REGRESSION TO THE MEAN

OR WHY D’BANJ HAS FAILED TO SING ANOTHER OLIVER TWIST

Thanks to a routine cognitive overload from reading, I decided to look up notjustok.com today after a long stint. There, I found that d’banj released a new single (albeit, unofficial). I jumped into the track with gusto. And I liked it, probably because my expectation failed to set me up for any disappointment. I decided to catch a glimpse of the comments to see if I have some ‘carbon-copies’ around ... 

This comment jumped at me:

Paraphrased for clarity: [[“...This song is a dead track I think d’banj should visit a good producer ... [like] don jazzy to resurrect his career”]]

I found this comment particularly interesting, because of its suitability for explaining a major flaw in our reasoning. (The narrative fallacy and the regression to the mean)

Narrative fallacy: Simply put, we love stories, and to *whatever* has happened we have an intractable proclivity of conjuring reasons. We love casual inferences and perhaps, our favorite sports should be “jumping into conclusion” In this case D’banj’s egress from Don Jazzy’s camp vitiated his career.

Regression to the mean: “in any series with complex phenomena that are dependent on many variables, where chance is involved, extreme outcomes tend to be followed by more moderate ones”. If you have taken a statistics class you have probably heard of this concept, but its applicability might not be intuitive to real life situations (at least, for most of us) 

A fictional example: If Mr X, performed more than he is capable of in a sporting event (i.e Enjoyed a high dose of luck). The regression effect tells us that, the next time he is most likely going to do worse (without any external influence). No one can enjoy a high dose of luck forever. It can only wane in the face of time. That is, there will always be a regression to the mean. The mean being Mr X’s Innate Talent.

A causal inference explanation might be “Mr X, became over confident and losses his senses of responsibility” A conclusion, which will be considered apocryphal in the face of the regression effect.

AND VICE VERSA.

If Mr X, performed less than he is capable of in a sporting event (i.e enjoyed a bad dose of luck). The regression effect tells us that the next time he is most likely going to do better... (and so on)

So in my opinion, regression to the mean plays a role in why D’banj has not sang another 'Oliver twist' or 'Why me', and Tu face, another 'African queen'.

Like they will say in the milieu “omo na turn by turn”.

PS: If an addicted reductionist happens to read this piece, (s)he could *roughly* posit that,  "Omo na turn by turn" = Regression to the mean.

A 'SMART' WAY TO THINK ABOUT STEREOTYPES

When you hear the word *stereotypes* for most people, a negative connotation ensue. It needn’t be so. They are useful heuristics that guide us through our decision making processus, only if used aptly.

Here are some simple rules that resonate with me:

ARE YOU STRESSED? THEN STICK WITH YOUR STEREOTYPE.

In a “high-stress” situation, you are better off sticking to your stereotypes:

Where the prize of being a ‘nice guy’ could be unbearable. When there is [even] a slight chance that a conviction you hold about a negative stereotype is wrong, but if the consequences you will face (if it happens to be right) is very high and not palatable, then you had probably stick to your stereotype. AND/OR when you have to take a Bugatti-Styled decision. When time is an enemy, you want to play it safe. A quintessential, still empirical example came to mind, but to avoid possible irked insinuations, I will trust your intellect for a befitting one.

On the other hand when you are in a “less-stressed” situation, think carefully (or at least think twice) about your stereotypes.

Here is a made-up-but-illustrative example:

WILL YOU MARRY A COSMOLOGIST?

Stereotype: Cosmologists make bad spouse. (Group 1)
Conclusion: Therefore I shouldn’t marry a Cosmologist.

For us to come to this outlandish conclusion. We need to [at least, think] about 3 more groups in the population.

Group 2. Cosmologists that make good spouse.

In a world where indeed cosmologists are stereotyped to make bad spouse, you will not hear [as often] about cosmologists that are good partners. This is a classic case of silent evidence. We refuse to take them into account readily because it doesn’t conform to our narrative and thus, doesn’t spike the outrage that primes us to propagate the news.

To clarify, assume you are an alien, on your first trip to earth, you got locked up in the room to listen to any random news –Any! By the time you are let loose, you will most likely conclude that all humans are violent. After all, you wouldn’t hear an iota of news about the peace loving folks. Those are the silent evidences. In other words, the peace makers that doesn’t make your 10 o’clock news are the cosmologists that make good spouse.

THE REMAINING [INCONSPICUOUS] TWO GROUPS

Group 3. Non-cosmologists that are good spouse.

Group 4. Non-cosmologists that are bad spouse.

For you to make good decision about a cosmologist marriage expertise, then you need a commensurate information about those who are not cosmologist i.e non-cosmologist. A very good illustration is stated in Ziva Kunda’s Social Cognition: “ ... some people argue that there is truth in astrology. They often support this claim by providing several examples of events that were predicted by their horoscope and then came true. To properly access [...], it is also necessary to know about events that were predicted by the horoscope and did not come true, [...] events that were not predicted by the horoscope but happened anyway and counterintuitive as it may seem, about events that were not predicted by the horoscope and never happened”   
[...]

In the end we come up with a 2X2 covariation table.

	Cosmologists	Non-cosmologists
Bad Spouse	Group 1	Group 3
Good Spouse	Group 2	Group 4

So at this point you may ask “what do I do with all these?”

Not much. Except to know that for you to confirm an association between cosmologists and bad performances in marriage you need to be sure that the ratio of cosmologists that make bad spouse (group 1) to cosmologists who do not (group 2) is greater than the same ratio among non-cosmologist (Group3:Group4)  

Okay! I know this is impossible to calculate, at least if you live in a real world. But the next time you get your self head-stucked with a stereotype and wouldn’t give in, thinking through this logica will probably make you reconsider your stance.

THE ILLUSION OF HAPPINESS

I am going to succinctly expatiate on 2 thesis:

Un, Happiness is a salutary evolutionary gadget

Deux, unfortunately, the very same gadget exemplifies an illusion (like chasing a ghost but believing it to be a ‘non-ghost’)

Let me introduce you to my 2 friends – Gray and Dr. Jon – and their so called ‘goals’

Gray. Wants to hit the million dollar status.

Dr. Jon (My most intellectual friend) After a medical degree and a PhD in Physics, he lamented “I feel my understanding of Physics is being limited by my knowledge in Philosophy. A PhD in Philosophy will just be apt”

There seems to be no overlap between these goals, but you need to be close to them (like me) to find out there is one. Only one. They claimed that they will be one of the happiest persons in the world if they hit the jackpot.

Both  guys are really intense and knew their onions. Soon enough they hit the jackpot.

But this is what they sounded like after settling into their new elevated status.

Gray: “Have you heard about the status syndrome? I heard billionaires live longer ...”

Dr. Jon: “I met a dude last night he had like 4 PhDs. Very vast! After speaking with him, I felt disappointed about what I don’t know, that I don’t know (i.e the unknown unknowns). I think ...”

You don’t have to be an augur to portend their next happiness goals.

In my opinion, life will be sterile (in fact, non-existent could be the right word to use) if we are not galvanized to achieve our goals. However, several systems have been put in place to preempt such sterility, and it turns out that happiness – among others – is responsible for the ‘non-sterility’ of life.

As we can see from the lessons of my 2 jolly friends. Happiness (or expected happiness) is an immense motivational factor.

Hence, the logic is clear, the evolutionary-gadget just has to be an illusion (unless if you have the puissance to hack the system.)

I got this simple equation from Drs Burnham and Phelan’s book, Mean genes.

Satisfaction = Performance – expectation

It explains so many things clearly. (Including our fleeting happiness) Here is what a revised happiness version could look like.

Absolute Happiness = Actual Happiness – Expected Happiness.

Let’s say you hit your jackpot today. Actual Happiness will be = Expected Happiness (for the most part).

However, the moment you settle into your new status (just like my 2 friends) actual happiness decreases. And because expected happiness remains constant, (unless if you can go back in time and change your expectation) you end up with a negative absolute happiness. Thus, the illusion sets in and the cycle goes on and on.

This is called the hedonic treadmill.

“The observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive [...] events [...]”

So, what’s the damn solution?

[After a short mental-cum-internet-search for a concrete solution, I was far from satisfied with my results. I thought they all lack the vigorous and staunch pragmatism I sought.

So I decided to ask my roommate. And he gave me an unexpected answer: “is it a problem?”

Immediately I had a re-think and found out that I could have been caught up in a very subtle bias.

I deleted my prior conclusion and I think this will be more ‘befitting’]:

The obvious ‘solution’ is to jump off the hedonic treadmill (for example showing gratitude; living in the present). Not only that, knowing when to jump off the treadmill [I think] is far more important. I am typing this on my blog and getting it across to tons of people via the internet because [I could argue that] the Tim Barner-Lee(s) and Edison(s) of this world achieved their goals by running on the very same treadmill.

AMBIGUITY AVERSION

FreeImages.com/Abdulaziz Almansour

YOUR LIZARD BRAIN, AND PICKING FROM THE SUCKER’S BOX.

Let’s start with a thought experiment, quickly. Visualize two boxes.

In box A there are 50 red balls and 50 black balls (100 in total). In Box B there are 100 balls, however, the % of red balls vs black balls is unknown (but assume that every ratio is as likely as the other). I want you to pick a red ball (with your eyes closed, of course) from either Box A or Box B. Which box will you pick from?

This thought experiment is a modified version of the Ellsberg Paradox experiment carried out in the 60s, a classic evidence for ambiguity aversion.

You see, if you from pick Box A. You might just be human after all. Research has shown (incessantly) an overwhelming choice of box A. We have a preference for risk (probability known) over uncertainty (probability unknown). In this context, a preference for Box A over Box B. That’s how we are ‘wired’ evolutionary.

So, what makes this a paradox? Without getting into the esoteric probabilistic jargons, here is why:

The probability that you pick a red ball from Box A is 0.5 (1/2) right? Good. Straight forward

How about box B? You see ... The key word is, every ratio is as likely as the other.

And this simply means the following combinations are possible for box B:

1red balls and 99 black balls is as likely as 2 red balls and 98 black balls;

2red balls and 98black balls is as likely as 3 red balls and 97 black balls

...                             

98red balls and 2black balls is as likely 99red balls and 1 black balls

... blah blah blah (you get the point)

With this simple analysis it’s obvious that the probability of picking a red ball in both boxes is identical (i.e 0.5) as such, we should pick from box A as often as from box B, but that does not happen in reality.

We continually pick from box A because we are averse to ambiguity. A literary interpretation will be “Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know”.

Scientists have identified the portion of the brain that allow for this bias, it’s the lizard brain (for clarity it’s the portion of your brain you share with lizards) Imbued with fear, picking from box A can’t be easier.

This explains why we settle for less and aim low. Think about it: we are literally giving up a chance of picking a red ball from a box B that looks like this {100 red balls; 0 black balls} for box A with just 50 red balls. It’s probably the fastest way to be a sucker. (Sucker’s box will therefore be a perfect memento for box A)

And we all do this:

Each time you decide to stick to your low-paying-boring job instead of starting the business you had constantly dreamt about, you are picking from the sucker’s box.

Biases are at the core of humanity, and recognizing various biases (and managing to escape it) leads the path to a better decision. Ambiguity aversion is a cognitive bias, that is of course heuristic driven.

...

(To save you the psychological ‘rendition’), just remember, the next time you are settling for less: you are picking from the sucker’s box.

HOW TO BECOME AN EXPERT

FreeImages.com/abcdz2000

HARD IS GOOD, EASY IS BAD

In my opinion, one of the most valid heuristics in life is: “hard is good, easy is bad” – great ‘entities’ are time honored; and becoming an expert is not an exception.

Benjamin Bloom, (one of the pioneers of the psychology of expert performance) carried out a retrospective study probing the childhoods of some expert performers in a wide range of field in the 80s. Surprisingly, his battery of researches indicated that there are no correlation between expert performance and IQ. What tends to correlate with expert performance is the amount of practice – not just mere practice but what is called “deliberate practice”

In the book, Moon walking with Einstein, Joshua Foer gave a great description of what it takes to be an expert (or to be great at something):

...

3 stages in acquiring new skills:

Cognitive stage: Here, you are learning the techniques and “tricks”; so you will definitely make lots of mistakes.

Associative stage: Here, you kind of get a hold of the techniques; efficiency increases, with fewer mistakes.

Autonomous stage: You are in the flow. You get rid – for the most part – the conscious control associated with the prior stages. Joshua Foer called this the “OK plateau” “The point at which you decide you are OK with how good you are at something , turn on autopilot, and stop improving”

{For clarity: Think of when you started driving versus now (assuming you are good at it)}

Here is the key to becoming an expert: Stay off the autonomous stage.

How? Let's follow the prescriptions of expert performance psychologists:

 1, Take on deliberate task beyond your competence and comfort. (Focus on techniques)

2, Be goal oriented (laser focus)

3, Get a very robust feedback (which means you have to continuously monitor progress aggressively) And tweak actions based on feedbacks

Psychologists believe that 10,000 hours of this process leads to expertise.

The important point here is – when you are doing this, you get your ass stuck at the cognitive stage! (Which is literally, the art of practicing failing)

By default this is hard - it should be - but remember: Hard is good, Easy is bad.

This is almost like the "Law of gravity" for mastery, even the super-smart don't defy it.

Let me end with this apt quote from Macklemore “The greats weren't great because at birth they could paint, the greats were great because they paint a lot!"

FALLIBILITY OF YOUR RISK ASSESSMENT

FreeImages.com/thomas gray

When it comes to risk assessment, it turns out that our rationality is often compromised – seriously.

This formula (attributed to Peter Sandman): Risk = Hazard + Outrage will expose most (if not all) of our risk irrationality.

Research prior the 80s (I think) found the correlation between the hazard of a risk and upsetting nature of the risk to be incredibly low, on average the correlation was about 0.2 and with a percentage of variance – 0.04 ... blah blah blah

In a more colloquial term, the conclusion was: the risk that kill people is very different from the risk that get them really perturbed.

In some other words: when outrage is high, even though hazard is low, we overestimate risk. Same way, when outrage is low, and hazard is high, we underestimate risk.

Few examples to clarify:   

If you have an option to donate to a charity that: a) Caters for cardiac patients or b) Caters for terrorism victims. I assume that there will be an overwhelming skew of funds directed to the terrorism victims. So the question is – why?

Let’s answer with a question. How will you feel when you hear the news of ‘someone’ who dies of heart disease versus a terrorist attack? Which one get you most upset? That’s the outrage factor in play.

The less the familiar, the more the outrage; likewise the more the familiar, the lower the outrage (The probability that someone dies of heart disease down your street is way too high, compare to that of terrorist attack. [With very few exceptions – the northeastern part of my home country will be a notorious exception]

It turns out cardiovascular disease is the top cause of death worldwide and the number of terrorism death victims terribly pales in comparison. (Just google)

I covered a United Nations Foundation event on clean cook stove last year summerat Washington DC as a science journalist, and I found out that “there are about 4.3 million deaths annually as a result of exposure to smoke from traditional cook stoves and open fire worldwide, which implies that a life would be claimed by cook stove smoke in 8 seconds. This mortality rate surpasses the death from malaria, HIV and tuberculosis combined” Isn’t that astounding!

On pure statistics ground, your money should go to a cardiac center or a clean cookstove non-profit. However, this argument might be faulted from a moralistic point of view, but never with numbers.

You feel more in control while driving, but in flight you are scared off (after all, you don’t even have an idea what the pilot looks like) The outrage is high, consequently perceived risk shoots up. Even though the data shows that more people die of car accidents than plane crashes.

Another question: do you really bother about global warming? or does global warming bothers you? Be brutally honest. My best guess is No(for both questions); why? Because outrage goes up when you think something bad is going to happen to you (I guess we are hardwired to be selfish); and when you think is going to happen now rather than later, it’s even worse. In the case of global warming, outrage is low even though hazard is high, so to ‘most of us’ there isn’t any risk.

This is generally called the perception gap: The distance between what the facts say and how much fear you feel. The bigger the gap the messier it could get.

To wrap this up I think your money should go to terrorism victims charities just as for cardiac patients (terrorist threat should be diminished), workout to prevent heart disease (at least do you best), be careful when you drive, remember the data on your next flight (Visualize a cool handsome (or beautiful) pilot if that helps) and yes Global warming is real! 

SMART OPTIMISM

FreeImages.com/Cara James

Let’s consider this epigram “prepared for failure, ready for success”

It could sound mundane but it’s an extremely powerful philosophy which most of us jettison while we plan. I will like to shorten the epigram as ‘Smart Optimism’

Going through life I have constantly be reminded of so many rules, one of which is – anticipate failure. This is, of course, the best way to abate disappointment when it comes.

The train of thought garners perfect sense only if you try to separate life and disappointment. Try it and tell me if you see anything else than an inevitable debacle!

So why not find a common ground? – Smart Optimism

If you agree on the inseparability of the duo, let’s take a quick trip back in time to hmmm..., say around 2,000 – 3000 BC and kindly consider these 3 scenarios

One, if you are going into a Lion’s den, and you had an option to pick an orderly. Who will you pick? If I were you, I will pick Samson! (or maybe David)

Two, if you are going into the forest to hunt, who will you pick? Esau?

Three, assume that the last night before your trip to the forest, you had epiphany: a lion descended on you, and coincidentally you had the clement opportunity to pick 2 orderlies the next morning

Who will you pick?

I had bet Samson will be by the left, Esau by your right.

In the end: What you know cannot really hurt you.

ON JUDGEMENT: “IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO”

Kindly consider this: 2+2.

I can bet what comes to your mind. Four right?

Question: Did you think before the number [four] came to mind? No, I guess. Guess what?: that’s your unconscious in action and Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahnemen refer to this as the system 1 (fast thinking).

However, if I ask you to consider this: 754*53. You probably know how to handle this but you have to go through your systems 2 (slow thinking) and dish me the answer.

If there is anything I learnt from Blink by Malcom Gladwell, it’s the ability to trust my instinctive judgement better. Some people tend to trust their conscious decision and are completely uneasy with the system 1, it turns out that there are several occasions where the unconscious judgement is far superior to the rational judgement.

Have you ever spotted a lady (or a guy) and the within a split second you knew “she (he) was just right” Have you considered why? When we meet someone, we don’t run through the list of desired qualities [our conscious mind comes up with], on the other hand, the system 1 takes over. In fact, a body of research has shown that – for the most part – It turns out that: “our conscious explanations regarding our ideal romantic partner have very little connection to whom we really end up liking”.

Or the story of a firefighter who ‘felt’ something was wrong and told his co-workers to evacuate the building. The next minute the whole building collapsed. He couldn’t give any reason when he made that decision (thanks to system 1!) only to invent rational explanations for the decision later: he gave some weird description of the dynamics of the fire that wasn’t just right.

It seems the unconscious come to our aid when we don’t have luxury of time (and vice versa)

Also, our impressions are generated by our experiences and of course – social learning.

You are probably not a firefighter. If you assume the position of the firefighter above, how will you have fared? Probably, pretty bad. Why? Your unconscious wouldn’t be able to help, because your repository of experience as a firefighter is completely void.

...

So which is the best? I do think, for the most part, the ideal best-decison-maker-in-the-world will not exclude the intuitive judgement nor its rational counterpart. Afterall “It takes two to tango”

CHARLES DARWIN’S CAREER CHOICE, AND HOW TO BUILD A THRIVING STATE

FreeImages.com/dimitri_c

The development of a state is contingent on the success and failure of the comprising individuals; and the most positive impact of such individual to the state is one that apparently delivers the best. So, what defines the best?...

Born in 1809, Charles Darwin – dubbed ‘father of evolutionary biology’ – is one of the most hallowed scientists in the history of man. Still, his choice of a career is all but riveting. His father who wanted him to toll the family lane by becoming a medical doctor was irked by Charles’s interest in becoming a naturalist. Young Charles was touted for his teeming interest in natural history, nature and collecting. In his Autobiography he wrote ‘the passion for collecting, which leads a man to be a systematic naturalist, a virtuoso or a miser, was very strong in me, and was clearly innate’. This statement opines a man who knows his strength, and equally brave enough to follow his passion. In stark contrast – when he was in medical school, he found the lectures boring and surgeries upsetting. Later in life he was ‘destined’ to discover the theory of evolution and natural selection.

In addition to Charles Darwin’s seminal discoveries that revolutionized science, in my opinion – his life has divulged the key to build a thriving environment: the best we can do for our society is to engage in activities – passable on the path of the law – that brings out our very best.

What are my strengths? Where lies my passion? What are weaknesses? How do I perform? These are questions that should reverb in our minds, and ‘roll in our brain’ before we make decisions on what to do in life. Logic then opine that we should build on strengths – not weaknesses – and follow our passion. However, extant environmental conditions might be unsteady, the economic clime – deserting. More often than not, this usually lead people to make decisions that drives a mediocre career, and on the extreme side – lead to an umbrageous debacle.

Peter Drucker stated in his classic book – Managing oneself:  ‘Knowing where one belongs can transform an ordinary person – hardworking and competent but otherwise mediocre – into an outstanding performer.

MY MIT PhD APPLICATION, AND THE 3 IRREFUTABLE BIOLOGICAL LESSONS OF HISTORY.

First, life is competition. Here is Will and Ariel Durant in their 1968 book: Lessons of History

“Competition is not only the life of trade, it is the trade of life – peaceful when food abounds, violent when the mouths outrun the food”

I have met folks who have repudiated competition, at almost every level. “I dislike competition” so they will say. Even more ridiculous, “I don’t compete”. As if nature request an opinion to make her decisions. The pith is, whether you like it or otherwise, you are in for a great deal of competition, long before you are conceived: remember, the races of the spermatozoa is an upstream one. I applied to a PhD program at the MIT last fall, I thought I had a chance, and maybe I was right. But here is the reply I got:

“You a very fine candidate but due to copious amount of applications, we could not grant you an admission”

Well, that’s probably how an African young man ‘competes’ with a “Lui Chi Tang” in faraway Asia or a nerd from an ivy league. Don’t be fooled life is replete with competition.

Second, life is a selection:

“We are all born unfree and unequal: subject to our physical and psychological heredity, and to the customs and traditions of our group; diversely endowed in health and strength, in mental capacity and qualities of character”

Well, what’s is the odd of you being “successful” if you are born in the US versus a sub-Sahara African country. Or what is the odd of you becoming rich if you are born into a family of billionaires? High right? However, this is not to imply that once you are born poor you remain so. On the contrary, life is also replete of improbable success stories, albeit a deviation from the norm.

Third, life must breed: Durants wrote:

“Nature has no use for organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly. She has a passion for quantity as a prerequisite to the selection of quality”

I remembered my social studies tutor in high school made us memorize functions of humans, and guess what number 1 on the list was: PROCREATION!