Jts5665

THE MOTHER OF ALL CRISES: The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It. In our new book, published today, the social psychologist Roy Baumeister and I argue that the greatest problem in public life is what we call the Crisis Crisis: the never-ending series of hyped threats that needlessly alarm and anger the public. It’s a consequence of the negativity effect, also called the negativity bias, which is the universal tendency for bad events and emotions to affect us more strongly than good ones. This effect continually skews our thinking and the decisions we make in our personal relationships, education, religion, business, sports, media and politics.

Why does government keep growing? Drawing on Mancur Olson’s Rise and Decline of Nations and Robert Higgs’ Crisis and Leviathan, we show how the negativity effect is exploited by journalists, politicians, academics, lobbyists  and activists — the merchants of bad, as we call these doomsayers —  to scare people into adopting policies that benefit politicians, bureaucrats and special interests while hurting everyone else. Whether you’re absorbing today’s bad news or contemplating the future of humanity, we suggest starting with three assumptions:

1. The world will always seem to be in crisis.
2. The crisis is never as bad it sounds.
3. The solution could easily make things worse.

The negativity effect isn’t going to disappear — evolution has wired it into our brains — and the merchants of bad won’t voluntarily go out of business. They don’t want us to see how much better things keep getting without their help. But they can be resisted, and the book offers some specific proposals for cutting the profits of doom and restoring sanity to public discourse. Read the whole thing (and enjoy a happier new year).

I MISSED THIS INTERESTING NEWS WHEN IT WAS REPORTED LAST WEEK: Southern Poverty Law Center employees vote to unionize. (More on the SPLC and its history here.)

ADVERSARY TECHNOLOGY: Colleges are turning students’ phones into surveillance machines, tracking the locations of hundreds of thousands.

The fourth paragraph of a recent New York Times story about vaping on college campuses notes "a growing health crisis that has killed more than 50 people and injured more than 2,500," which it says led Congress to raise the minimum purchase age for e-cigarettes to 21. Later the Times concedes that the deaths and injuries are "largely attributed to vaping products containing THC." But that inconvenient fact does not stop the Times from conflating college students' nicotine vaping—the main subject of the story—with vaping of potentially deadly black-market cannabis products.

That sort of misleading reporting remains sadly common despite the mounting evidence implicating vitamin E acetate, a cutting and thickening agent that began showing up in illegal THC products this year, in the recent outbreak of vaping-related respiratory illnesses. Two days before the Times published its story, The New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a study that strengthens the case against that additive, which is not found in legal e-cigarettes.

Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed lung fluid from 51 patients with "probable or confirmed" vaping-related respiratory conditions and found vitamin E acetate in 48, or 94 percent. As Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel notes, "the three cases in which vitamin E acetate was not detected were not confirmed cases, and each had other potential explanations for their illnesses. One had a multi-drug overdose, one had a fungal infection, and one may have had a bacterial lung infection."

These results, based on cases from 16 states, are similar to the findings of a November 15 CDC study that found vitamin E acetate in every lung fluid sample from 29 patients in 10 states. The new study also examined lung fluid samples from 99 healthy subjects, including 18 "exclusive users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette products," and found no vitamin E acetate. The study "provides evidence," the researchers say, that vaping products "can deliver vitamin E acetate to respiratory epithelial-lining fluid, the presumed site of injury in the lung." In light of this study and earlier findings, the CDC is now describing vitamin E acetate as "closely associated" with the lung injuries.

The NEJM study, which tested 47 lung fluid samples for THC, also provides further evidence that self-reports may not be reliable in identifying which patients have consumed cannabis extracts. "THC or its metabolites were detected in BAL [bronchoalveolar-lavage] fluid samples from 40 of 47 patients," the researchers report. "A total of 9 of 11 patients who reported no use of THC-containing e-cigarette products in the 90 days before the onset of illness had detectable THC or its metabolites in their BAL fluid. Among the patients who had available laboratory data or who reported product use, 47 of 50 (94%) had detectable THC or its metabolites in BAL fluid or reported vaping THC products in the 90 days before the onset of illness."

As a CDC official noted after the earlier BAL study, THC would not necessarily be detectable in the lung fluid of patients who had consumed it. Without urine testing, it's impossible to confirm the self-reports of patients who deny using cannabis products, possibly because they are reluctant to admit illegal drug use.

The researchers suggest two ways in which vitamin E acetate, which was first publicly identified as a potential lung disease culprit in early September, might be causing patients' symptoms (endnotes omitted):

Although the ingestion and dermal application of vitamin E acetate have not generally been associated with adverse health effects, the safety of inhaling vitamin E acetate has received little attention. Vitamin E acetate is the ester of vitamin E (α-tocopherol) and acetic acid. The structure shows a long aliphatic tail that can penetrate a layer of surfactant to align the molecule in parallel with phospholipids. Phosphatidylcholines undergo transition from a gel to a liquid crystalline phase when exposed to increasing amounts of tocopherols, such as vitamin E acetate. Transitioning to a liquid crystalline phase would cause the surfactant to lose its ability to maintain the surface tension that is necessary to support respiration in the lung, thus providing a possible mechanism by which vitamin E acetate could cause respiratory dysfunction.

Another potential harmful effect of vitamin E acetate that may contribute to lung injury occurs when it is heated in e-cigarette products. Heating vitamin E acetate in these devices may create ketene by splitting off the acetate group from some or all of the vitamin E acetate. Ketene is a reactive compound that has the potential to be a lung irritant, depending on concentration.

While the researchers caution that "the causative agents" responsible for the lung disease outbreak "have not been established," the evidence so far overwhelmingly points to relatively new additives or contaminants in black-market cannabis extracts, as opposed to legal nicotine e-liquids. Yet leading media outlets such as The New York Times continue to imply that nicotine-delivering e-cigarettes might be causing the lung injuries, suggesting that policies like raising the legal vaping age or banning flavored e-liquids are logical responses instead of panicky non sequiturs.

The Salvation Army in Kansas City is seeking donations to repair a fleet of vans that were vandalized and sabotaged over the weekend, leaving them unable to deliver food and toys for Christmas.

The culprit punched holes in the gas tanks of the Chevy Vans, rendering them unable to be used.

The organization brings food to the homeless and toys to underprivileged children during the holidays. Despite the obvious need for this type of charity, the Salvation Army has been under attack in recent months after Democrat Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg was photographed ringing a bell for them and the woke mob decided that they were bad for being religious.

“Pete Buttigieg Volunteered for the Homophobic Salvation Army,” a headline in the gay magazine Out read.

The left also bullied Chik-fil-A into stopping their donations to the organization.

The administrator and lead pastor of Northland Salvation Army, major James Mungai, told Ozarks First that as they attempted to fill the tanks, the gasoline was just pouring out of them.

“As I was filling it up, we had Niagara Falls coming out the bottom of the van,” Mungai said. “That’s a little frustrating, that’s disheartening, that’s discouraging. We don’t have enough money at this point, with two days left we are about 67% to our goal.”

The same Salvation Army was also hit by vandals who stole the copper wiring from their signs.

“For the last two months,” Mungai said, “it seems like we’ve been attacked.”

The post Salvation Army in Kansas City Unable to Deliver Christmas Food and Toys as Fleet of Vans Sabotaged Over the Weekend appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

NOT SO BRIGHT: Boston has changed the name of Dudley Square in the city’s Roxbury neighborhood to Nubian Square. Why? Some people were concerned that Gov. Thomas Dudley (1576-1653) had “something” to do with slavery. In fact, there is no evidence Dudley owned any slaves and, according to the Boston Globe, “his role in the promotion of slavery is somewhat murky.” On the other hand, as Jeff Jacoby points out, the various ancient Nubian kingdoms honored by the square’s new name were centers for slavery. Slaves were a vital part of their economy; they were the kingdoms’ main export.

My late mother was a New Englander and tended to think of New Englanders as better educated than the rest of the country. (We all have our biases.) She must not have been thinking of Boston.

SHOCKER: Study Finds Only 1.3% of Overdose Victims Had Opioid Prescription.

GOOD NEWS: FDA Approves Ebola Vaccine With 100% Effectiveness.

CHANGE: Congress slaps robocallers with $10,000 penalty—per call. “The new legislation allows federal authorities to seize the profits of robocall operators and assess an additional penalty of up to $10,000 per call. It also pushes telephone companies to implement SHAKEN and STIR, a suite of authentication protocols that will help the fight against robocalls.”

Good luck collecting from a bunch of criminal organizations in Pakistan or wherever, but maybe SHAKEN and STIR (cute) will do a better job of keeping robocalls from getting through.

TAX ALL THE THINGS! Elizabeth Warren: Economists ‘Are Just Wrong’ When They Say $8 Trillion Tax Hike Will Stifle Economy.

CHEER UP: We’ve Just Had The Best Decade In Human History. Seriously.

Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 per cent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 per cent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.

Little of this made the news, because good news is no news. But I’ve been watching it all closely. Ever since I wrote The Rational Optimist in 2010, I’ve been faced with ‘what about…’ questions: what about the great recession, the euro crisis, Syria, Ukraine, Donald Trump? How can I possibly say that things are getting better, given all that? The answer is: because bad things happen while the world still gets better. Yet get better it does, and it has done so over the course of this decade at a rate that has astonished even starry-eyed me.

Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall.

This does not quite fit with what the Extinction Rebellion lot are telling us.

Well, that’s because they’re insane. And lying.

HMM: Mark Levin: Impeachment is About Blocking Trump From Getting Another Supreme Court Pick.

BRITTLE: Xi Jinping’s annus horribilis.

Xi can blame only himself — or, more specifically, his excessive centralisation of power—for the challenges of the last year. Trade disputes with the US, concerns about Chinese interference in Hong Kong and ethnic tensions in Xinjiang all preceded his rise to power in late 2012. But China’s collective leadership, however corrupt and indecisive, managed to limit the escalation of these crises, thanks largely to their aversion to risk. For example, when more than half a million people in Hong Kong protested against a proposed national security law in 2003, the Chinese government immediately agreed to its withdrawal.

As Xi has concentrated political power in his own hands, however, decision-making has been transformed. Those hoping to influence policy must gain access to Xi himself, and they have every incentive to cherry-pick information to support his preferences. Likewise, Xi’s colleagues on the Politburo Standing Committee, fearful of appearing disloyal, are loath to share information that may contradict his view. They know that proposing an alternate approach could be seen as a direct challenge to Xi’s authority.

Xi’s intolerance of dissent and vulnerability to bad information have made his government much more prone to policy blunders. Making matters worse, because a strongman must maintain an image of virtual infallibility, even demonstrably ineffective or counterproductive policies are unlikely to be reversed.

Lots of good stuff at the link. I’d just add that perhaps the biggest risk of one-man rule is that when things go wrong, there’s only one man to blame — and no peaceful outlet for it.

DON SURBER: What Trump learned from Watergate.

Read the whole thing.

BIG NEWS: The Far Side is back.

Story here.

UGH: Possible Mass Graves Discovered From 1921 Tulsa Race Riot Massacre.

Our story so far:

Virginia's legislature got taken over by the Dems since the GOP failed to run quite a few candidates, and due to some gerrymandering and population density issues that are apparently only a problem when they work against the Dems.

As often happens, when one party gets a significant majority, they want to go all-in on achieving their dreams of molding society to their image.

The Dems proposed some very heinous gun control, without any pretense of care about the Constitution either federal or state, morality, or reality.

A whole bunch of counties and towns pre-emptively declared themselves "Sanctuaries," which is apparently A-OK if you're refusing to arrest, jail, and deport illegal alien child rapists, but "treason" if you're refusing to steal people's property under color of law. At least according to the Dems.

So, one US Rep Donald McEachin (D-Deep State)(that's sarcasm, okay?) has proposed having the governor "Nationalize the National Guard" to deal with the problem. (Give him credit. At least he didn't threaten to use nukes, like a certain former presidential candidate. OTOH, if VA actually had nukes, he might have.)

Let me explain this:

The governor can't "nationalize" the National Guard. He can call them to state active duty.

Per Posse Commitatus, they can't engage in law enforcement on Federal orders anyway.  On state orders, yes, but, keep reading.

It would also still require a search warrant for every single domicile if they could.

Other than a handful of MPs, none have training for this process. Even if you squint hard at qualifications and add a few others, the actual number of troops qualified to do this is a few HUNDRED at most. The entire VA Army National Guard is about 7500, mostly support.

The National Guard does not keep ammo on hand in any relevant quantities.  A small amount for training is it.

Per US Constitution and federal law, the governor CANNOT arm the NATIONAL Guard with federally owned weapons and ammo. He'd have to provide that. 

Nor can he arm them without consent of the feds anyway.  There are reasons for this. This is one of those reasons. It is not a bona fide emergency that does not permit of delay.

And the threat to do so is LITERALLY WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.  Congrats, jerkwad! You've actually threatened to have the military repress people, and you're surprised that they're going to oppose you? EVERYONE should be opposing you. It's outrageous of itself, and outrageous precedent if allowed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there should be politicians hanging from lampposts over this.

Our society started to fail when we stopped tarring and feathering.

But if despite all that, you make the attempt:

First, if they haven't already (US Army NORTHCOM hasn't said anything), I guarantee the Adjutant General and his staff will ask National Guard Bureau for an opinion on any orders, and likely DoD proper, as well as their own legal staff, for opinions on exactly what the orders mean, and their scope and limits.  Because with a dual state/federal mission, every one of those officers is putting their career on the line in such an instance.  The wrong use or misuse of any federal money or equipment is court martial offense.  Low end enlisted can "just follow orders" for the most part, but leadership is expected to know or ask.

On State Active Duty, the troops get paid the same to sit at the armory eating catered meals (because federal funds can't be used and armories don't have huge pantries), and wait for specific orders, or to draw up "plans," as they would to drive around in Hummers looking mean. Which is all they could do because of all the above.

So what will happen is a bunch will call in sick, or "out of state," or "employer really needs me."  Volunteers will be few (and not too bright to want to get into the Boogaloo).  If you try to issue orders, state level orders don't carry the obligations or penalties of the UCMJ, and the reality that the Guard is part time means they do in fact have a lot of leeway on how fast they report, and what you can actually do if they don't (HINT: very little).

Once they get there, They can't be issued federal weapons or ammo. And of course, if the supply sergeant, armorer, and a couple of others aren't present, the Arms Room can't even be opened. Unless the CO personally wants to issue the order and unlock it. (He doesn't want to do this.  The Feds would end his career.)

I suspect the Adjutant General and his staff have already had a lengthy discussion with their own lawyers, the National Guard Bureau, and any relevant active duty installations regarding what equipment they can use. The Feds certainly don't want dragged into this, and while the Guard can use equipment for an "emergency" with compensation afterward, enforcing a badly thought out and contested law almost certainly doesn't meet the standard. So any activated Guardsmen may not even be able to use body armor, web gear, or vehicles.  And there are probably zero officers willing to risk their Federal commission over a State matter.

And then they make "plans" and wait for "guidance," because no one is putting their name on the dotted line without someone they can point a finger at. They'll be playing phone games, posting memes on Farcebook and TWITter, and generally kicking back and enjoying their SAD pay, which is usually tax exempt at the state level.  I haven't looked up what that rate is for VA, but it's probably better than $100/day. (EDIT: Very generously, it's the same as active duty pay. Far better than the $75/day flate rate IL paid us for the 1993 flood.)

If it gets that far, they then drive around and look mean, as I noted, because they literally can't go door to door without police leading the way with a warrant.

If you try to make them do so, most are going to refuse. Good. Because the last time some states took this direction, they got put down hard. This isn't an earthquake, a foreign attack, or even an out of control football riot. You're asking to use military force to attack US citizens for code violations.  You thought using SWAT for warrant service was bad? (It is.)

If by some freak of circumstances you get some small number to do so, people are going to die. Given how many veterans are among the population, and there's an entire network of retired special operators and CIA types in that area, the mayhem might even be BIBLICAL. You know:  Earthquakes, volcanoes!  The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Yeah, I mean it might be a bunch of young, naive Guardsmen who die in three way crossfires by tired old vets who've spent a lot of time in Asia.

I spent 19 of my 25 service years in the Guard. I don't want to see EITHER side of this.

This is why more and more counties are deciding to be "sanctuary" and totally sit this one out. Good for them.

If you're willing to use military force and murder people over ownership of anything, we're back to tar, feather, and lampposts.

Frankly, since McEachin is theoretically a lawyer, he should already know this.  That he doesn't, or couldn't take 10 seconds with Google to find it, speaks poorly of his intellect. I wonder how much actual legal work he did before running for public office.

There were also some idiots on our side railing against the Virginia Adjutant General not "refusing," but merely noting he has no orders and legally has no opinion.  Hey, geniouses (sic)! He can't comment on orders he has not received about events that have not taken place or been ordered.  The complete non-response was the only legal thing he could do.

WHAT VA RESIDENTS NEED TO DO NOW:  Watch for "Compromise."  It's standard for the Dems to demand the confiscation of all firearms, and then "Settle" for any number of smaller intrusions--"Assault weapon" bans, "universal" background checks, purchase limits, etc.  Don't fall for any rhetoric about how a lesser proposal is "Reasonable." None of it is reasonable, and this is a good opportunity for a peaceful resistance to an outrageous movement.

WHAT EVERYONE ELSE NEEDS TO DO NOW:  Keep calm. Spread the word.  Agitate against such outrages. Buy more guns.  Buy them legally. Buy them privately if you can.  Buy more, more, and yet more. There's always the risk we'll reach the point where America tips over. But that's a chance we'll have to take.

Because if it's impossible for the government to seize 300 million weapons (the lowball estimate), it's way more than four times as impossible for them to seize 1.2 billion.

BTW, if you are not familiar with my work, this recent anthology is actually quite relevant to staging a resistance/rebellion, is a National Bestseller, and has excellent reviews. https://amzn.to/2ZO0Og0 

HOW DO WE SPREAD THIS TO THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT? Opponents warn of staff exodus as US breaks up lands bureau. Trump should move as much of the government as he can to the most unappealing rural parts of deep-blue states. This will bring them some economic development, encourage federal workers to quit, and at no risk of tipping red or purple states over into blue.

TAKING SIDES WITH TYRANTS: Scoop: The World Bank told Taiwanese staff to get Chinese passports. “This year, the World Bank told current and prospective employees of Taiwanese nationality they must present Chinese travel documents in order to maintain or pursue employment. Why it matters: China has recently ramped up its campaign to systematically force Taiwan and its citizens out of the international community. But forcing out its own staff in this way violates World Bank employment principles.”

I WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THE BABYLON BEE STAFF DIDN’T HANG THEMSELVES:  We Are Pleased To Announce Our Person Of The Year Is Hillary Clinton Please Send Help.

EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL: Thousands of ‘penis fish’ wash onto California beach.

(Classical reference in headline.)

FASTER, PLEASE: Low-Risk Ultrasound Procedure Destroys 80 Percent of Prostate Cancers In One-Year Study.

THEY’RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY’RE HERE TO HELP: US senators on encryption back doors: “We will impose our will” on Apple and Facebook.

A decades-old debate: Government officials have long argued that encryption makes criminal investigations too hard. Companies, they say, should build in special access that law enforcement could use with a court’s permission. Technologists say creating these back doors would weaken digital security for everyone.

But the heat is on: “My advice to you is to get on with it,” Senator Lindsey Graham told the Silicon Valley giants at today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “Because this time next year, if we haven’t found a way that you can live with, we will impose our will on you.” Apple and Facebook representatives at the hearing came under fire from senators in both parties, while Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance, one of the biggest advocates of back doors, was treated as a star witness.

Sod off, all of you.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IS AN ENEMY OF FREEDOM: Recently, a pro-Israel group at York University in Ontario held an event that featured former Israeli soldiers. Violence ensued, apparently precipitated by leftist protesters. And Amnesty Canada blames.… York University for allowing the event to proceed, and allowing members of the public to attend:

Given conflicting views about what happened that evening, the worrying ongoing impact on students at York and the important human rights considerations that are at stake, Amnesty International urges York University to go further and convene an independent review of all circumstances associated with the Herut Zionism Club event and its aftermath, with a mandate that includes examination of:
considerations that were taken into account in approving the event, including the fact that the speakers were former members of a military with a clear record of responsibility for war crimes and other serious human rights violations; decisions made with respect to the presence of members of the Jewish Defense League on campus.

JAMES BOVARD: Inspector General report on FBI’s FISA abuse tells us one thing: We need radical reform.

Yesterday’s IG report was only the latest in a long series of revelations about FBI misconduct at the FISA court:

*In 2002, the FISA court revealed that FBI agents had false or misleading claims in 75 cases and a top FBI counterterrorism official was prohibited from ever appearing before the court again.

*In 2005, FISA chief judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly proposed requiring FBI agents to swear to the accuracy of the information they presented; that never happened because it could have “slowed such investigations drastically,” the Washington Post reported. So FBI agents continued to have a license to exploit FISA secrecy to lie to the judges.

*In 2017, a FISA court decision included a 10-page litany of FBI violations, which “ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight.”

* In October, a secret FISA court ruling was released documenting the FBI’s illegal conducted warrantless searches of vast numbers of Americans’ emails despite congressional legislation seeking to curb FBI data roundups.

FBI machinations at the FISA court are especially perilous to American democracy because that court is extremely docile to federal agencies. The FISA court “created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans,” the New York Times reported in 2013 after Edward Snowden leaked court decisions. FISA decisions have “quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court…regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny.” The court’s servility can boggle the imagination, such as its rubber-stamping FBI requests that bizarrely claimed that the telephone records of all Americans were “relevant” to a terrorism investigation under the Patriot Act, thereby enabling N.S.A. data seizures later denounced by a federal judge as “almost Orwellian.”

Ironically, the FISA court was created in 1978 to prevent Nixon-style political spying.

Or at least, that’s how it was sold.

A MAJOR FACEBOOK FACT-CHECKING FAIL: So this meme showed up in my memories marked as “False Information.”

I’m not exactly sure how this can be characterized as “false.” Do Americans really prefer to eat their dogs? Is the connection between socialism and dog-eating absurd? (No — see Venezuela.). Who’s the fact-checker responsible? This is all I found:

This is apparently a Colombian fact-checking service, in Bogota, which seems to be sympathetic to Evo Morales. The actual objection is that the Trump quote isn’t a genuine Trump quote. Well, it’s a meme. But it’s blacked out on my page as false because Facebook thinks it’s “Fake News,” based on a fact check from a Colombian “news” organization that I’ve never heard of, that seems not to understand how memes and humor work.

Sad, Facebook. Just sad.

Scientific journal articles can be incredibly intimidating to read, even for other scientists. Heck, I have a Ph.D. in a research science and have authored scientific papers, but sometimes I look at a research report outside my field of study and just go, “Nope, can’t decipher this.”

Learning to read them is an important skill, however, in today’s environment of what I call “research sensationalism.” This is where the popular media gets hold of a scientific research report and blows the findings WAY out of proportion, usually while misrepresenting what the researchers actually did and/or found. You know what I’m talking about.

Unfortunately, you can’t trust popular media reports about scientific research studies. Too often, it’s shockingly evident that the people writing these reports (a) aren’t trained to evaluate scientific research, and (b) are just parroting whatever newswire release they got that morning with no apparent fact-checking.

Thus, if staying informed is important to you—or you just want to be able to shut down all the fearmongers in your life—you need to learn how to read the original journal articles and form your own judgments. You don’t have to become an expert in every scientific field, nor a statistician, to do so. With a little know-how, you can at least decide if the popular media reports seem accurate and if any given study is worth your time and energy.

Where to Begin

First things first, locate the paper. If it’s behind a paywall, try searching Google Scholar to see if you can find it somewhere else. Sometimes authors upload pdfs to their personal webpages, for example.

Ten years ago, I would have told you to check the journal’s reputation next. Now there are so many different journals with different publishing standards popping up all the time, it’s hard to keep up. More and more researchers are choosing to publish in newer open access journals for various reasons.

Ideally, though, you want to see that the paper was peer reviewed. This means that it at least passed the hurdle of other academics agreeing that it was worth publishing. This is not a guarantee of quality, however, as any academic can tell you. If a paper isn’t peer reviewed, that’s not an automatic dismissal, but it’s worth noting.

Next, decide what type of paper you’re dealing with:

Theoretical papers

• Authors synthesize what is “known” and offer their own interpretations and suggestions for future directions.
• Rarely the ones getting popular press.
• Great if you want to know the new frontiers and topics of debates in a given field.

Original research, aka empirical research

• Report the findings of one of more studies where the researchers gather data, analyze it, and present their findings.
• Encompasses a wide variety of methods, including ethnographic and historical data, observational research, and laboratory-based studies.

Meta-analyses & systematic reviews

• Attempt to pool or summarize the findings of a group of studies on the same topic to understand the big picture.
• Combining smaller studies increases the number of people studied and the statistical power. It can also “wash out” minor problems in individual studies.
• Only as good as the studies going into them. If there are too few studies, or existing studies are of poor quality, pooling them does little. Usually these types of reports include a section describing the quality of the data.

Since popular media articles usually focus on empirical research papers, that’s what I’ll focus on today. Meta-analyses and reviews tend to be structured in the same way, so this applies to them as well.

Evaluating Empirical Research

Scientists understand that even the best designed studies will have issues. It’s easy to pick apart and criticize any study, but “issues” don’t make studies unreliable. As a smart reader, part of your job is to learn to recognize the flaws in a study, not to tear it down necessarily, but to put the findings in context.

For example, there is always a trade-off between real-world validity and experimental control. When a study is conducted in a laboratory—whether on humans, mice, or individual cells—the researchers try to control (hold constant) as many variables as possible except the ones in which they are interested. The more they control the environment, the more confident they can be in their findings… and the more artificial the conditions.

That’s not a bad thing. Well-controlled studies, called randomized control trials, are the best method we have of establishing causality. Ideally, though, they’d be interpreted alongside other studies, such as observational studies that detect the same phenomenon out in the world and other experiments that replicate the findings.

NO STUDY IS EVER MEANT TO STAND ON ITS OWN. If you take nothing else from this post, remember that. There is no perfect study. No matter how compelling the results, a single study can never be “conclusive,” nor should it be used to guide policy or even your behavioral choices. Studies are meant to build on one another and to contribute to a larger body of knowledge that as a whole leads us to better understand a phenomenon.

Reading a Scientific Journal Article

Most journal articles follow the same format: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusions. Let’s go through what you should get out of each section, even if you’re not a trained research scientist.

The Abstract succinctly describes the purpose, methods, and main findings of the paper. Sometimes you’ll see advice to skip the abstract. I disagree. The abstract can give you a basic idea of whether the paper is interesting to you and if it is likely to be (in)comprehensible.

DO NOT take the abstract at face value though. Too often the abstract oversimplifies or even blatantly misrepresents the findings. The biggest mistake you can make is reading only the abstract. It is better to skip it altogether than to read it alone.

The Introduction describes the current research question, i.e., the purpose of the study. The authors review past literature and set up why their study is interesting and needed. It’s okay to skim the intro.

While reading the introduction:

• Make a note of important terms and definitions.
• Try to summarize in your own words what general question the authors are trying to address. If you can, also identify the specific hypothesis they are testing. For example, the question might be how embarrassment affects people’s behavior in social interactions, and the specific hypothesis might be that people are more likely to insult people online when they feel embarrassed.
• You might choose to look up other studies cited in the introduction.

The Methods should describe exactly what the researchers did in enough detail that another researcher could replicate it. Methods can be dense, but I think this is the most important section in terms of figuring out how much stock you should be putting in the findings.

While reading the methods, figure out:

• Who/what were the subjects in this study? Animals, humans, cells?
• If this is a human study, how were people selected to participate? What are their demographics? How well does the sample represent the general population or the population of interest?
• What type of study is this?
  • Observational: observing their subjects, usually in the natural environment
  • Questionnaire/survey: asking the subject questions such as opinion surveys, behavioral recall (e.g., how well they slept, what they ate), and standardized questionnaires (e.g., personality tests)
  • Experimental: researchers manipulate one or more variables and measure the effects
• If this is an experiment, is there a control condition—a no-treatment condition used as a baseline for comparison?
• How were the variables operationalized and measured? For example, if the study is designed to compare low-carb and high-carb diets, how did the researchers define “low” and “high?” How did they figure out what people were eating?

Some red flags that should give you pause about the reliability of the findings are:

• Small or unrepresentative sample (although “small” can be relative).
• Lack of a control condition in experimental designs.
• Variables operationalized in a way that doesn’t make sense, for example “low-carb” diets that include 150+ grams of carbs per day.
• Variables measured questionably, as with the Food Frequency Questionnaire.

The Results present the statistical analyses. This is unsurprisingly the most intimidating section for a lot of people. You don’t need to understand statistics to get a sense of the data, however.

While reading the results:

• Start by looking at any tables and figures. Try to form your own impression of the findings.
• If you aren’t familiar with statistical tests, do your best to read what they authors say about the data, paying attention to which effects they are highlighting. Refer back to the tables and figures and see if what they’re saying jibes with what you see.
• Pay attention to the real magnitude of any differences. Just because two groups are statistically different or something changes after an intervention doesn’t make it important. See if you can figure out in concrete terms how much the groups differed, for example. If data are only reported in percentages or relative risk, be wary of drawing firm conclusions.

It can take a fair amount of effort to decipher a results section. Sometimes you have to download supplementary data files to get the raw numbers you’re looking for.

The Discussion or Conclusions summarize what the study was about. The authors offer their interpretation of the data, going into detail about what they think the results actually mean. They should also discuss the limitations of the study.

While reading the discussion:

• Use your own judgment to decide if you think the authors are accurately characterizing their findings. Do you agree with their interpretation? Are they forthcoming about the limitations of their study?

Red flags:

• Concrete statements like “proved.” Hypotheses can be supported, not proven.
• Talking in causal terms when the data is correlational! As I said above, well-controlled experimental designs are the only types of research that can possibly speak to causal effects. Questionnaire, survey, and historical data can tell you when variables are potentially related, but they say nothing about what causes what. Anytime authors use words like “caused,” “led to,” or “_[X]_ increased/decreased _[Y]_” about variables they didn’t manipulate in their study, they are either being sloppy or intentionally misleading.

What about Bias?

Bias is tricky. Even the best intentioned scientists can fall victim to bias at all stages of the research process. You certainly want to know who funded the study and if the researchers have any conflicts of interest. That doesn’t you should flatly dismiss every study that could potentially be biased, but it’s important to note and keep in mind. Journal papers should list conflicts of interest.

Solicit Other Opinions

Once you feel like you have your own opinion about the research, see what other knowledgeable people you trust have to say. I have a handful of people I trust for opinions—Mark, of course, Chris Kresser, and Robb Wolf being a few. Besides fact-checking yourself, this is a good way to learn more about what to look for when reading original research.

To be clear, I don’t think it’s important that you read every single study the popular media grabs hold of. It’s often okay just to go to your trusted experts and see what they say. However, if a report has you really concerned, or your interest is particularly piqued, this is a good skill to have.

Remember my admonition: No study is meant to stand alone. That means don’t put too much stock in any one research paper. It also means don’t dismiss a study because it’s imperfect, narrow in scope, or you can otherwise find flaws. This is how science moves forward—slowly, one (imperfect) study at a time.

That’s it for today. Share your questions and observations below, and thanks for reading.

The post A Beginner’s Guide to Reading Scientific Research appeared first on Mark's Daily Apple.