The Truth Wears Off

Is there something wrong with the scientific method?

by Jonah Lehrer December 13, 2010

Jonah Lehrer, Annals of Science, "The Truth Wears Off," The New Yorker, December 13, 2010, p. 52

ABSTRACT: ANNALS OF SCIENCE about the decline effect.

On September 18, 2007, a few dozen neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and drug-company executives gathered in a hotel conference room in Brussels to hear some startling news. It had to do with a class of drugs known as atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, which came on the market in the early nineties. The therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily falling. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineties.

Before the effectiveness of a drug can be confirmed, it must be tested again and again. The test of replicability, as it's known, is the foundation of modern research. It's a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It's as if our facts are losing their truth.

This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.

When Jonathan Schooler was a graduate student at the University of Washington, he discovered a surprising phenomenon having to do with language and memory that he called verbal overshadowing. While Schooler was publishing his results in journals, he noticed that it was proving difficult to replicate his earlier findings. Mentions psychologist Joseph Banks Rhine, who conducted several experiments dealing with E.S.P. In 2004, Schooler embarked on an imitation of Rhine's research in an attempt to test the decline effect.

The most likely explanation for the decline is an obvious one: regression to the mean. Yet the effect's ubiquity seems to violate the laws of statistics. Describes Anders Møller's discovery of the theory of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual selection. Mentions Leigh Simmons and Theodore Sterling.

Biologist Michael Jennions argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias.

Biologist Richard Palmer suspects that an equally significant issue is the selective reporting of results—that is, the subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Mentions John Ioannidis.

In the late nineteen-nineties, neuroscientist John Crabbe investigated the impact of unknown chance events on the test of replicability. The disturbing implication of his study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data is nothing but noise. This suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion.

Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything.

clipped from now.eloqua.com

Kerrying On

A Holiday Gift for the Children

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kerry Patterson is the coauthor of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

Thirty years ago, after landing my first consulting job, I could hardly wait to get started. For years, I had studied how to change the world and now it was my turn to roll up my sleeves and actually do something. The goal of this particular project was to take an adversarial, punitive, and authoritarian corporate culture and turn it into a productive, team-oriented place. At least, that's what the plant manager requested.

"And I want it soon!" the agitated manager told me over the phone. "Or heads are going to roll."

As I drove to the airport on my way to the anxious manager's factory, I couldn't help but notice a bumper sticker sported by several of my neighbors. The popular sticker stated rather immodestly—"Irvine: Another Day in Paradise." Several hours later, as I exited the Wayne County Airport on my way to visit the client, I noticed Detroit's version of the home-town promotional slogan on a sweatshirt: "Detroit: Where the Weak Are Killed . . . and Eaten."

Later that day, as I interviewed hourly employees, I got my first glimpse into the rather un-paradise-like nature of the company I was supposed to help fashion into a paragon of cooperation. When I asked the question "If you ran this place, what changes would you make?" the employees immediately started ridiculing their leaders. At one point, they told of a supervisor throwing a heavy ashtray through a plate-glass window and then chopping up a breaker box with a fire ax—you know, to get his team's attention. Later, during that same interview, a rather animated employee explained that the ashtray-hurling supervisor's direct reports eventually grew tired of his shenanigans and one Friday afternoon chased him out to his car. When he climbed on top of it for safety, they lit the car on fire!

Then things turned from scary to complicated. As I interviewed a group of supervisors from whence this ashtray thrower came, they (much to my surprise) seemed reasonable and rational—nothing like the slavering maniacs their direct reports had just described. In fact, they appeared rather pleasant. The supervisors did share one thing in common with their direct reports. They had a bone to pick with their own bosses, the superintendents who, in their words, were authoritarian monsters. Of course, when I met the superintendents, they seemed quite professional, and—you guessed it—they pretty much loathed their bosses, the managers.

As it turns out, everyone at this rather frightening factory blamed everyone else for their problems and everyone—based upon the unprofessional actions of their bosses—felt justified in their own counterproductive behaviors. Why? Because everyone deserved whatever you gave them. And this wasn't a problem unique to this particular factory, city, or region. As my career has unfolded, I've run into similarly violent and reactive places all around the country.

Not everyone lights cars on fire, of course, but the idea of dealing back what you've been dealt is still widely shared. It seems one of the values reflected in today's video games, TV shows, and movies has left its mark. All encourage revenge. For instance, the longest running TV show of my generation, started with the "bad guy" riding into town, getting off his horse, spitting on a nun, and pistol-whipping a schoolmarm. Then, for a full 55 minutes, the good guys sought revenge on that pistol-toting bad guy, who, as we all knew, deserved whatever he got. And to this day, this same troublesome theme continues on the screen.

I recently mentioned our seemingly insatiable thirst for revenge to my next-door neighbor and he chuckled softly and stated, "I have the same problem with my own children. They'll be in the middle of a squabble, I'll ask one of them what's going on, and my oldest son will invariably come back with, 'It all started when he hit me back!'"

"It all started when he hit me back!" What a clever encapsulation of a contemporary malaise. As long as others mistreat us, we can mistreat them right back. Because, well, they deserve it.

I've thought about this issue for quite some time, and as many of you know, it permeates our writing. For example, the principle of working on ourselves first from Crucial Conversations suggests we need to think less about exacting revenge on others and more about our own style under stress. Equally true, maybe we shouldn't mirror the very behavior we loathe. Transforming others into villains and viewing ourselves as heroes also fuels the fires of getting even. In short, in both our training and books we teach that responding to violence with violence is a bad thing, and I believe we've made some progress. In fact, in that first factory where a supervisor wielded an ax, leaders learned to effectively handle high-stakes, emotional conversations, and over the next two years violence decreased significantly.

Today, I hope to take this message to a new audience: children. Actually, I'm hoping you'll pass the message along for me. I know, asking a favor deviates quite a bit from your standard business newsletter, and writing something for children—why that's virtually unheard of. But it's my hope that if we can set kids on the right path while they're still young, they'll be better prepared for the unrelenting stream of invitations to violence that will most assuredly assault them as they turn on their TVs, play their video games, go to movies, and eventually show up at work.

So, with the children in mind, and in the spirit of the holiday season, I've written a rather Seussian children's tale that I hope you'll share with the young ones in your world. It's not about mistletoe, snowmen, and the like, but apropos to the season of love and tranquility, it shares a message of peace—the kind of peace one creates through a healthy and loving response to how others treat us, even when they're being naughty, not nice. The short (three minute) story is intended to be accompanied by pictures, but I haven't arranged for the artwork yet. So for this holiday, I plan on reading it aloud to my grandchildren, sans illustrations. You might consider doing the same.

It’s Never Too Late to Be Nice
A Parable from the Kingdom of Yabbit
by Kerry Patterson

If you’ve never been to the Kingdom of Yabbit,
Or sat in the shade of a Bilbaba tree,
Then you’ve missed the story of their terrible habit,
And a boy named Indy and his magical key.

We’ll start with the Prince, G. Mortimer Oracle.
He’ll tell us what happened,
And why it’s historical.
“Our creatures were pleasant—no troublesome rats,
Our hedgehogs high-fiber, our groundhogs low-fat.
Life would have been good; life would have been nifty,
If it weren’t for the in-Yabbit-ants—
All four hundred and fifty.

“Our citizens, you see, were completely predictable.
It hurts me to say it,
But they were often despict-able.
Now don’t get me wrong, they all said their prayers,
They cut their nails weekly, and combed all their hairs.
And every third Thursday—they changed underwears.”

So what was the horrible, nasty, bad habit
That constantly tortured the Kingdom of Yabbit,
Even the folks with the foot of a rabbit?

In Yabbit, if someone took a swing at your nose,
You hit them back harder,
You stomped on their toes.
If your neighbor was rude or called you a name,
You screamed something worse.
You said they were lame.
If your brother tricked you then stole your best toy,
You snatched his lunch money,
And grinned with pure joy.

At the heart of all this violence and thievin’
Was the ugly desire to get better than even.
As long as someone bothered you first,
You now had the right, to do them far worse—
Like yank on their pigtails, then shout out a curse,
Or pour lemon yogurt in their shiny new purse.

Now, what was the source of this horrible habit?
Why did everyday folks like Kammi Sue Kravitz
Shout nasty, rude words like blast and dag-nabit?
And make the whole Kingdom quite hard to inhabit?
Because after every bad deed,
Someone always said, “Yeah but . . .”

When you asked your son Tommy,
“Did you punch Harry Hurst?”
He’d answer back sharply,
“Yeah but, he hit me first.”
“Did you call your twin sister
A really bad name?”
“Yeah but, she was rude first,
And I just did the same.”
“Did you chase your pet monkey
And then try to shave him?”
“Yeah but, he ate my banana,
And deserved what I gave him.”

But this kind of thinking can get you in trouble.
Every time you say “Yeah but…”
Your problems just double.
And you know what else happens
Every time you say “Yeah but”?
You give up your freedom.
What a terrible habit!

When others do nasty and horrible things,
If you act the same way, then they’re pulling your strings.
When someone gets angry and you too get upset,
You jiggle and jerk like a marionette.

But a wonderful change came over the land,
When a small boy named Indy
Acted selfless and grand.
His sister punched him and called him a name.
Then she stepped back and waited,
But no “yeah-buts” came.
So she poked him again and called him a chicken,
Knowing full well
That she’d soon take a lickin’.

But Indy refused to continue the habit.
Yes Indy refused to ever say, “Yeah but . . .”
“I don’t want to be mean!” Indy quietly said.
His mom was so stunned, her hair turned bright red.
“When others are bad, why should I be badder?”
His dad was so shocked, he fell off a ladder.
“It’s too late to change things!” Indy’s sister complained.
“I’ve fought fire with fire, since I was first potty trained!”

Then Indy offered some helpful advice—
Not just one time, or two times,
He offered it thrice.
“If a bloke fills your pants with a sack full of ice,
Or crushes your bike in the jaws of a vice,
Or buries your hat under six feet of rice . . .
It’s never too late,
No it’s never too late,
No it’s never too late to be nice.”

A magical change came over the land.
Indy started a trend,
A trend that was grand.
When Billy Bob Baker yelled at his sister,
She smiled sweetly and asked,
“Could you speak softly, mister?”
When Sally Sue Seesaw refused to share candy,
Her friend simply showed her
How sharing was dandy.

Soon every in-Yabbit-ant refused to fight back.
They chose on their own how they wanted to act.
They chose on their own who they wanted to be.
They chose on their own, and this was the key.
They chose on their own, and soon they were free.

As the sun sets behind the bilbaba tree,
And the Prince rides off on his yak,
Remember that if you want to be free,
You never, no never, fight back.
Remember how Indy discovered the key,
The one that set the in-Yabbit-ants free.
Never say, “Yeah but—he did it first!”
Not ever, not once, never twice.
Don’t even think about making things worse,
Because it’s never too late to be nice.
©