Madden Curse

I just read a great article on the "Madden Curse." For those who don't know, every year a new edition of the football video game Madden NFL is realeased, and for ten or so years it has featured an NFL star on the cover. Over the years, some of the players appearing on the cover have gone on to be injured or have bad seasons. A rumor has grown that the cover brings a curse to any player on it, plaguing them with injuries, bad seasons, or other maladies.

Luke Plunkett writing on Kotaku has written a great breakdown of who's been on the cover every year and exactly what did or did not happen to them during that season. My favorite paragraph is this one:

...[the curse is] all based on hearsay, selective statistic cherry-picking and misinformation. When you look at two key factors - the NFL's injury rate and the actual performance of all twelve cover stars in the year they appeared on the box - you'll see the curse is nothing but a load of baloney.

That some good skeptical thinking there, something I don't normally see crossed over from my video game sites. But, then, he's an Aussie. What else would one expect?

Continue Reading...

Submitting to the Court

In a recent conversation, I said something to the effect of "Missouri is the meth capital of the country." Ben—being a diligent skeptic with the beard recently voted "most huggable"—called me on it. Rightfully so, I might add. Many times I have heard phrases of the form LOCATION X is the ACTIVITY A capital of LOCATION Y.

Of course, I promised a source. Herein I deliver—to the best of my ability.

I was able to track down a possible source of my memory of a statistic of this nature. This article was published in the student newspaper of my alma mater during my matriculation there, so it's certainly possible that I read it. I do remember reading something with a bar chart, but maybe they don't put those in the online editions.

Sadly, this article is low on citations—zero, in fact—and quotes a politician, not the best source in any case. So to back up my claim, it does nothing. It does, however, explain why that nugget is in my head.

The problem now is that I can't find any one source that's a silver bullet. I can find sources backing up my claims that Missouri does lead or has once lead the nation in some methamphetamine-related statistic or other, but they're poorly cited if at all. Or I can find sources giving numbers for each state individually, but not as an aggregate and not with any sort of convenient ranking. I'll give the best information I could get, but it's not authoritative. I guess we'll have to accept what we have.

For four years in a row Missouri had the highest number of meth lab seizures of any state in the nation. It's not necessarily the best metric we can find for that sort of thing, but it's what I can find. That statistic was repeated many places, but the best one is probably this mention from PBS's FRONTLINE, saying "For the past four years, the state has recorded the highest number of clandestine lab seizures in the nation." The page was created in 2006, but the statistics they use are of activity in 2004, so I'd say those "four years" are 2000-2004. For instance, the page says, "In 2004, 2,788 labs were seized by DEA, state and local authorities..."

The reason I think the FRONTLINE page is a credible source is that they give a citation. "Sources: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration state factsheets, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Treatment Episode Date Set, and the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws." Checking out the DEA factsheet reporting statistics on 2004, we find the same number claimed earlier: "Meth Lab Incidents: 2,788 (DEA, state, and local)."

The reason I don't think the FRONTLINE page is a wonderful source is that, to verify all their claims, I'd have to dig through years of these DEA factsheets on multiple states. They don't present one nation-encompassing graph of where these numbers are highest, so unless I want to create such a thing myself—and I do not—I'll have to trust FRONTLINE did their homework properly.

So there we have it. As with many arguments of this nature, there is no clear winner or loser. Was I right in making my claim? Yes, to a certain extent. There are meth-related metrics by which Missouri has recently claimed the dubious distinction of being number one. Was Ben right in calling me on it? Damn straight he was. What I actually said outstripped the facts, and had he not questioned it I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Kudos to him for demanding better of me.

That's one of the reasons I wanted to start the Society: I know I can do better. I can be a better skeptic. I can learn to better filter out the bad ideas that are right now in my head, just like this semi-bogus meth statistic was. But to do better I need practice, and to practice I need help from friends. I can read books and listen to podcasts, but until I let the court of public opinion provided by my peers cross-examinine my ideas, I'll never have a gauge of how well I'm really doing at rooting out my bad thinking.

So thanks, Ben. Pointing out my weaksauce statement may have been a throwaway comment for you, but I appreciate it.

Continue Reading...

Ho Ho Hustle!

I just had a post-Thanksgiving get together with my family. The news item on everyone's lips was that Santas everywhere have been banned from saying "Ho ho ho." Apparently the onomatopoeia "ho" could be offensive to women and Santa shouldn't be heard saying that! My family was aghast. Was nothing sacred? This is political correctness gone too far! How, they asked, could anyone be so bold?

How, I asked, could anyone believe that story?

I didn't say anything at the time, because I didn't have any sources on hand, but my skeptical alarm bells were ringing. First, there was never an identified antagonist behind this ban, only a vague "them." To me that smacks of urban legend. Second, the scale of this story is implausible. The idea of changing a lovable character's catchphrase simply because of an alternate slang definition is silly. There may be a few (very few) people who think it's a good idea, but instituting some general "ban" would never gain traction. So my prediction was either, a) someone had suggested this as a "What's next in the War on Christmas?" hypothetical that got twisted into a ban, or b) a small group made a small suggestion that someone somewhere might want to consider thinking about changing "ho ho ho," and it got picked up by media sources as a ban.

Upon reaching home, my first step was a quick Snopes search. Sadly, no results. Either this hasn't reached bona fide urban legend status, or it wasn't in a popular chain email. I moved on.

Step two was a Google News search, with the search string "ho ho ho". I caught the trail here. Most of the results are editorials in several newspapers. One common thread: all the stories mention the flap is over Santas in Australia, not America. Eventually I found an article mentioning the original source: Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

This article does mention a ban, saying

Santas across Sydney are rebelling against attempts to ban their traditional greeting of "ho, ho, ho" in favour of "ha, ha, ha".

They also cite the motivation being the alternate definition of the word "ho,"

One would-be Santa has told The Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use "ho, ho, ho" because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute.

Mixed in with the emotional anecdotes is the real story, however.

Recruitment firm Westaff - which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country - has told its trainees that the "ho ho ho" phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.

A Westaff manager Sari Hegarty clarifies the situation:

Part of our advice to our Santas is that they should be mindful of children having their first Santa experience.
We ask our Santas to try techniques such as lowering their tone of voice and using 'ha, ha, ha' to encourage the children to come forward and meet Santa. We wish you and your family a very merry Christmas.

On their website, Westaff has statements regarding this incident. In a press release, they assure "the public we celebrate Santa's signature saying, 'ho, ho, ho,' and no directive forbidding the language, for any reason, was issued by the company." A longer document (PDF) is full of information on the company's stance; it is, needless to say, not against the phrase "ho ho ho."

This sounds much more plausible. A Santa training company told its wannabe helpers that a hearty "Ho ho ho!" might start the little ones crying, and they should perhaps consider saying "Ha ha ha!" in a softer tone. This sounds nothing like a ban, just a suggestion that got blown out of proportion. Even the accusations that the alternate definition of "ho" was a motivation came from non-Westaff sources, so I consider them suspect.

How, then, did this myth get started? Knowing that no ban ever existed or was attempted by anyone, let's read the first few lines of the Daily Telegraph article again.

Santa fury at 'ho, ho, ho' ban
HE is an unlikely revolutionary but this Christmas, Santa is a rebel with a claus.
He is having the last laugh on political correctness - and it's a great big fat belly laugh.
Santas across Sydney are rebelling against attempts to ban their traditional greeting of "ho, ho, ho" in favour of "ha, ha, ha".

"Santa fury"? A "revolutionary"? Santas are "rebelling"? Where did they get any of that? The Westaff sources are quoted in the article, so it should have been clear that this story had nothing backing it up. However, the authors wasted no time in going far beyond the evidence, reporting trumped-up anecdotes to combat "the latest example of political correctness gone mad." This is simply irresponsible journalism. And most other news outlets just parroted the original story with no investigation at all. Shame on them.

Not all media outlets are guilty, however. I did find a few sources questioning this story, and they deserve mention. Sign on San Diego initially reported the story credulously, then retracted a few hours later as new information came in. Kudos to them. And Canadian news site CBC.CA ran a great piece pointing out flaws in the article and The Daily Telegraph itself. Good going for them.

So next time you're enjoying a little turkey and hear a story that doesn't sound quite right, file it away. Chances are you could probe the surface just a little and find something a lot more plausible.

Continue Reading...

Happy Halloween!

With Halloween just around the corner, I have been reading up on some urban legends associated with the holiday. If you don't already know, the best place to read up on urban legends is Snopes. There is even a section dedicated to Halloween stories. I though I would take a moment to recap some of my favorite myths.

Random Poisoning of Halloween Candy:

From as early as the mid-1950's there have been reports of evil strangers giving out arsenic, cyanide, heroine, cocaine, or marijuana-laced candy to unsuspecting children. Amazingly, there has not been a single documented case of a stranger intentionally poisoning hordes of trick-or-treaters. Sadly, there have been many cases of children poisoned by immediate family members or more distant relatives who then try to blame their crime on randomly poisoned candy. Here are a few of the most notable cases:

• Houston, Texas 1974: Ronald Clark O'Bryan poisoned his 8 year old son with cyanide-laced Pixie Stix.
• Detroit, Michigan 1970: A 5 year old boy died after getting into his uncle's heroine stash. The family sprinkled heroine on the candy and blamed random candy poisoning in order to protect the uncle.

Dr. Joel Best at the University of Delaware has been researching stories of Halloween candy poisonings for over twenty years and has been quoted in the UDaily stating that Halloween candy is

“Very safe—no child has ever died or been seriously injured by contaminated Halloween treats,” according to Joel Best, chairperson of sociology at the University of Delaware, who has made a study of the subject.

“Since 1983, I have followed stories about contaminated Halloween treats in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune going back to 1958, and every time a case has been reported, the cause of death or injury has turned out to be something other than Halloween candy.”

For example, Best cited one case where a child got into his uncle’s supply of heroin and another where a father took a life insurance policy out on his son, poisoned him and attempted to blame his death on Halloween candy. Other stories, like the pin in the candy bar or razor blade in the apple are hoaxes, many done by children themselves. The candy industry supported a study in the 1980s that showed the same results, he said.

Razorblades and needles in Halloween Candy

Unlike the cases of poisoned candy, there have been many documented cases of sharp object placed in candy. It turns out, however, that most of these cases are again, not random. Either children or parents are the perpetrators, and as a result, are the main source of fuel for this myth. Popular Culture professor Dr. Jack Santino, in his paper Halloween Sadism: The Evidence, went though decades of news reports and medical literature to determine that the risk of ingesting pins and needles is rare. He states

A recent medical overview argues that Halloween sadism is “quite rare and the risk may be exaggerated” (Weir 2000: 1046). I know of only two reports of foreign bodies having been ingested and the injury attributed to Halloween sadism; in one of these cases, a pin was swallowed nearly a week before Halloween; in the other, a 55-year-old man ingested a needle thought to have been in a carmel-covered apple. In other words, it seems unlikely that either incident was directly related to trick-or-treating (Conforti et al. 1987; Bajwa 2003). In a third case, an adolescent entered a hospital on Halloween suffering from abdominal pain. He attributed this to a commercially wrapped cupcake that he had purchased at a gas station; however, he later acknowledged that he had overdosed on prescription medication (White et al. 2002). In other words, the medical literature does not offer any reports of children poisoned by treats they received while trick-or-treating.

These two sets of legends are just scratching the surface of Halloween lore. There are stories from accidental hangings at hayrides (true) to stories of haunted houses so scary that no one has ever finished them (false), not to mention the thousands of local myths associated with cemeteries and old houses which seem to resurface every October.

One a funnier note, last year I stumbled across an article that looks at the physics behind ghosts, vampires, and zombies. The article can be found here and here. I highly recommend checking it out.

Have a terrifying Halloween!

Continue Reading...