It’s the letter of the law: Stand down with Calibri
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, Graphics, Uncategorized on August 17, 2012
Twenty years ago or so I cajoled the advertising rep from R&D Magazine into lending me a binder filled with several inches of ‘white papers’ of the publisher’s research on readership. Their data came primarily from A/B (split) testing—not very sophisticated but effective for simple comparisons. One question I resolved was whether to use serif or sans serif font. The research showed significant advantages to headlines being san serif, such as Arial font, and text in serif—for example, Times New Roman. I’ve stuck with that ever since,* except for the fonts themselves changing over to Calibri and Cambria—the defaults in current versions of Microsoft Office software.
However, now I am set back by this news from Wall Street Journal that Calibri comes up short—30 percent to be precise—versus Arial and other common fonts, at least so far as the State of Michigan is concerned. The inventor of Calibri, Lucas de Groot, justifies his type being smaller because of its high readability per square inch. Although this seems plausible to me, I would like to see the research supporting this assertion.
For an interesting detailing of fonts—serif versus san serif and neo-grotesque versus humanist—see this blog by Laurie Israel Think.
*For writings that will likely be read in printed form, that is. Having seen research like this recent study from the JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, I believe that words written in a sans serif font provide a significant advantage for messages read on computer screens, such as blogs and email. Thus for these purposes I prefer using Calibri exclusively—ditto for presentations projected on screen, for example—using Powerpoint.
Statisticians no more—now “data scientists”
Posted by mark in Basic stats & math on August 15, 2012
I spent a week earlier this month at the Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM)—an annual convocation of “data scientists”, as some of these number crunchers now deem themselves. But most statisticians remain ‘old school’ as evidenced by this quote:
“Some time during the past couple of years, statistics became data sciences older, more boring sibling that always played by the rules.”
— Nathan Yau*
I tend to agree—being suspicious of changes in titles as a cover for shenanigans. It seems to me that “data science” provides a smoke screen to take unwarranted leaps from shaky numbers. As the shirt sold at JSM by American Statistical Association (ASA) says, “friends don’t let friends extrapolate.”
*Incorrectly attributed initially (my mistake) to Carnegie Mellon statistics professor Cosma Shalizi, who was credited by Yau for speaking up on this subject.
Polysci prof asks “Is Algebra Necessary”?
Posted by mark in pop, Uncategorized on July 29, 2012
I was appalled to see this titular question on the front of today’s (Sunday) New York Times opinion section. It came along with this sidebar quote:
There is no good reason to force students to master quadratic equations. Doing so holds them back.
That really riles me up, seeing as how these polynomials work so well for response surface methods (RSM) for process optimization. The author, Andrew Hacker–emeritus professor of political science at City University of New York, believes that, by making math mandatory, our educational system filters out talented scholars. As an alternative to hard-core number-crunching, he proposes the “exciting courses” in ‘citizen statistics’ such as the Consumer Price Index. His aim is “to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet.”
I enjoy seeing statues and I admire the grace and athleticism of dancers; however, Hacker’s vision is for me dystopian. But so long as the educational system provides for a branching of those who like math versus the others who do not, then we get the best of all worlds. I agree–let’s not force algebra on those who abhor it.
A strange pink elephant — the Higgs boson
Posted by hank in science, Uncategorized on July 9, 2012
In our business we focus a lot of energy to convince experimenters they must conduct enough runs to develop the statistical power needed for detecting an effect of interest. What amazed me about the recent discovery of the Higgs boson is the sample size required to see this “strange pink elephant” as it’s described in the embedded explanatory video cartoon. The boffins of CERN took 40 million measurements per second for 20 years. These physics fellows cannot be topped for being persistent, tenacious, dogged and determined. Good for them and, I suppose, us.
“If the particle doesn’t exist, one in 3.5 million is the chance an experiment like the one announced would nevertheless come up with a result appearing to confirm it does exist.”
– Carl Bialik, ‘The Numbers Guy’ for Wall Street Journal explaining in his July 7-8 column the statistical meaning of CERN’s 5 sigma standard of certainty (see How to Be Sure You’ve Found a Higgs Boson).
Danube nicely routed through Vienna and Budapest
I’ve just returned from a wonderful conference in Vienna of European and African (plus one Malaysian) Design-Expert® software users. Afterwards I spent the weekend in Budapest. First off I must marvel at the chances of a magnificent river such as the Danube just happening to wind its way through these two great cities, as well as Bratislava and Belgrade—all four being capitals. Surely this fortuitous routing of the waterway evidences a higher power. ; )
My knowledge of the histories of these regions in Austria and Hungary increased many-fold, but of course I must acknowledge starting with a very low denominator on this ratio. The tour of the private quarters of the Habsburg Emperors went far too much into the sad story of Sissi—the beautiful Empress who lived like a beautiful bird in a gilded cage and ultimately died at the hands of an anarchist run amok (he actually meant to kill another royal, but settled for her). See the sordid details here.
The history of Budapest was laid out nicely in a display I stumbled across in the Royal Palace on Castle Hill. Via a series of a dozen or so placards with associated artifacts, this stroll through time told a story of repeated destruction. It starts with the mid 13th century construction of a walled town to fend off the Mongol hordes. Then in another hundred years it continues with the building of a keep by Prince Istvan the Angry (a royal pain—I am sure). After some further hundreds of years the Turks came in and the Turks came out. The story told at the church on the Hill is that their ammunition exploded and a statue of Virgin Mary burst out of the wall that they’d plastered over when converting it to a mosque. This catalyzed the successful end of the siege by Christian forces. Holy Mary! Coming to the 20th century things get even worse with the two world wars and the cold war, which of course resulted in various occupations by unwanted outsiders. But all is good now, I think, other than the armies of Americans and other tourists coming left and right on Viking longboats for four-day forays around the town flinging forints (the Hungarian currency) to the local shopkeepers and restaurateurs. It could be worse!
Statisticians apply stylometry to identify authors and they invent algorithms that assess essays
Posted by mark in pop, Uncategorized on June 20, 2012
My colleague Tryg, who, like me, loves word play, drew my attention to this podcast* that explains how “By Their Words You Shall Know Them.” I teed it up on my smart phone and listened on my way to work yesterday—a fun way to pass my half hour commute into Minneapolis from my home in Stillwater, Minnesota. One thing that caught my ear was the early 1960s work by Harvard statistician Frederick Mosteller to pin down who wrote 12 of the 85 Federalist papers published under the pen name “Publius”. He and colleague David Wallace (University of Chicago) applied Bayes; theorem to attribute these writings to James Madison (as opposed to Alexander Hamilton). Mosteller also led the way to today’s reliance on statistics in sports by doing the first known academic analysis of baseball in 1946—concluding that luck rules even in a seven game World Series. He didn’t agree that, though the Cardinals beat his home town Red Sox, the best team actually won.
This analytical dissection of written words has come to be known as “stylometry”. As computing power increases and algorithms develop, writings are being put to the test. For example, see this New York Times Digital Domain column from earlier this month that details developments in ‘essay-scoring engines’. For now the students hold the upper hand on computer-based grading of papers—web-based essay mills can easily throw together fact-laden gibberish that fools the virtual professors. These are easily seen by teachers when they skim the results—check out some goofy passages passed along by Duke University professor Dan Ariely in this editorial for the Los Angeles Times .
The advent of spell-checking and grammar inspection in word processors has been a boon for writers. However, passing these tests does not necessarily lead to clear prose. When I started work as an engineer, the head of our process development group handed me a little booklet by Robert Gunning on “How to Take the Fog Out of Writing”. He advocated short, active sentences—not the passive, long and pedantic style I’d grown accustomed to from academia. See how your writing scores for fog using this online tool by Simon Bond. The quote below scored 20.86. This paragraph came back with a fog index of 9.152 (up to this clause to be precise!). Gunning’s score estimates the years of formal education needed to understand text on a first reading. Thus my writing supposedly can be understood by 10th grader. Draw your own conclusions on the readability of our founding fathers.
“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”
– Madison, Federalist Papers #55, 346
*By online Slate magazine’s Lexicon Valley host Mike Vuolo
Irish Times says “serious issue settled” — Guinness does indeed travel badly
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, Uncategorized on June 9, 2012
Lab Times author Thirsty O’Leary provides this summary of a scientific study by Liam Glynn, et al, that proves Guinness beer does not travel well. Some say it’s a conspiracy of the Irish—them drawing off the cream from the barrel. Although Guinness is not my cup of tea, I admire the work that went into this experiment. These zealots for zymurgy went all out! And, as those of use students ; ) of stats know, Guinness goes down well with quantitative research of this sort.*
“Each pint is like a child. You have to mind it through the entire process.”
— Fergal Murray, Guinness brew master
*See Guinnessometrics: Saving Science and Statistics With Beer
Brain drizzling? Try linking instead.
Posted by mark in science, Uncategorized on May 13, 2012
Early on in my career as a chemical engineer working in R&D process development I came to the realization that many good ideas get shot down prematurely. Granted, many of these thoughts come out half baked, but in the proper environment they can lead to some very nourishing developments.
I always thought Osborn’s methods for brainstorming counteracted the quenching of creativity. However, although his approach certainly does generate a quantity of ideas, the end results never proved nearly as astounding as one might expect.
Earlier this year The New Yorker magazine debunked as Groupthink many of Osborn’s cherished tenets, such as allowing no criticism. The current thinking is that you gather a diverse group of bright people and then just let things fly with no holds barred. The fear of public humiliation forces the participants to think a bit before speaking. If they do get strong criticism, these creative people must regroup their thoughts and try again. The best idea(s) tend to win out.
Here is one minor variation on the “no rules” creativity session that I suggest: Ask that everyone come in with one idea to throw into the pot. Then let the fun begin!
Given Osborn’s rules are passé, where should you turn to next for catalyzing creativity? I recommend you consider Idea-Links. I have had the pleasure of picking the brain of the author, Jim Link—a very energizing fellow. Believe me, he really knows how to get people to think outside of the box.
“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.”
– Albert Einstein
If you have other ideas on fostering creativity (or wish to criticize those already proposed), toss them into the ring. Do not be shy (nor sensitive).
Ivory towers of academia (& shiny ones in Vancouver)
Today’s Vancouver Sun suggests that a competitive university culture discourages sharing of knowledge, which then leads to the publication of many flawed and fraudulent studies. This is a rehash of issues I cited recently with the warning Beware of obvious answers and positive results. It would be great, albeit a bit boring, if journals published negative results from well-designed experiments with adequate power to see beneficial results. As my colleague Wayne Adams says
“Most of what you learn from an experiment is what NOT to do.”
PS. I took this picture Granville Island looking across to downtown Vancouver.
“Randomistas” building steam for government to do better by designed experiments
“Businesses conduct hundreds of thousands of randomized trials each year. Pharmaceutical companies conduct thousands more. But government? Hardly any.”
–David Brooks, The New York Times, 4/26/12 editorial seen here
For those of us in the know about statistical tools this statement provides light at the end of a long tunnel. However, this columnist gets a bit carried away by the idea that an FDA-like agency inject controlled experiments throughout government.
Although it’s great to see such enthusiasm for proactive studies based on sound statistical principles, I prefer the lower-profile approaches documented by Boston Globe Op-Ed writer Gareth Cook in this May 2011 column. He cites a number of examples where rigorous experiments solved social problems, albeit by baby steps. Included in his cases are “aggressively particular” successes by a group of MIT economists who are known as the “randomistas”—a play on their application of randomized controlled trials.
Evidently the obvious success of Google (12,000 randomized experiments in 2009, according to Brooks) and others reaching out over the internet has caught the attention of the mass media. Provided they don’t promote randomistas running wild, some good will come of this, I feel sure.