Currently reading: Outliers

Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers is a book that makes me think. Using statistics from demographics, education, sport, and individual biographies, he shows that a minor advantage caused by happenstance can translate into an insurmountable advantage years later. The happenstance is often being just a bit older when training or education starts. That accrues extra help and practice time and the snowball is rolling. At the end of the process, a sport or vocation is missing half its potential because half the population was filtered out at the start by happenstance.

Gladwell also maintains that expertise comes from practice and a lot of the difference in outcomes is derived from differential opportunity to amass the 10,000 hours of practising needed. He cites musicians in general, the Beatles, and Steve Jobs. He points out that most American self-made millionaires were born in a span of only nine years, 1831 – 1840, and that today’s most successful computer startup firms had founders with an even narrower range, 1953 – 1956. If you were older, you were settled into a different career and if you were younger, it was too late.

Another point he made was that there’s some level that’s good enough, after which more intelligence makes no difference to professional outcomes.

I’m only half-way through the book. Perhaps he’s cherry-picking his examples but it is thought-provoking.

• Book review on Google
• Discussion on Gladwell’s website. “In the case of Outliers, the book grew out a frustration I found myself having with the way we explain the careers of really successful people. You know how you hear someone say of Bill Gates or some rock star or some other outlier—”they’re really smart,” or “they’re really ambitious?’ Well, I know lots of people who are really smart and really ambitious, and they aren’t worth 60 billion dollars. It struck me that our understanding of success was really crude—and there was an opportunity to dig down and come up with a better set of explanations.”
• Review on Goodreads
• Wikipedia article
• Book on Amazon.com

U.S. ‘Defense of Marriage’ Act ruled unconstitutional

A U. Federal District court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that  a same-sex married couple is entitled to the same employment benefits as other married couples.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White was the first since the Obama administration announced a year ago that it would no longer defend a law it considers discriminatory….

Ironically, the plaintiff, Karen Golinski, is an attorney for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the extension of federal benefits to same-sex spouses and Golinski’s wife, Amy Cunninghis, had been repeatedly denied coverage since the couple married in 2008.

“The court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law … without substantial justification or rational basis,” wrote White.

The judge was appointed by George W. Bush.

White’s ruling echoed that of a Massachusetts judge who in 2010 deemed parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a case now on appeal before the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

A Republican group had argued that the law protects “traditional” marriage.

In his 43-page ruling, White said “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group. “The obligation of the court is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,” White wrote.

The Republican congressional group can appeal, but any appeal

… would go through the 9th Circuit, where Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has already ruled in administrative orders that the federal government’s refusal to provide benefits to Golinski’s spouse violates her rights.

Canadian government muzzles federal researchers

Canadian scientists are being muzzled by the Conservative Reform Alliance Party  government, which refuses to let them talk about their research without vetting all statements first. This has a chilling effect on  research, as the free exchange of information is crucial to coming to the correct conclusions. It also deprives Canadians of knowing what their tax dollars are paying for and the verified facts that they could use to make decisions with.

By Petti Fong Western Bureau

VANCOUVER—As thousands of researchers gather in Vancouver for an international conference, focus has turned to the Canadian government and concerns that federal scientists are being muzzled from talking about their work.

A panel discussion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting heard that federal scientists — including those at Environment Canada, the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — are doing top-line research that’s being published in some of the most prestigious journals. But the Canadian public isn’t aware of this work because scientists have been told not to talk without getting clearance through layers of bureaucracy in Ottawa.

“Scientists are first and foremost a public servant, not a servant for the ministry,” said Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria.

Weaver said he gets frequent emails from public-sector colleagues looking to leave the federal government. “When you control people, morale is bad.”

A policy change in 2008 said federal scientists must direct all media inquiries to national headquarters and not respond to requests to talk about their work.

Claire Dansereau, the deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was listed as a participant in the panel discussion. But Dansereau did not appear and a chair was left symbolically empty at the table. Department spokeswoman Mélanie Carkner said that organizers knew on Jan. 6 that the deputy minister “would have to respectfully decline the invitation to participate.”

Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program with the New York-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said scientists must be allowed to speak about their work so that the public can stay informed about research being done to safeguard water, protect the environment and ensure pharmaceuticals are regulated.

“We can’t manage without information,” she said Friday.

Last year, Kristina Miller, a Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist who had her research published in Science, was told not to talk to the media.

On Friday, seven groups including the World Federation of Science Journalists and the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper citing another example of an Environment Canada scientist being prevented from talking about his ozone layer research.

“Clearly Canadians have the right to learn more about the science they support and to have unfettered access to the expertise of publicly funded scientist,” said the letter.

Faced with staffing cuts, the 23,000 federal scientists are operating in a culture of fear, said Johanne Fillion, a spokeswoman with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

Religion and crime

This is a heat map: the redder the tones, the more feverish the problem In this case, it’s religiosity by U.S. state vs. various types of crime. Religion looks like a bad influence. The diagram is from here. A good place to find secular resources, including pro-bono lawyers for the secular side in U.S. church vs. state cases, is Secular Nation.

Separation of church and state

Quoting Debbie Weisman Clasie:

In 1948, Vashti McCollum won her case at the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) level in favor of Separation of Church and State. She must have been thrilled that it was over. Unfortunately, it wasn’t.

I’ll bet when Dr. Ellery Schempp won his case in 1963, he was relieved it was over. But, again, it wasn’t.

Sydell Stone was probably delighted in 1980 that the SCOTUS found in his favor of the Separation of Church and State and, again, that it was over. But it still wasn’t.

In 1985 Ishmael Jaffree won his case, and was likely satisfied with the result and relieved it was over. You’re probably catching on…it wasn’t.

I can guarantee that in 1992 when Lee v. Weisman was decided by the SCOTUS, the plaintiffs were thrilled, relieved, delighted and satisfied that it was over. Yup, yet again, it wasn’t.

While it’s frustrating that the same, logical arguments seem to need to be made repeatedly, I personally take comfort in knowing that we have brave young people in this country like Jessica Ahlquist, Damon Fowler and Krystal Myers to continue to fight this fight.

While some of these plaintiffs/victims are atheist and some are not, there are (at least) two things they all have in common: they were fighting FOR the constitution and they won.

Jessica, Damon and Krystal: We know it’s hard to be in the minority and in the spotlight, but we hope you draw strength and comfort from the MANY of us who agree with you. We ♥ you and support you.

Another case was Engel v. Vitale in 1962, a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

One year ago, Perry Moore died

Perry Moore was the producer of The Chronicles of Narnia. He was 39 years old when he died Feb. 22, 2011.

Perry Moore produced all three Narnia films and also wrote an illustrated book to accompany the series opener, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

The distributors planned to market the films to schools with pre-packaged classroom lessons. I wonder if they thought the famous Christian allegory in the story made it an acceptable education package.

Isaac Asimov on evidence

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
— Isaac Asimov

No evidence, no gods!

Transitional forms: muscle proteins

How old is evolution? How conservative? Try this: the proteins that an amoeba (ameba) uses to move are essentially the same as those that make up the muscle fibres in a vertebrate such as ourselves.

Though it appears to have nothing in common with muscular movement, ameboid movement probably depends on contractile components and mechanisms surprisingly similar to those in the muscle cells of animals. …[T]he cytoplasm of an ameba is found to contain thick and thin microfilaments similar in appearance and dimensions to thick (myosin) and thin (actin) microfilaments of striated muscle. Extracts of muscle myosin appear to cross-react with the thin filaments from amebas. And cytoplasm from amebas uses the nucleotide adenosine triposphate (ATP) as an energy source for movement, as muscle does.

From Living Invertebrates, page 27 (chapter on “Protozoans”), by Vicki Pearse, John Pearse, Mildred Buschbaum, & Ralph Buschbaum.