I don't have enough time to blog an awesome blog, so an updated belly shot will have to do:
22 weeks
2.24.2011
2.07.2011
it's time.
I have to say this: just because you have done research, or read a study, or heard from someone who has been "studying" [insert topic here] does NOT mean it is fact. A few things:
1.) Have you checked the source? Is it funded by an anti-whatever-product-or-position-it's disproving- company? Meaning: is it coming from a totally biased source whose sole mission is to prove it's product/service is superior to the other guys?
2.) Just because "Dr." is on the title does not make it more reputable--(i.e. Ross from friends--he's a paleontologist, but introduces himself as Dr. Ross Gellar (who happens to be my favorite character).
3.) Have you looked at the amount of people in a particular study or experiment? Where was the pool drawn from? Was it randomized? Voluntary? Replicated?
This comes in light of a recent email conversation I had with an old childhood friend who sent me a link from a consumer health website saying "95% of SIDS cases were, in fact, caused by vaccinations." I first checked the author: Dr. so-and-so. It turns out that doctor so-and-so was in fact a paleontologist (that's just a totally awesome coincidence) who had ZERO years of medical experience (except for a year she took at some random school in the UK or something that she ended up flunking out of). I ended up emailing the girl back and politely informed her of how psycho this author was (avoiding the word "psycho") and she wrote back a little mortified that she had even sent that to me. Vaccinations are just one example of how things are skewed. It can be which company has the best peanut butter (it's actually Jif. You're welcome for saving you the trouble of researching it), which company manufactures the absolute best sock, etc. Here's one: How is our president doing? Go to cnn.com and you are going to get a much different answer then if you were going to go to foxnews.com. Catch muh drift? It's all about where you are getting your information from.
I have actually been wanting to write something for a month or so, but have been too lazy to put my thoughts into words. I'm taking a statistics class right now and we are learning the basic functions of experimenting, observational studies, and what makes a study reputable, bias, etc. The main reason I wanted to write something is because I DO THIS! I'm guilty! I will frequently read something and say, "Crap, it must be right. I mean, it's published in [insert magazine here]." I am so, very guilty of trusting everything I read. So, word of advice (and mind you, this is something I am currently working on (remember: I'm not pointing my finger of shame--I am probably the most guilty of it)): if you get your hands on a study/experiment/statistic, look past what you are reading. Read the fine print (you know, the stuff written in this size, and the stuff marked with an *). I think it makes for interesting "ah-ha moment"*.
*The term "ah-ha moment" was coined firstly by Oprah--trust me: I googled it.
1.) Have you checked the source? Is it funded by an anti-whatever-product-or-position-it's disproving- company? Meaning: is it coming from a totally biased source whose sole mission is to prove it's product/service is superior to the other guys?
2.) Just because "Dr." is on the title does not make it more reputable--(i.e. Ross from friends--he's a paleontologist, but introduces himself as Dr. Ross Gellar (who happens to be my favorite character).
3.) Have you looked at the amount of people in a particular study or experiment? Where was the pool drawn from? Was it randomized? Voluntary? Replicated?
This comes in light of a recent email conversation I had with an old childhood friend who sent me a link from a consumer health website saying "95% of SIDS cases were, in fact, caused by vaccinations." I first checked the author: Dr. so-and-so. It turns out that doctor so-and-so was in fact a paleontologist (that's just a totally awesome coincidence) who had ZERO years of medical experience (except for a year she took at some random school in the UK or something that she ended up flunking out of). I ended up emailing the girl back and politely informed her of how psycho this author was (avoiding the word "psycho") and she wrote back a little mortified that she had even sent that to me. Vaccinations are just one example of how things are skewed. It can be which company has the best peanut butter (it's actually Jif. You're welcome for saving you the trouble of researching it), which company manufactures the absolute best sock, etc. Here's one: How is our president doing? Go to cnn.com and you are going to get a much different answer then if you were going to go to foxnews.com. Catch muh drift? It's all about where you are getting your information from.
I have actually been wanting to write something for a month or so, but have been too lazy to put my thoughts into words. I'm taking a statistics class right now and we are learning the basic functions of experimenting, observational studies, and what makes a study reputable, bias, etc. The main reason I wanted to write something is because I DO THIS! I'm guilty! I will frequently read something and say, "Crap, it must be right. I mean, it's published in [insert magazine here]." I am so, very guilty of trusting everything I read. So, word of advice (and mind you, this is something I am currently working on (remember: I'm not pointing my finger of shame--I am probably the most guilty of it)): if you get your hands on a study/experiment/statistic, look past what you are reading. Read the fine print (you know, the stuff written in this size, and the stuff marked with an *). I think it makes for interesting "ah-ha moment"*.
*The term "ah-ha moment" was coined firstly by Oprah--trust me: I googled it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)