When computers were huge and expensive, stupid research ideas could be dismissed out of hand, not for being stupid, but for being too expensive and time intensive. Nowadays, statistical anomalies are being trotted out as "proof" that something is going on. Nevermind that correlation looks like causation only on first glance. Almost all "good health by doing X" stories follow this pattern, especially concerning food and drink we like so much. Now we have a story that says there's a correlation between the initial of your first name and success. Baseball players with "K" in their names struck out more, and people with "C" or "D" in their names got those grades more often, according to the numbers crunched. The actual experiment to pay attention to, was the anagram test the researchers used, which linked subjects' initials to arbitrary negative outcomes. In a lab setting, the test subjects might easily make the connection between the experimental procedures, and something connected to their identity. But in real world situations, where performance markers, like in baseball or grades, are established way before a person comes in contact with them, it's harder to establish a causative link. And what about other cultures and languages whose alphabets and numbering systems have different relationships to names? A cross-linguistic study needed to be done to make this study more relevent, otherwise it just seems to be a game of weird database queries. Now, if your parents had actually named you Dummy McLoserpants, there might be some correlation between self-worth and performance.
My name begins with a C, but I got only a few. My husband's name begins with a D, and he got only A's. My sister's name begins with a K, and she sucks at baseball. She also got A's, though.
ReplyDeleteStatistically anomalies? All of us? Riiiight.