Dan Erwin

"How to Be Brilliant." It's All About Discipline, Not Giftedness.

Who would think that a single book review could garner so much attention? The blog, originally published in March 2010, continues to garner weekly attention. Both the book and the issue are groundbreaking. The issue is just as important today, so here's the original blog. . . . 

- - - - - - - 

Forget about genes as "unchanging" "blueprints" and talent as a "gift," all tied up in a bow. The review of David Shenk's new book, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've been told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong, in today's NYTimes Book Review summarizes much of the important research findings over the past ten years.

Reading over the review a couple times, I hooted with laughter remembering the old saw from music school about how to get to play at Carnagie Hall: practice, practice, practice. That's exactly what Anders Ericsson has learned about development, the notion of deliberate practice.

Shenk sets out to overthrow the conventional ideas surrounding the words, "nature" and "nurture." But he also recognizes that you can't overthrow the conventional ideas and images that have been accumulating for more than 125 years. In fact, as I've argued in numerous places, old dogma dies hard. Once concepts are deeply embedded, a superstructure of assumptions and ideas grows around it. Rejecting a dogma means that many ideas are now questionable, more research could be invalid, and that the reputation and contribution of many scientists might be questioned. As you can guess, old dogma rarely gets challenged.

Still, two significant and distinct lines of psychological research have been built up over the last fifteen years. One body of research shows that intelligence is fundamentally a competence that can be developed. A second line of research shows that supervised coaching, maintained at high levels for extended time periods, along with disciplined learning, can be far-reaching.

I draw two very important conclusions from this research. First, the next time you pick up the Wall Street Journal and read an article by Charles Murray (of the Bell Curve) and his ilk, remember that he's either BSing or clueless. Here's a copy of a letter by Robert Sternberg of Yale and Tufts, which I've posted on my website, challenging Murray's archaic ideas.

What the research also reveals is that we need not be stuck in careers and vocations that go the way of the Dodo bird as a result of technology and innovation. If we are willing to persist in continual growth, we can create new opportunities for ourselves. I've seen clients do that very thing for years and years.

Oh yeah. What Shenk seems to be unfamiliar with is the notion of small wins, the best way to persist and grow in the face of failure. You can find my basic discussion of the process and the research here. Why small changes work. . . . and Motivation and small wins . . . .

Flickr photo: by Vladsun

Milestone on College Degrees is Passed

More than 30% of American adults hold bachelor's degrees. That's a monstrous change, considering that only 11% of my generation of septuagenarians holds a bachelor's. 

The report, tucked away on page 16 of the Times, is far more significant than its newspaper location suggests. Drill down into the statistics and there's a lot of fascinating information. Information which suggests that careers are changing significantly. Some for the good and some not so good.

After a relatively stagnant period between 1970 and 1990, the stats reflect an increase that began in the 1990s. Significant gains are represented by all groups, but blacks and Latinos still lag behind whites. What's not so good is that the gap between whites and the rest has even widened in the last decade.

The census figures are initially heartening.

As of last March, 30.4 percent of people over age 25 in the United States held at least a bachelor’s degree, and 10.9 percent held a graduate degree, up from 26.2 percent and 8.7 percent 10 years earlier.

The statistics bear out the growing lead of women in college degrees, especially since colleges have enrolled and graduated more women than mean. The historic male advantage in graduation rates is about to be a thing of the past, although salary differences between men and women certainly don't reflect that collegiate advantage.

 In 2001, men held a 3.9 percentage-point lead in bachelor’s degrees and 2.6 percentage points in graduate degrees; by last year, both gaps were down to 0.7 percent.

It's no surprise that Asian-American are the best educated racial group: Asian-Americans remain the nation’s best-educated racial group, with 50.3 percent having bachelor’s degrees, and 19.5 percent holding graduate degrees.

Though this study didn't report on salaries, Asian-Americans have replaced Jews as the best paid in today's world. And, by the way, Asian-American Muslims are a significant factor in that high-wage world. As an aside, I've noticed that Asian-Americans are exceedingly aware of the best schools while most Midwestern college grads seem to have little interest. If, for example, I note that one of my daughters holds a Columbia University degree and another a U Chicago degree, there's a gasp from the Asian-American, and then a lot of questions. They want to know how, as a parent, I prepared them, what experiences did I provide for them, what high schools my kids went to, was it an International Baccalaureate school? Etc., etc. 

In addition to the census statistics, the article alluded to results from the American Community Survey.

One of those, examining major fields of study, shows that taken together, engineering and science are the most common areas for bachelor’s degrees, representing 34.9 percent of the total.

The persistence of men in those fields is waning, a significant trend given that engineers and people with science backgrounds tend to be in high demand, and have above-average incomes. Among college graduates 65 or older, only 23 percent of those with degrees in science or engineering majors are women; among people 40 to 64, the proportion of women rises to 36 percent; among those 25 to 39, 45.9 percent are women.

The same report also found that engineers and science majors are most heavily concentrated on the East and West Coasts, with the highest percentages in the District of Columbia, California, Washington and Maryland, and the lowest in Southern and Plains states.

Two issues are of importance from the last set of statistics. First, Richard Florida's research on the hot areas for technology and other STEM vocations merits study by parents and recent grads in search of jobs. Having spent much of my life in the Midwest, I'm aware that leaving home for a job in another state is difficult for many. Still, if recent grads want job opportunities of significance, they'd best kiss mom and dad goodbye and head for where the jobs are.

Second, the extensive jobs study at Georgetown University's Center for Education and the Workforce (downloadable free here), argues that US competitive advantage will turn on science, technology, engineering and math expertise. The report is highly nuanced, recognizing, for example, that two-year grads will have opportunities in the tomorrow's world. The conclusion for parents with kids looking to college are broadened significantly beyond the typical conversation. To wit: major in a stem discipline, or, choosing not to major in a stem discipline, get a job in a company with core stem needs. The third approach is to attend a top school (you know the list of the top 25) and major in whatever you wish.  

Do You Have to Take the Scientist's Word for It?

On regular occasions I converse with my business clients about the difference between business science (technically, social science ) and consultantancy snake oil. It's an important issue because a lot of the snake oil is regularly touted in business magazines and among execs. In today's world, where evidence-based management is available on an awful lot of issues, it's downright stupid to follow just any consultant's recommendation without analyzing it. That includes my own recommendations.

So how do you tell the difference between snake oil and genuine science? And do you have to have a research degree to be able to figure out the validity of many recommendations? Janet Stemwedel, one of those rare birds with two PhD's from Stanford, has simplified the issue for us. Furthermore, she doesn't think a PhD is necessary to assess the validity of science. 

In two blogs, posted on the Scientific American site, she deals forthrightly with the issue. She emphasizes that though scientific knowledge is built on empirical data and that though the data can vary significantly within the different disciplines, there are common patterns of reasoning that all scientists use.

In what follows, she spells out an approach that most any slightly critical thinker can use. Because the material is very relevant to much of what's going on in business--much less all the political conversations regarding science-I am printing parts of two blogs, the first distinguishing between baloney and real science, and the second explaining the scientific method.

The big difference (Karl) Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.

There is a corresponding difference that Popper sees in the form of the claims made by sciences and pseudo-sciences: Scientific claims are falsifiable — that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true — while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.

One of the things I like about her emphasis is that she's made the route to knowledge "potentially" open to any of us. So here's the core input on scientific reasoning:

One way to judge scientific credibility (or lack thereof) is to scope out the logical structure of the arguments a scientist is putting up for consideration. It is possible to judge whether arguments have the right kind of relationship to the empirical data without wallowing in that data oneself. Credible scientists can lay out:

• Here’s my hypothesis.
• Here’s what you’d expect to observe if the hypothesis is true. Here, on the other hand, is what you’d expect to observe if the hypothesis is false.
• Here’s what we actually observed (and here are the steps we took to control the other variables).
• Here’s what we can say (and with what degree of certainty) about the hypothesis in the light of these results.
• Here’s the next study we’d like to do to be even more sure.

Lest there be any question, the usual Webster definition of "hypothesis" is appropriate to the above: a proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and so test its accord with facts that are known or may be determined.

The underlined terms will take you to the relevant blogs in The Scientific American.

The Market Has Spoken--Conclusively--on Climate Change

The Republican debate this past week was especially enlightening, showcasing, in several instances, the current state of the idiocracy. Take Rick Perry’s comments on climate change. Any trained debater will tell you that his worst stumble of the night was on that subject. Perry has previously stated that the science of climate change is not settled. Inevitably, when challenged by Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and the moderator about how he came to that conclusion, Perry was adrift. He could name no scientist he had read, much less provide evidence to lend support to his position. He just repeated that we still “need to find out what the science is” and “the fact of the matter is that the science is not settled.” 

It’s not unusual for politicians to dissemble about risk, often because voters don’t like to get bad news.

But whatever the hoi polloi think about climate change, the free market has already spoken on the business of climate change. And it’s in direct conflict with the naysayers.

The insurance industry, in contrast to many politicians, makes its money by giving it to you straight. How long you’re liable to live, what price you’ll get for your home and even whether you should repair and keep your car a bit longer—or get rid of it. 

As a recent article in Businessweek has indicated, the insurance industry has already factored climate change into its models for measuring, pricing and distributing risk. The writer is cautious in his explanation. It’s not possible to say for certain that any single weather event is caused by carbon emissions, which leads to more rainfall, floods and snowfall over parts of the planet. But last year was the hottest on record and Arctic ice is at record low levels. 

Swiss Re, the second largest reinsurer, is developing scenarios using probabilistic modeling to help government officials cope. It studied the effects of climate change in vulnerable areas such as Samoa, Mali, the Caribbean islands, and Miami. No matter which model it chose—current patterns continue, moderate changes, or extreme changes—Swiss Re concludes it’s cheaper to adapt now rather than wait. It recommends building codes that require more water- and wind-proofing; zoning laws that prevent planting trees close to buildings and power lines; redesigned beaches that absorb storm surges; and restoration of wetlands. 

Damages from Hurricane Irene are estimated by insurers at between $5 and $7 billion in claims. That hurricane traveled farther north than hurricanes usually do, dropping extraordinary amounts of rain. At the same time, the tube is showing damages from fires caused by drought, high temperatures and Dust Bowl conditions. And Houston hit an all time high of 109F on the same day that Irene was roaring up the Seaboard. 

It continues to astound me how much the public is anti-science and willing to swallow whatever pseudo-science comes from political opportunists. That rhetoric, as I’ve written in the past, contains some of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard. But as the Businessweek article concludes, though politicians have enjoyed enormous success calling scientists into question, the market is not proving to be such an easy target.

Quotation of the Week: Gerard Schellenberg, Alzheimer's Research

As many understand, much scientific research is limited by the cultural model in which researcher's jealously guard their data.  The vast gene study of Alzheimer's, reported in yesterday's NYTimes, would not have been possible without the footwork of Dr. Schellenberg.  Thus, the quote:

I spent a lot of time being nice to people on the phone.

Schellenberg, a pathology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, got what he wanted: nearly every Alzheimer's center and Alzheimer's geneticist in the country cooperated.  The scientists were able to analyze the genes of more than 50,000 people in the US and Europe.  They now have intriguing clues to why Alz strikes and how it progresses.

In a previous post, I argued from a huge body of research that being nice to people is not enough.  You've also got to be competent.  Obviously, Schellenberg is both nice and exceedingly competent, the real keys to his success. 

The study showed, with a very strong level of research, that there are 10 genes involved in Alzheimer's. 

It is known that one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease is an accumulation of beta amyloid, or a-beta, a protein that forms plaques. And it is known that later in the disease, twisted and tangled proteins — tau — appear in dead and dying nerve cells.

But what is not known is why a-beta starts to accrue, why the brains of people with Alzheimer’s cannot get rid of its excess, or what is the link between amyloid and tau.

As Schellenberg concludes, We are pretty sure more stuff will pop out.

Are the Rich Getting Richer? Does Charlie Daniels Play a Mean Fiddle?

Two policy-related issues over the last decade have gotten a lot of press: climate-change, and more recently, economic inequality. Taking these issues seriously requires governmental policy and tax changes. Publicly, congress' head is in the sand, but privately, many Republicans and Democrats take the problems seriously.

What's intriguing to me is how vociferous the anti-climate change and anti-inequality forces have become.  If you read closely, you'll note that the issues are tied closely to the anti-tax movement.  Still, to paraphrase Artemus Ward, the 19th century humorist: It ain't so much the things (we) don't know that get (us) into trouble.  It's the things (we) know that just ain't so.

For example, we now know that more than 95% of scientists agree that humanity has impacted climate to the point where unless we make changes in industry and life-style, long term this planet is in trouble--that includes our children and grandchildren. The scientific issue is actually settled.  The question is whether congress and the public will want to do anything constructive about it.

The more recent hullabaloo has been over whether or not the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.  Government programs can and do reduce inequality.  Indeed, there's a great deal that can be done to reduce inequality.

However, there's a noisy band of American inequality deniers who are trying to convince us that the rich aren't getting richer, nor are the poor getting poorer.  In a spirited rejoinder to the issue, Jay Coggins, an applied economist at the University of Minnesota wrote commentary on the issue in today's Star Tribune.

Coggins' thesis is clear and direct: 

Economists, a famously contentious bunch, disagree about many things. On the question of economic inequality, though, they disagree hardly at all: American inequality is high and rising.

Economists, Coggins relates, use three main tools to study inequality: measurement of poverty, compute the Gini coefficient (which measures inequality for all of us), and compare the income or wealth of the rich and very rich to the rest of us. On all three measures, the stats are grim, shockingly so.

For a Gen-Yer looking to the future, the potential can be grim: one person out of 30 can expect to move from anywhere in the bottom 40% to anywhere into the top 20% in the next 10 years.

One of my coffee cronies, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, retired vice-president from Deluxe Check Corp, the multi-billion dollar firm, called my attention to the article.  Even he thought the consequences and future for the younger generations are grim unless government and his tribe of Republicans make some significant policy changes.

Hope you'll read the article.  It's scary.  Coggins also explains how the inequality deniers come up with their ideas.   And, oh yeah, Coggins' stats are correct and so is his conclusion. The rich are definitely getting richer, and the poor (and the middle class) are definitely getting poorer.

Guess Who, What's Causing the Obesity Epidemic? Wal-Mart!

Research by scholars in New Jersey and North Carolina reports that one additional Wal-Mart Supercenter per 100,000 residents increases individual's probability of being obese by 2.3 percentage points.

Harvard Business Review blogs chose to highlight the report from the Journal of Urban Economics.  Interesting that a capitalist tool like HBR would document the report. 

The study implies that proliferation of food at highly discounted prices, explains 10.5% of the U.S. rise in obesity since the late 1980s. 

In looking at the research data I noticed a couple other intriguing conclusions.  The research found that the progress in retail logistics translated to substantial reductions in the prices of food and other consumer goods.  (I assume my readers are aware that Wal-Mart is the logistics god of the universe, and that the firm first developed logistics as a fundamental competitive advantage.)  The authors used data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which tracked rates of obesity in various states.  They matched the data with Walmart Supercenter entry dates and locations, and examined the effect of Supercenters on body mass index (BMI). 

Another of the more intriguing conclusions is that the resulting increase in medical expenditures offsets only a small portion of consumers' savings from shopping at Supercenters.   

"Don't Follow the Money"

Just how much impact does money have on an election? There's been a lot thrown around for this election.  I weighed in on the Supreme Court's recent money fiasco in Mocking the Supreme Court decision on election finance.  However, David Brook's analysis of campaign spending and its influence on elections brings a different perspective on the role of money.  Brooks' research found that Democrats, most of whom are incumbents have been "raising and spending far more than the Republicans."  Despite their largesse, the Democrats have been sinking in the polls.  Brooks' conclusion is that the advertisement buys just don't make that much difference.

Political scientists have studied campaign spending for years, Brooks says, and found that campaign spending has no outsize role on the election--in spite of what candidates, the consultants and the political press imagine.

There are numerous situations in which money seems to have made no impact whatsoever.  As Brooks points out, when Phil Gramm and John Connally ran for president, money just didn't make much difference.  In 2006, Republican incumbents raised over $100 million more than Democrats, but still lost the election.  Today's NYTimes has an article about Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina's financial investment.  Whitman and Fiorina have put in far more money than their Democratic rivals, yet it seems to no avail.  In fact, Whitman with all her billions is running 10 points behind Jerry Brown.  She will be the third wealthy candidate to lose a major California election.  Fiorina is still a bit behind Ms. Boxer.

The most significant media coverage is about the the skyrocketing spending of independent groups.  Although Democratic incumbents have raised far more than the their rivals, the spending of independent groups for Republicans far outweighs the Democratic groups.  Thanks to the Supreme Court. 

Will Karl Rove and all the independent monies reshape the election?  I think yes.  Brooks says no.  Should I trust Brooks' research?

So what do you do when a writers's research findings differ from your gut?  Of course, if it's unimportant, you probably ignore the research.  But elections are important to me.  When the summary of research is a rejection of my gut, my intuition and my emotions--and it's important--I look for more research and another expert.  Fortunately, I happen to know another expert, Dr. Phil Shively of the University of Minnesota, who is an expert on US voter behavior and finances. 

Here's what Shively had to say about Brooks' rsearch:  "Brooks had it right.  Generally speaking, beyond some threshold level huge additional amounts of money for a campaign don't make that much difference.  Just do a thought experiment--how much effect do you think the last Michelle Bachman ad you saw had on you?"  My response to his question?  Zip. Nada. Absolutely no effect whatsover.  I still wouldn't vote for her if I lived in her district--which I don't.  So with both Brooks and Shively in agreement, I've learned something.  I was wrong about the Supreme Court's decision.  The money from independent sources won't impact an election significantly.

But Shively went on to say something even more important about the money chasing.  "The really corrosive effect of the big spending, I think, is the effect it has on public oficials.  They can't resist raising as much money as possible, just in case it does make a difference.  And that means that they spend much of their time in office chasing donations, and feel beholden to those who have given."  So in the final analysis, that's the real issue of importance.

Well, what do you think?  How do you respond to the research? 

How I've Learned to Laugh at Alzheimer's

The latest issue of Time has a major section on Alzheimer's, its effects and profound misery.  Maria Shriver has a family history of Alzheimer's and tomorrow, Sunday the 17th, she'll break her silence even more to discuss with Christiane Amanpour how Alzheimer's effect family members. 

Not all experiences of Alzheimer's are sad.  Over the last few months my daughters and I have learned to laugh at some of the effects of Alzheimer's on my wife and their mother.  We decided a long time ago that when the occasion was pure nonsense and startling we were going to laugh.  Although I still walk away from her with a tear in my eye, there are other times that as soon as I leave the residence I laugh out loud, get on the phone and let my daughters laugh with me.

On three occasions, now, it's been part of a morning or evening phone conversation.  Typically, I phone my wife in the morning when before she goes for breakfast and then in the evening when before she goes to bed.  We'll talk about nothing . . .the weather, the bagel she and I shared one day, or the cranberry oatmeal cookie.  Once in a while, when D'Amico happens to have its famous key lime crostata, I grab two and go over to the residence for desert.  She loves the crostata, but more, she loves eating it with me.  They are such little things, but seemingly so very important.  So I talk about them on the phone. 

Then, toward the end of the phone conversation, comes this from my wife.  "I want to thank you for calling me.  It's so very nice.  Would you tell your wife how much I appreciate her sharing you with me and how very kind she is?  Sometime, I'd like to thank her.  Tell her it's very kind of her to let you spend time talking to me." 

I used to tell her that she's my wife, but that doesn't work anymore.  Now I just say, "I'll be sure to tell her." Then I hang up the phone and laugh out loud, typically calling one of my daughters and telling them that she's done it again.  We all laugh.  It's their mom and my wife.

On several occasions, unsolicited, people have told me how very "kind" my wife was and how "kind" they remember her being.  It's strange.  Although I know that she's a kind person, I've never thought of her that way.  I always admired her for her intellectual smarts, her love of music, love of me, her children and grandchildren, and ability to teach children, no matter the situation.

It's amazing how even a disease like Alzheimer's can reveal something about a person that you've missed, in spite of the fact that others noticed it.  But I know eventually even those conversations will come to an end.

Quotation of the Week: Dr. Martha Daviglus, on Alzheimer's

I was surprised and, at the same time, very sad.  This is something that could happen to any of us, and yet we are at such a primitive state of research.

--Dr. Martha L. Daviglus, Professor or Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University

According to an article in today's NYTimes, the National Institutes of Health recently sponsored what amounted to a science court in order to answer one question about Alzheimer's: Is there any way to prevent Alzheimer's?  The jury was commissioned to hear all the research evidence about the dread disease.  They heard from leading researchers from major institutions around the country.  They looked at hundreds of research papers.  The studies included nearly every proposal to prevent the disease: exercise, mental stimulation, healthy diet, nutritional supplements, etc.  The research presented even included differences in personality traits.  The jury concluded that there was no significant research indicating the possibility of Alzheimer's prevention.  Thus the comment by Dr. Daviglus.

Still, though there is a vast literature on the disease, the quality of research evidence is very low.  Since I've intereacted with leading specialists in the field from the University of Minnesota Med School as well as Mayo Clinic, I'm not at all surprised by the court's conclusion.

To me, one of the suprising insights was that it was not until the mid '80's that scientists realized that Alzheimer's was actually a disease.  It was thought to be dementia that was merely a normal part of aging.  Of course, the demographics of the boomer generation and the potential for a huge proportion of the  population to live much longer, make the disease a high priority. 

As my regular readers know, my beloved wife is now in long-term care with Alzheimer's.  One of the intriguing facts about the disease is the discomfort so many have in talking about it.  But when I broach the subject, then people open up.  To some, it's a terrorizing disease.  Prior to learning of her mother's diagnosis, my eldest daughter began working part time in development for an Alzheimer's research funding organization in the Boston community.  She told me that when she wrote about her mother's diagnosis in a publicity letter for the organization, people started "coming out of the woodworks."  They wanted to talk with her because of her knowledge-base, to share their family stories and to learn more about the disease and the research.  Recently in a conversation with our youngest daughter, I thought her response, though I might not use the cliche, was most appropriate.  In discussing our pain, her comment was . . . well, prosaic: It is what it is, Dad.  I'd put it differently.  I'd say that to life lived to its fullest has both its credits and its debits.

In February, I wrote a blog on our experience with the disease and my own reflections and commitments.  Although I took what many saw as a unique position on the experience, I've been shocked by the size of the response.  And no, I haven't changed my attitude toward the disease and life.  Here's the posting:   My wife's Alzheimer's, The Notebook and my humanity.