by the object as it strikes the ground - that, if fully understood, could result in knowing the result of a chance event before its outcome. Like the guy I met in Chicago - he understood perfectly how to flip a coin in the air at just the right speed to have it every time end up as a head toss. After many years of practicing, over and over, the flipping of coins, he was able to remove the randomness, the ignorance of outcomes - and win five bucks in the process.

But another perspective exists, one that I do not subscribe to, but I have no way of disproving, is that chance is an actual force in the universe that interacts with objects like flipping coins and dice, and at the right moment, provides the right nudge to make the die end up as a 2 or the coin as a tail. I have no reason to suspect that this force actually exists out there, and that it only acts when a person is flipping a coin to determine who answers first at a presidential debate, or what team faces what direction in a football match.

But it is possible. It is possible that with all of our knowledge, we will never be able to predict coin tosses because so many degrees of freedom exist in the world - the slight imperfections in the minting of the coin, or the roughness of a particular edge of a particular coin. To be fair, my Chicago friend was not able to make the coin end up heads when he wasn't controlling the situation. For instance, I had him flip the coin onto the table, not using his hand to catch it, resulting in a meager 6 heads and 4 tails. Not to be a nerd, but using the binomial approximation, there is an 89 percent change that someone would flip 6 or more heads out of 10. But maybe, given enough time, and enough practice, this guy could learn the affordances of the table well enough that he could master the art of flipping coins onto it.

As for me, I don't believe we are allotted enough nights in our lives to spend them trying to master the art of flipping coins. There are other tasks well worth exploring, and hopefully you will engage in them. After all, my Chicago friend only made 5 bucks in the process. Anymore, that's hardly even a beer.

Porky Pig Projectors

I've been avoiding blogging about presidential politics because at times, both parties infuriate me with plans. It turns out, however, that McCain wins the prize for getting me riled up enough to search for my password to my blog.

At one of the presidential debates, John McCain lambasted Barack Obama for a pork barrel project - a grant for a 2 million dollar projector for the Adler Planetarium in Chicago.

Planetarium projectors are expensive and sophisticated scientific equipment. (If you want to learn more about those that are commercially available through the Zeiss company, check out their webpage). And check it out - it is pretty cool what these new planetarium projectors can do. You can virtually ride through a black hole (without actually having the experience of event horizons or spaghettification - look that one up too). You can travel through space, explore the subatomic structure of atoms, learn about different galaxies - explore the world and all of its wonders from the smallest of the small, to the largest of the large. You can even travel through time and explore what happened at the time of the Big Bang. The new projectors can even simulate oral surgery, something my friend Michelle knows a bit about.)

In today's climate of rapidly collapsing scientific educational standards and the decline of American scientific achievement, you'd think this kind of projector would be exactly what we need to inspire the next generation of students to pursue science careers. Perhaps the reluctance for doing so is our unvoiced shame that the next generation of Americans will be burdened with our generation's disgraceful stewardship of our universe. Future scientists will need to devise new ways of obtaining energy, as we wastefully plow through the earth's limited supply of fossil fuels. They will need to deal with the challenges of climate change due to our extensive use of these fuels in almost every aspect of our lives. They will need to solve many of the problems we have created, from economic to environmental devastation.

I first learned about event horizons and spahettification at a planetarium, during a show on black holes. And maybe knowing the details of the working of black holes isn't worth much these days. But it was experiences of my father taking me to the Franklin Institute's planetarium that got me interested in science in the first place, and launched my career. Now, I became more of a soft than a hard scientist - but a scientist nonetheless. And I owe it not to my science teachers in school (although they may have played some role) but to our Sundays at the museum.

It is a general anti-intellectualism represented in McCain's criticism of the projector that I simply don't understand and will never agree with. Planetariums inspire young minds, they introduce children to the cosmos, they create wonder. Wonder about the sheer improbability of our existence - how small we really are. They provide us with culture - culture being the work of countless generations of individuals - from Kepler to Einstein and beyond, who spent their lives trying to figure out how the universe works. And through their efforts, we have even been able to step out into that universe, and for the first time in history walk on other worlds.

Do we want to live in an America that denies its youth of the inspiration of the scientific endeavor? It is already bad enough - I know undergraduates and even graduate students who don't know the order of operations of math (to refresh, it is exponents and roots, then multiplication and division, and finally addition and subtraction). The decline in scientific education has caused none other than Bill Gates to appear before a congressional committee asking for loosening of visa requirements so that talented scientists from other countries can work in corporations that so desperately need their skills. American scientific education is not working - and parents seem unfazed. It is this ridiculous illusion of American exceptionalism: We're number one, We're number one! Meanwhile, look at your 401K - you don't need to know the order of operations to understand what the "less than" sign means.

In fact, it's worth reading the Adler Planetarium's response to the whole affair - response It points out, among other things, that they never even received the funding for that projector. So Adler planetarium continues to use their 40 year-old projector that no longer has service or parts. Well, some might say that if it's broken, they'd be better off praying for it to fix itself, because they don't have a ghost of a prayer if the likes of anti-intellectual John McCain and Sarah Palin are elected president.

In fact, if you are wealthy and would like to donate to the Adler so they can purchase a working projector, here is a page about donations. If our government can't fund the future, I guess we have to.

A joke worth mentioning

My friend Matt is always up for a good joke, worth repeating. I love the guy. The other day, he told me this one, which I will paraphrase.

So there is this student and a teacher. The teacher asks the student, "So imagine there are three birds on a telephone wire. I take out a gun and shoot one of them. How many birds are left?"

The student answers, "None. The sound of the gun frightened away the two other birds"

The teacher says, "I like how you think, but you're wrong. There are 2 birds left. I appreciate how you think, though!"

The student ponders this.

After a while student says to the teacher, "So there are three women on a bench. One is eating a triple ice cream split, the other two are eating a low fat frozen ice cream. Which one is married?"

The teacher thinks for a minute. "Well probably the one that is eating the ice cream split."

The student replies, "No, the one that's married is the one that's wearing the wedding ring. But I like how you think."

There has to be some kind of truth to this one, don't you think?

Water water everywhere, but not one drop to drink

After class, I go around the room where I teach and pick up and discard bottles and cans. One thing I've noticed recently is that people often leave plastic bottles of water laying around the room, half full. This has always bothered me, because the night watchman, an older gentleman, has to then go around and pick up the bottles. But this has gotten me thinking.

At my university, a 12 fluid ounce bottle of water costs $1.50. A gallon has 160 ounces in it, so there are roughly thirteen 12 fluid ounce bottles of water in the gallon. That means that people are paying $19.50 per gallon of water by buying that bottle of water, which they leave on the ground.

People complain that gasoline costs will hit $4 a gallon this summer. However, they have no problem leaving half a bottle of spring water that costs $19.50 a gallon on the floor of my classroom. Of course, you're not really paying 19.50 for the water - you get the plastic bottle, itself made of petroleum.

When I brought this up this evening to the night watchman, she shook his head. "I guess these kids have some rich parents paying their way through..."

Why we should all eat more chicken

Former playboy model Jenny McCarthy has written a piece appearing on CNN's website regarding her suspicions that the chemicals in vaccines are implicated in the development of autism. You see, McCarthy has a child who was diagnosed with autism some years ago. McCarthy has since become a proponent of a movement in the autism community claiming that the etiological origin of autism can be traced to vaccines given during the second year of life.

In her piece, McCarthy states that a recent federal court "conceded" that vaccines "may be" implicated in the development of autism. If only the federal court is made up of scientists rather than lawyers!

Apparently, there is a considerable number of parents who have joined McCarthy, armed with little scientific data, making wild and speculative claims of conspiracy between the government, doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry in hiding the risks of vaccination. At first, their fingers pointed towards the mercury compound thiomersal that was used as a anti-bactericide in vaccines. When panel after panel of scientific organizations determined that there was absolutely no evidence of thiomersal's relation to autism arose, the vaccinations themselves were blamed.

I'm not buying the argument. Most scientists claim that the link between vaccines and autism is a myth, and I believe them over the former playmate of the year. As cognizant organisms, we tend to seek out connections between events. It so happens that vaccines are given around 15 months of age, and it is around this time that the symptoms of autism begin to emerge. It is easy to point one's finger at vaccines and claim that they cause autism because the mechanisms underlying how vaccines work and how autism develop are poorly understood, either by the general public or most scientists. Many children are safely vaccinated and do not develop autism. Children who do not get vaccinated out of autism fears are threatened by far more life-threatening illnesses such as influenza or tetanus.

In part, the reason people may believe in a link between autism and mercury is that recent years have seen a dramatic rise in diagnoses of autism, as well as an increase in the use of thiomersal-based vaccines. However, to make this interpretation is to fall victim to a common logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this"). It is more commonly known as mistaking correlation for causation.

In my research methods course, I tell my students that I have incontrovertible evidence that consuming chicken decreases murderous rage. You see, I conducted a study in which I examined statistics published by the U.S. Federal government's Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Justice. You can get the data yourself here and here. What you find on the one page is that chicken consumption has increased from the period between 1996-2005. On the other page, you find that murder rates have been sharply declining over that same period. Thus, eating chicken somehow reduces murder. Right?

Here is a graph of the relationship. You can see a clear negative relationship between per capita chicken consumption in pounds, and the murder rate per 100,000 people. The correlation is strong, at .84.

Of course, this is all a bunch of horse manure. Why? Because especially over time, many things increase or decrease, such as the amount of chicken people eat (due to health concerns) and the murder rate (due to a decrease in the use of crack cocaine). If you took the correlation between my age during the years and either of these variables, you would find significant correlations because my age increased while chicken consumption increased or murders decreased. Just because something correlates with something else doesn't mean one causes the other.

Likewise, the use of a vaccine and changes in the diagnostic category of autism (i.e., more children mistakenly diagnosed before as mentally disabled now receiving the "correct" diagnosis of autism) can make it look like there is a causal relationship between the two, when in reality there is only a coincident relationship.

The problem I have is that far more people probably respect and follow the flawed logic of the former playboy playmate of the year than doctors and scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization. These parents might avoid vaccinating their children, who may then acquire a disease like encephalitis, which could permanently damage the child's brain.

Remarkably, in this article, McCarthy writes that her child has recovered from autism and is developing normally! After lambasting the medical establishment for not rushing to her door to inquire, she attributes her child's recovery based to the dietary and socialization regiments.

Now I'm no expert in autism. What I really think is happening here is that children who are completely normal are being diagnosed as autistic when they are just going though a stage in which they are not developing 'normally.' They grow out of this stage and end up normal people because they were always normal, but that a frenzied crew of 'experts' have rung the alarm bell over autism and that many children are being misdiagnosed as autistic when in reality they are just developing on a different path than other children.

Autism is not cancer or HIV in which you can take a biopsy or blood sample and know to a high degree of accuracy whether the person actually has the disease. (But see my former post on problems with this in respect to HIV). Autism is nosologized as a set of behaviors that must be interpreted by doctors and parents, and there is no way of seeing autism in a microscope or on an assay. So in a culture of fear over raising children fueled by experts wanting to be experts (McCarthy being one of them as the author of a parenting guide), you end up with 'experts' who have made virtual careers over developing dietary interventions, intervention schemes, and the like, which low and behold work for children who never had autism in the first place, and were just kids going through an unusual developmental trajectory. These diets and regiments may or may not work for those who truly have the affliction of autism, but they always work 100% of the time for normal kids misdiagnosed with autism.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not denying that autism exists, and I have seen many children diagnosed with autism. A difficult child myself, I used to bang my head on the ground and had a strange fascination with the drain spout of the washing machine, which would fill the basement sink with bubbly water. My mother, who is a social worker trained to diagnose mental illnesses, often says I would have been diagnosed with autism. True, had I not been born in 1976, but in 1996, at the height of the epidemic.

In sum, I don't mean to belittle McCarthy or her family's experience. I am sure these years have been difficult for her and her son. But I think that people in the limelight should realize that the mass of people may take the wrong message. Do we need children dying of rabies because their parents are afraid of vaccinations? I think not.

Can environments be made smarter?: Building a better bin for recycling

We all have THOSE objects in our life, objects that frustrate, defy, and annoy us. My frustrating object is the cable tv box. When I want to turn it on, I never know which of two buttons to press, because depending on how the television was turned off, one or the other button won't work. Typically, I can't remember how I turned the television off. So half the time, I press the wrong button, then need to get up and walk over to the television to turn it on physically. A minor itch, but I find it infinitely annoying. I believe we all have those nagging itches that end up annoying us more than the real problems we face in life.

The problem with the remote is one known in the psychological literature as object affordances. An affordance is a physical aspect of an object that provides obvious cues as to how the object should be acted upon. Hanging strings afford pulling behavior, while fixed buttons afford pushing behavior. Some objects have obvious affordances, such as a door whose handle is designed so that it is clear whether you push or pull it. Others have not-so-obvious affordances, such as my remote, or my telephone at work (it's been three years and I still can't figure out how to forward a call), or my bank's online teller system (which is ridiculously complicated so that I can never sign into it correctly).

We interact with objects on a daily basis, but rarely reflect upon how well objects are designed to afford a desired behavior. There is a whole field of psychology about this issue which is known as ergonomics. People who study ergonomics examine aspects of the design of objects that improve their usability. A classic example I am using right now is the QWERTY keyboard. The keyboards we all use today were designed on ergonomic principles. Back in the days of the dinosaurs, when people would actually use manual typewriters, a problem would arise that commonly used combined letters like "-ed" would cause a jam of the typewriter. Note that in the alphabet, e and d are next to each other. The swinging letter e would strike the swinging letter d and would cause a jam. To avoid this, the American inventor Christopher Sholes designed a typewriter in which commonly combined letters would be spatially displaced on the keyboard, so that with the QWERTY keyboard, e and d were separated by a number of keys so they would not interfere. Unfortunately, however, the QWERTY keyboard actually serves to slow people down in their typing. Now that typewriters have gone as extinct as the dinosaurs, better designs exist, but the fact that so many people are used to the QWERTY design, it remains like a vestibular organ, useless but pervasive.

Humans design many artifacts, such as QWERT keyboards, desks, lamps, and monitors. One artifact that exists in our world are receptacles for disposing waste. Any economist would claim that humans are fundamentally consumers, yet an unintended byproduct of consumption is disposal. We drink a bottle of water, and subsequently must dispose of the bottle. In the second half of the 20th century, the idea of recycling became commonplace, and many institutions and municipalities have developed recycling programs to help reduce the amount of waste that gets buried in landfills. According to the EPA, the average american produces 3 pounds of trash per day. An unknown proportion of this trash consists of recyclable material such as bottles or cans that ended up in the general waste stream. Some of this material may be carelessly thrown out because people did not notice a recycling bin nearby.

In a study I recently submitted to a journal, my co-author Michelle Verges and I began thinking about the perceptual affordances of recycling receptacles. I had noticed that in my office building, there were two types of recycling bins. One type had a wide opening at the top and looked pretty much like a trash can except for the words "Cans and Bottles" on it. Another kind had a lid cover with a small hole cut in the center that was narrow enough to accept bottles and cans. The first type with wide openings contained about as much trash as your typical trash can. People may have mistaken the recycling bin as a trash can. The second type with a narrow hole contained only recyclables. This got Michelle and I to wonder whether it be the case that recycling bins might be designed to be smarter (by improving recycling compliance) or stupider (by reducing compliance rates).

Being an experimentaholic, I aimed to find out the answer. First, I secretly went around my building and manipulated the lids of the recycling bins. See the figure below. The bins were identical except for the presence of the lids. Half of the bins were manipulated to look like the photo on the left, with no lids, while half had the lids present as in the photograph on the right.


I went around twice a week measuring how many bottles or cans were deposited in each of the three bins for four weeks. At the end of the time, I tallied the results and found that with the condition on the left without lids, the recycling compliance rate (i.e., the proportion of recyclable cans and bottles deposited in the recycling bin) was 57%. However, with the lids present, the recycling rate shot up to 93%. The likelihood that this effect could be explained by chance is over 1 in 1,000,000.

So I have been going around taking photographs of smarter and stupider recycling bins. Here is a small gallery, of which I will increase over time.

1. SEPTA's Market East Station

This is a dumb design for a recycling bin. First, the sign is ridiculously small. Although it says RECYCLABLE, NEWSPAPER ONLY, people simply use the bin as a trash can.

While this one had some newspapers in it, there was also a plastic cup, a plastic bag, and a glass bottle. (I was rooting through it. All this education and I end up picking through trash...amazing).
Perhaps the problem is that the recycling bin looks too much like the trash can, and the heuristic that GREEN = RECYCLING is not yet very standardized or widespread (some of the trashcans at the very same station were the recycling bin above without the little sign. No wonder people mistake recycling bins for trashcans and vice versa!



2. Swarthmore Train Station

Swarthmore Township is a wealthy township where Swarthmore College is located. I recently went there to meet a colleague, and I spotted a recycling bin.


Here are individual pictures of the two recycling bins, and the contents. As you can see, the lids afford recycling paper or bottles by being a much smaller hole than the hole in the SEPTA train station.

Apart from a plate, a piece of plastic, and a piece of paper, everything in the recycling bin was appropriate for that bin.

Here is the newspaper bin:

Apart from the plastic bag, everything inside is newspaper.

The key however is not what is IN the recycling bin, but rather what WASN'T IN the adjoining trash can. There were no recyclable materials (cans, bottles, or newspapers) in the trash can.


3. Patco Station:

You don't need to buy special recycling bins in order to have high recycling rates. An ordinary trashcan lid, properly cut, makes a fine recycling bin, like this one spotted at the Camden, NJ PATCO train station:


4. Reading Terminal Market:

In order to increase recycling, why not make a bin that looks like a bottle? Although the study I completed does not speak to the effectiveness of this particular recycling bin, a look inside the trashcan next to it revealed several bottles and cans, which may indicate that people might simply be confused by what the object actually is (It could just be a plastic statue of a soda bottle to indicate that yes we sell drinks here.)


5. Japan

My favorite recycling bin was photographed by my friend Jeff Mosenkis in Japan. It is a frog. At least it is somewhat rewarding to shove a paper down a frog's throat if the news that day was bad. Unfortunately, though, my colleague Michelle is deathly afraid of frogs.

My Japanese colleague Etsuko writes, "The Japaense writing on the frog says "Kae--ru Box: For Newspapers and Magazines Only". The frog is pronounced as Kaeru in Japanese. With the same spelling in Roman letters, but with a different intonation and a Chinese character, Kaeru also means return. So, they are using a pun here for the recycling box."



Feel free to send me some pictures of your very own favorite recycling bins! I will post them here and have an expanded gallery.