I was just reading the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. It is quite interesting in that it examines the human ability to make [relatively] accurate snap judgements with only a tiny "thin slice" of information. Our subconscious mind picks up on related bits of information and assists the conscious mind in making a decision even though we might not fully understand why. The result of this is the much articulated "gut feeling" about something.

A section within "Blink" that discusses "priming" caught my attention. Psychological researchers have fun putting subjects through tests that have secret agendas. For example, you may take a simple test that asks you to make sentences out of groups of words. What you don't know though, is that a certain tone is generated by key words sprinkled throughout the test.

Subjects coming away from these test have been primed for behavior according to the wishes of the researchers. For example, half the subjects may be exposed to words that evoke aggressive behavior while the other half deals with calming, peaceful words. When given a subsequent task, the two groups will manifest the behavior type indicated by their word groups. This effect has been witnessed and documented time and again.

The book highlights one particular priming study conducted by Clause Steele and Joshua Aronson in 1995 (*). Steele and Aronson found that African American college students performed worse than expected if they were told that the test would measure their cognitive abilities. Steele and Aronson labeled this phenomenon as "Stereotype Threat". Simply being asked to identify their race before the test cut their performance in half!

Sounds amazing right? Could this really be true? Malcolm Gladwell then proceeds to ask hypothetical questions about whether standardized tests really are reliable indicators of the test takers knowledge and intelligence. Could this explain the so-called race gap in standardized tests? These results seemed too amazing and too politically correct for me, so my skeptical red flag was raised. I proceeded to do additional research.

Right away I discovered a web site that apparently has been created as a direct result of the Steele, Aronson research: http://reducingstereotypethreat.org/. That makes sense. Certain groups would certainly welcome these results in lending ammunition to their cause.

Further investigation revealed a published paper called "On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive tests" by Sackett PR, Hardison CM, Cullen MJ. Here is the abstract of that paper:

Ah ha! Isn't that interesting. I knew the Steele, Aronson results (as reported in "Blink") were too convenient.

In short order, I ran across the website http://www.debatingracialpreference.org that discusses the issue in depth. Included on that website are excerpts from popular media that widely and politically correctly reported the results of the Steele, Aronson research:

(From "Secrets of the SAT," written by M. Chandler, broadcast 10/4/99, Boston: WGBH.)

(Newsweek, 11/6/95, p 82)

And even in scientific journals:

(Wolfe, C.T. & Spencer, S.J. (1996). "Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Overt and Subtle Influence in the Classroom," American Behavioral Scientist 40, 176-185)

But is all of this really true? It turns out, no.

As reported in popular media, these cursory descriptions of the research findings leave out an extremely important piece of information. All three quotes above misinterpret the results in an incorrect way, and they are all completely erroneous.

In fact, the black students in the control group did NOT perform "the same as Whites". They did NOT perform "equally as well as Whites on the test". In fact, the black students not subjected to Stereotype Threat performed "the same", meaning "as expected" according to their previously recorded SAT scores. The previously recorded verbal SAT scores of the test subjects averaged 603 for the blacks and 655 for the whites. The gap remains.

Yes, Steele and Aronson demonstrated that Stereotype Threat can widen the performance gap, but the absence of that threat certainly does not eliminate the gap as was widely reported in the media.

The purpose of this blog post is not racial in nature. It is to illustrate the idea that what you read may not be as true as you think. If you care about real knowledge and real truth, it pays to activate your skeptical eye and do your own research as necessary.

(*) Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans

Be careful what you accept as truth!

In typical web-surfing fashion, I stumbled upon something interesting today. I have recently acquired a cast metal puzzle called "NEWS" by Hanayama.

But back to the main point. So I was browsing around looking for additional puzzles of this type. I found one that looked like a small brass cannon. Googling for the best price led me to an article about "brass monkeys" and cannon balls. I read it out of curiosity and it was quite interesting.

Being quite interested in etymology, I always find the historical origin of phrases to be extremely entertaining reading. I almost always come away with a feeling of "wow, I just uncovered something I never knew". This experience was no different.

Although I only have a very cursory knowledge of the phrase "freezing the balls off a brass monkey", it was still interesting to learn of its origin. Apparently stacks of cannon balls on sailing ships were stored in pyramids contained and bordered by a brass square with indentations for the outermost balls. This metal square, apparently called a "monkey", would allow the stack to be built and prevent its collapse.

After reading this I felt, "wow, I now have some new knowledge." I was prepared to accept this information as outright fact for two reasons:

1. It seemed to make sense. I have a good understanding of physics and the properties of matter. I have experience with shrinking and expanding metal with respect to temperature.
2. I happen to know that a huge number of common (and uncommon) phrases in the English language have nautical origins. This merely seemed like another one in the library.

Shortly after reading the "brass monkey" article, I was thankful to learn that if I had chosen to believe this story I would have been absolutely wrong. This is the link that saved me from the all too common folly of believing what we read without question.

I looked up the coefficient of linear expansion and found similar numbers as those given in the link above. The coefficient for brass appears to be 10.4 x 10^-6 inches per degree Fahrenheit. The coefficient for iron appears to be 6 x 10^-6 inches per degree Fahrenheit. If the temperature dropped 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the difference in expansion of the metals is something like 1 hundredth of an inch at most.

So please, even if something "seems right", it may not be. If you want to have true knowledge, you really need to verify the claims for yourself to the best of your ability We need to focus more on teaching our children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think. Critical thinking is the goal.

It is currently very fashionable to shun television.  I constantly hear or read about people bragging that their family has been without a television for X months or years.  We are supposed to be impressed by this.  We are supposed to think, "How bold of them!  How can they live without a television?  Maybe I should try that."

More often though, you will hear the same sentiment expressed like this: "I'm really not a TV person, I hardly ever watch it."

To which I say, "Yeah right."  I used to say this myself... all the time.  Then I began to realize how greatly I underestimated my viewing.  Everybody underestimates their viewing, but that's not really my point.  My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with television!  Just like anything... excessive television, and the wrong kind of television is the problem.  We tend to forget this.

Parents who brag about not having a TV are allowing their children to miss incredible shows like these:

Curious George - teaches Math, Science and Logic
Zula Patrol - teaches Science, Astronomy, and Non-Violent Conflict Resolution
Cyberchase - teaches Problem Solving and Logic
Arthur - teaches Social Skills

These parents are, frankly, retarded idiots.  These parents are "typical Americans" who would rather act on what "They Say" (as in "they say TV is bad for your kids") rather than trying to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.  Turning off the TV for the sake of turning off the TV is not a sound justification for the action.  That time must be replaced with something more valuable than good television.  The command to "go play" isn't necessarily more valuable.  However, "go read a book" is vastly better.  No argument there.

This post was prompted by something I read on a boardgame website that I frequent.  Some guy's kid's school is having a "Turn Off the Television Week", so he was asking for boardgame recommendations to play with his family that week.  Boardgames are great and you can learn a lot about problem solving, logic, and social interaction by playing them.  But are they really a more valuable teaching tool than good television?  And just like television, the content and company is what matters.  You might have to stretch your brain to play Caylus, but your mind will be numbed by playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.

Somehow "face-to-face interaction" is surpassing "learning and understanding" on the "List of Important Things For Our Children".  This is the main reason why video games get a bad rap.  Good video games in moderation can hone the mind.  Sitting around the table chatting with friends may be entertaining, and may yield some social comfort, but will rarely contribute anything to your Knowledge and Understanding.  Most people are ignorant and will gladly fill your ears with urban mythology, hearsay, and 4th-hand information.