Understanding Randomness

Randomness is defined as the lack of a pattern in a series of events.  Since there is no pattern or apparent logic to the appearance, randomness allows for no predictability.  This may seem straightforward, but a poor understanding of randomness leads people to make untrustworthy decisions.

The lottery consists of a near-random selection of winning numbers.  In most big-money lotteries there are millions of combinations, so the odds of winning are much greater than a million to one against any individual player.  Suppose the numbers 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 were drawn this week in a certain lottery.  Most people would not consider picking those numbers next week.  “What are the odds of the same numbers coming up two weeks in a row?” they would reason.  BUT because the numbers are chosen randomly, the odds of them coming up again next week are exactly the same as they were of coming up this week.  And the odds of those numbers coming up this week were exactly the same as the odds of any other combination.  To shy away from them because we have seen them so recently is not a sound strategy at all.

Everyone knows that if you flip a fair coin, it should come up heads about half the time and tails about half the time.  So if you flip a coin ten times in a row, most people would expect to see 5 heads and 5 tails.  BUT because the coin comes up randomly each time, the probability of getting 5 of each is only about one in four.  There is a three-times greater chance of getting some other combination.  The coin has no memory from one flip to the next.  It doesn’t know it’s supposed to come up one way or the other. 

In fact it is possible, but not very likely, that the coin could come up all heads.  Flip a coin ten thousand times and ten heads in a row somewhere in the sequence would not be that surprising at all.  It happens, but not very often.

Likewise, if a roulette wheel stops on red four times in a row, there is no logical reason to suppose it will not come up red the next time.  Seeing such a sequence, some people will bet on black, thinking it is “due.”  They will be rewarded for their “logic” about half the time and the rest of the time will remark on the weirdness of the situation.  BUT it’s not weird.  The roulette wheel is no more intelligent than the coin.

This identifying a pattern where there is none affects everyday decisions and beliefs.  When a single research experiment reveals that a certain food or other product is healthy or harmful, it could be true – assuming the experiment was carefully set up and carried out.  The finding could also be a random result – it just happened.  It takes others repeating the experiment and getting similar results, to show the findings were valid and not just some extraordinary fluke.

Unfortunately, it’s more exciting for scientists to do an original experiment and release the findings to the press with great fanfare, than to do the boring process of duplicating the work of others, especially when getting the same outcome will help those others take all the credit.  It might also be harder to get funding for a duplicate study.  We have to understand this to keep from over-reacting to the health news discovery-of-the-week.  So many people want to hang their hat on the results of a single study that just happened to confirm what they want to believe.

There are many other examples in our random world where we can be fooled either by apparent coincidences or by expecting patterns that don’t really exist.  But one important issue concerns self-medication, the pills, foods and experiences that each of us is sure make us feel better.  Most times, unless several researchers have done extensive studies, the improvement we feel is either coincidence or placebo.  Either we remember only the favorable outcomes or we put so much faith in the cure that our brains do the work.

When the folk medicine or sports superstition runs up against a ten-heads-in-a- row situation, we take it as truth rather than randomness and swear by it for the rest of our lives.

Superstition and Health

Last time I gave an example of how one food company tried to use modern day superstitious ideas about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to try to hype their tomato products.  They touted the fact that none of their tomatoes were genetically modified, in the sense of being tinkered with in some lab, implying that others were and the only way to be sure is to use their products.  They were caught in the act, so to speak, because there are no genetically modified tomatoes; and even if there were, scientists have concluded that GMO products are safe.  The fear of GMOs is a good example of food-related superstition.  If their errors had not been so obvious, they may have slipped by the critics leaving misinformed people to the mercy of more misinformation.

Closely related to food superstitions are those about health and longevity.  Everyone is interested in living longer and healthier, but different people go to different extremes, some wasting money on worthless and potentially dangerous products.

One example that came to my attention recently is essential oils.  Used in aromatherapy, they are believed to produce numerous health and wellness benefits from pain relief and antidepressant effects to digestion aid and hormone enhancement.  One website shows a grid of over 40 aromas with a check in the box showing which of 27 benefits each provides.  That they may be an effective deodorant is not a stretch, but at least one is listed as having both calming and stimulant effects.

Of course the National Institute of Health (NIH) sees it differently, concluding after extensive study:  “Lack of sufficiently convincing evidence regarding the effectiveness of aromatherapy combined with its potential to cause adverse effects questions the usefulness of this modality in any condition.”  Another website discusses further disappointing study results.

Another area of health that is all the rage is detoxing.  This CBS news item highlights a couple of people who were hospitalized as a result of following the herbal, all natural detox plans.  Experts told them, “while ‘detoxing’ can be a necessary process for people addicted to drugs and alcohol, the average person does not need to take extreme steps to cleanse so-called 'toxins' out of their system. In fact, the body detoxes naturally” nor is there any way to artificially enhance this process.  They also remind readers in the course of the explanation, “Despite marketing suggesting otherwise, all-natural products are not without side effects.”

A second site is even more blunt on the subject.  “Products that promise ‘detox’ are a sham. Yes, all of them.”  It’s not magic; it’s a rip-off and potentially dangerous.

Finally, here is an example from Consumer Health Digest (#17-01).  It describes the website of a doctor (MD) who offered alternative health solutions and was recently charged with unprofessional conduct and refusing to release records to investigators.  “In 2013, the DeOrio Wellness Medical Center Web site offered a ‘comprehensive holistic evaluation and treatment program’ that included ‘specialized laboratory testing,’ Oriental pulse and tongue diagnosis; homeopathic interview and treatment; acupuncture; nutrition and diet consultation; ‘structural and biomechanical integration’; ‘emotion and spiritual counseling’; and ‘infra-red sauna baths combined with IV vitamin therapy for the newest, safest and most effective detoxification program available.’ "

When you see a laundry list of magical health remedies like this, run! 

A century ago it was called “snake oil.”  A slick salesman drove his wagon into town touting the wonders of who-knows-what in a bottle, often arranging for a shill to be in the crowd to praise the product.  Then he would drive away with the cash and disappear before anyone could complain.  Now, even with better education, it’s the same; except the slick salesmen use the Internet with endorsements coming from Facebook to lure the desperate or others susceptible to the quick-fix enticement. 

The ones above and many other wonderful cures based on ancient wisdom and clinically proven treatments are looking to use the placebo effect to separate you from your money.  Due to the web, 24-hour news and social media, critical thinking was never so important in keeping us safe from the health-related superstitions of the day.

You Say Tomato...

I went to dictionary.com to find a definition for “superstition.”  It told me that it is a “belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing” or “any blindly accepted belief or notion.”

So when I saw a Forbes article scolding Hunts for a marketing campaign stating: “No matter how far afield you look, you won’t find a single genetically modified tomato among our vines,” it is pretty clear that the company is trying to use superstition to sell its products.

First, an exact definition of genetically modified organism (GMO) is hard to pin down.  Recently when people see the term they tend to think of genetic engineering in a laboratory, sometimes introducing the genes of another species to enhance the characteristics of an organism.  This, however, is not the only definition.  Technically speaking, any tinkering with the genes of a plant, whether artificial or natural, can be considered genetic engineering (GE).  And tomatoes are well known for the crossbreeding done to improve them.  These are usually referred to as hybrid tomatoes, like the ones usually sold as small starter plants at your local nursery every spring – the Better Boys and Early Girls.

Consider this description of a hybrid from a national seed catalog.  The tomato is advertised as having a broad disease resistance package with “high resistance to alternaria stem canker, fusarium wilt races 1, 2, gray leaf spot, nematodes, tobacco mosaic virus, and verticillium wilt.  This just didn’t happen.  Plant scientist worked tirelessly to bring together all these beneficial characteristics while maintaining the size, shape, color, taste and juiciness of the original tomato.

Second, technically speaking, all tomatoes are hybrids. This article explains. “Even the most cherished, oldest, and knobbiest heirloom tomato is a hybrid of the original South American fruit. Tomatoes are one of those plants that people love so much; we’ve been tinkering with its genetics basically since the plant was first cultivated in Peru and Central America before the fifteenth century.  That’s right.  Anyone can look up pictures on the Internet of the original fruits and vegetables taken from the wild by our ancient ancestors.  Not only are they uglier, but also far less tasty and nutritious.  Over the eons, better and better plants were developed either by preserving accidental mutations or by intentional crossbreeding.

Furthermore, attempts to apply the latest laboratory GE techniques have not produced anything better, and there are no GMO tomatoes being grown commercially anywhere in North America or Europe.  So what Hunt is saying is also true of every one of their competitors.

Finally, as I pointed out last time, “GM crops are just as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts.”  This is supported by other authoritative sources (referred to here).

In the Hunt article, they called it a marketing blunder, just because it was so easily refuted, but that’s the way advertising is.  Hunt got caught trying to use fear mongering based on modern superstition about the dangers of GMO.  If they could have gotten away with it, there’s no telling how much profit they would have made by duping a gullible public.  (Look at all the products that never contained gluten in the first place but are newly labeled gluten-free to take advantage of another fad. 

Even major garden seed catalogs proudly advertise that none of their seeds are GMO, just to play to the uninformed audience.  And many of their customers are serious gardeners who should know better but just go along with the popular myth, never taking a little time to educate themselves.

Unfortunately, that’s where we seem to be heading; advertisers playing to and promoting the latest superstitions to make a buck.  Will we stand for it?  Only critical thinking keeps us from being manipulated by these unscrupulous methods.

Howling at the Moon

Last week in yoga class one of the participants arrived looking very pregnant.  The baby was almost due and someone suggested that it would be born within the week because the moon was nearly full - more babies are born under a full moon.  When I hear statements like that I like to say, “Cite your sources.”  Since the studio is located mere blocks from a major university, people knew what I meant:  you can’t just go around throwing out presumed facts without providing footnotes, references or other evidence showing studies that have verified those facts.  Anything else is just hearsay.

It was not too difficult to find information from many reliable sources on the myth of the full moon.  This ABC article interviews a research associate professor from the University of Washington who has studied “more than 100 research papers on the purported effects of the full moon on human affairs.”  His findings are that the widely held belief has no basis.  Most studies disprove the myth and those that seem to support it have design problems, including inadequate sample size, improper use of statistical tools or failure to hold other effects constant.  In summary, well-designed studies have not supported this belief.

Another source describes a study in Canada looking for possible lunar effects on the frequency of visits to two emergency rooms for psychological problems.  “The results of their analyses revealed no link between the incidence of psychological problems and the four lunar phases.”

The myth gained popularity with the 1978 publication of psychiatrist Arnold Lieber's bestseller Lunar Effects: Biological Tides and Human Emotions.  He explained the effect on human psychology by proposing a gravitational pull theory.  The moon causes ocean tides and should have a similar effect on the human body, which consists in large part of water.  The problem with this view is that tides occur every day, not just on those days when more sunlight is reflected in our direction.  The brightness of the moon has nothing to do with gravity.  Researchers also found that the author tended to use only data that supported his theory, omitting other findings.  (As I noted last time, popular, as in bestseller, does not equal true.)

ABC further reports: “Studies have found that cops and hospital workers are among the strongest believers in the notion that more crime and trauma occur on nights when the moon is full. One 1995 University of New Orleans study found that as many as 81 percent of mental health professionals believe the myth.”  Another study in southwestern Pennsylvania found 69 percent of surgical nurses believed that a full moon led to more chaos and more patients, while only 23 percent reported themselves as being superstitious.

Trust me, saying “Cite your sources” does not make you the most popular guy in the room, even in yoga class where folks tend to be a little more mellow.  But if no one challenges these superstitions and outright falsehoods, America will become more ignorant and misled.  This is not the kind of critical thinking populace we genuinely need.

Whether the full moon has influence is really a trivial matter, but similar instances of misinformation that are passed along in the same way and accepted on faith can have deadly consequences, as when parents forego having their children vaccinated.