Last week I was chatting with a friend and colleague, and over wine we were talking of matters deep and complex. In our weighty discussion was something that has been playing on my mind recently, and it provides the basis for this week's entry.
When you're looking at a complex biological system (such as human beings) trying to discern the cause or correct treatment of a disease, there are many, many factors to consider such as is the disease more prevalent in Caucasian women aged 35-45 who are post menopausal, have not had children, who smoke and drink occasionally, and that consume a low-fat diet and are not overweight? In that constraint alone we've identified 9 variables, and we haven't yet delved into an accurate medical history or lifestyle questionnaire, after which, you could easily be looking at 200-300 variables.
In early education, we're taught to think in 2 dimensions, and then 3, but very rarely do we spend much time thinking in more than 3 dimensions. We're taught to interpret and create 2d graphs that have a correlation between the x axis and the y axis, and from this we generally infer outcomes. In the above case of trying to determine disease characteristics, we're looking for a correlation that spans 300 dimensions, and even then, the 'signal' we're looking for is very small compared to the 'noise'. Whilst mathematicians are capable of multi-variant analysis, I think they'd laugh if you asked them to solve this problem, and yet, this is what the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries are trying to do on a daily basis. Since the problem is essentially unsolvable using scientific / mathematical methods what's left? Well, non scientific methods such as 'trial and error'(*), intuition and just plain serendipity(#).
Rather than becoming overwhelmed with the futily of trying to solve this problem, I've come up with a solution: prison inmates. You see, 200-300 variables is simply too many. We need to study a population that lives a similar and well known lifestyle, and thus dramatically reduce the number of variables in the model. Why prison inmates? Their lifestyle is well known, tightly controlled, as is their diet, and there's lots of them, giving a large sample size of people that have a great deal in common. For example I believe($) that prisoners have a well defined exercise period, and since you generally know where they are, it's easy to monitor their vital signs and characteristics, and they (presumably) always turn up to clinic appointments. Want to see if the absence of broccoli from the diet makes a difference? Easy, exclude broccoli from half of your population and monitor the effect. It's still a difficult problem to solve, but at least I've simplified it greatly.
(*) In reality, mostly 'error' which is why so much money is spent on research and development, yielding very little in terms of outcome.
(#) If you don't believe me, look up the history of the development of Penicillin, it was good luck combined with awful science that led to this breakthrough.
($) Don't quote me on this, I've thankfully never spent time in the clink, although I did get detention a few times at school.
A collection of thoughts, observations and ideas that might, or might not, make life easier
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Too Much Choice - Part II
I'm about to embark on a short business trip to Germany. I've been to visit these places before, and so in some senses it's familiar, but as always I'm a little nervous when travelling to non-English speaking countries.
I'll be visiting some academics in Muenchen (Munich), and I think they speak better English than I. Of course I probably have a larger vocabulary, and a better grasp of idioms and slang, but I suspect their grammar and usage far surpasses my own. To be able to speak more than one language fluently is something I find greatly impressive. So, why am I nervous about heading over there? Taxi drivers and Hotel staff, and I'll tell you why.
Whilst most professional Germans speak English as a second language, like most countries, German taxi drivers and hotel workers tend to be immigrants, and as such are thus speaking German as a second language, and English as a distant third. Thus, when travelling in continental Europe taking a taxi, and checking in and out of hotels always causes me some excitement.
Recently, I've been thinking about the financial cost of having so many languages, and as such so many barriers to communication. Who knows what an accurate figure would be, but I can only guess that it's a vast number. So, in my effort to simplify the world, and remove extraneous choices, I suggest that we (everybody in the world) speak a common language. Of course, this would not be a simple, or an easy exercise, but I think you'll agree it will be worth it in the end. Imagine a publisher being able to publish a single version of a book that spans all nationalities and countries; this alone has to be worth it. Nonetheless I expect many people will disagree, and claim that I haven't thought about this scheme in depth. Well, let me disagree, I have! I've even solved the next step which is deciding what the common language would be: Latin.
Let me explain why Latin is the obvious choice:
1) It's the fairest option, as there is no country which uses Latin as its Lingua Franca, and so we'll ALL have to learn it, and ALL need to give up our current mother tongue.
2) It's classed as a dead language. This is clearly a waste. We need to resuscitate it, and bring it back to life. If you're going to have a language, make sure that it's pulling its weight.
3) It's remarkably compact. Often whole sentences in English can be expressed in Latin with remarkably few words. This will have many consequences, for example, e-mails and text messages will be shorter, and cost less. Books will be shorter, and cost less. The reading speed of everybody will immediately increase, helping education metrics no-end! Also, roadsigns can be designed with larger fonts, and will be easier to read at speed, and this will help my chauffeur enormously.
4) It's not Esperanto, which was just plain daft.
Damn, now I'm going to have to re-market my products. Anybody know the Latin for 'Paralun'?
I'll be visiting some academics in Muenchen (Munich), and I think they speak better English than I. Of course I probably have a larger vocabulary, and a better grasp of idioms and slang, but I suspect their grammar and usage far surpasses my own. To be able to speak more than one language fluently is something I find greatly impressive. So, why am I nervous about heading over there? Taxi drivers and Hotel staff, and I'll tell you why.
Whilst most professional Germans speak English as a second language, like most countries, German taxi drivers and hotel workers tend to be immigrants, and as such are thus speaking German as a second language, and English as a distant third. Thus, when travelling in continental Europe taking a taxi, and checking in and out of hotels always causes me some excitement.
Recently, I've been thinking about the financial cost of having so many languages, and as such so many barriers to communication. Who knows what an accurate figure would be, but I can only guess that it's a vast number. So, in my effort to simplify the world, and remove extraneous choices, I suggest that we (everybody in the world) speak a common language. Of course, this would not be a simple, or an easy exercise, but I think you'll agree it will be worth it in the end. Imagine a publisher being able to publish a single version of a book that spans all nationalities and countries; this alone has to be worth it. Nonetheless I expect many people will disagree, and claim that I haven't thought about this scheme in depth. Well, let me disagree, I have! I've even solved the next step which is deciding what the common language would be: Latin.
Let me explain why Latin is the obvious choice:
1) It's the fairest option, as there is no country which uses Latin as its Lingua Franca, and so we'll ALL have to learn it, and ALL need to give up our current mother tongue.
2) It's classed as a dead language. This is clearly a waste. We need to resuscitate it, and bring it back to life. If you're going to have a language, make sure that it's pulling its weight.
3) It's remarkably compact. Often whole sentences in English can be expressed in Latin with remarkably few words. This will have many consequences, for example, e-mails and text messages will be shorter, and cost less. Books will be shorter, and cost less. The reading speed of everybody will immediately increase, helping education metrics no-end! Also, roadsigns can be designed with larger fonts, and will be easier to read at speed, and this will help my chauffeur enormously.
4) It's not Esperanto, which was just plain daft.
Damn, now I'm going to have to re-market my products. Anybody know the Latin for 'Paralun'?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Solving Global Warming
Global warming is something that affects us all, and in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit I felt it my duty to pull on my thinking cap, and solve this problem once and for all.
It didn't take long before my creative juices were flowing, and inspiration wandered across the croquet lawn near the East wing of my current abode(*), in the form of our dog. You see, being responsible dog-owners, we've removed the chaps 'knackers', in an effort to collectively control the canine population. As such, dogs can reproduce as, and when, we see fit.
Human beings are the cause - directly, or indirectly - of global warming, we watch TV, we drive cars, we burn coal, we eat cows. Surely the best way of countering global warming is for there to be less of us. We need to neuter and spay ourselves.(#) It's the responsible thing to do.
I believe in this so firmly that I'd happy to be head of the line, but unfortunately due to losing a hand of poker several years back in quite dramatic circumstances, there's really very little point.
(*) my office provides a very tidy view
(#) I don't literally mean ourselves, I suggest getting a professional to do it
It didn't take long before my creative juices were flowing, and inspiration wandered across the croquet lawn near the East wing of my current abode(*), in the form of our dog. You see, being responsible dog-owners, we've removed the chaps 'knackers', in an effort to collectively control the canine population. As such, dogs can reproduce as, and when, we see fit.
Human beings are the cause - directly, or indirectly - of global warming, we watch TV, we drive cars, we burn coal, we eat cows. Surely the best way of countering global warming is for there to be less of us. We need to neuter and spay ourselves.(#) It's the responsible thing to do.
I believe in this so firmly that I'd happy to be head of the line, but unfortunately due to losing a hand of poker several years back in quite dramatic circumstances, there's really very little point.
(*) my office provides a very tidy view
(#) I don't literally mean ourselves, I suggest getting a professional to do it
Friday, November 27, 2009
Too much choice - Part I
A very long time ago, before I had met Dr. Mrs. I, I found myself in a quite infamous Chinese restaurant in London. It was renowned for good food, low prices and serving staff who took masochistic pleasure in being rude to you. My partner - at the time - proved to be 'fussy', and when we went in it took her a very long time to select a table for us. Under normal circumstances this would have just been tedious, but I could see that the staff were just waiting to use this as ammunition. When we eventually sat down, a waiter came over, dropped a menu on the table and shouted 'Too much choice!'. By this I think he meant that she'd spent too much time trying to choose.
The phrase 'Too much choice!' holds a special place in my lexicon, and I've decided to use it to describe a series of blog entries that describe situations in life in which the number of options available to choose from is unnecessarily large, and I'm going to start with a particular fave of mine: Monopoly (the board game).
As a child I quite enjoyed Monopoly, I could play against my elder siblings, and had just as much chance of winning as anybody else, since it's not really a game of skill, just a game of rolling dice. As I became older I suppose I found the game a bit dull and old-fashioned. Recently it seems there's a huge, and pointless excess of variants: Dogopoly, Fishopoly, Harley-Davidsonopoly etc. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled money grab, to the extent that it's almost gratuitous. Come on Hasbro, do you really think we're fooled. The game is exactly the same apart from visually. If I was a pop star(*) and I made my second million with a catchy tune, and then re-released it dozens of times with differing CD covers, I'd expect that my career would end there and then. Yet with Monopoly, it's seen as clever and creative.
Seems a bit irrational to me. Too much choice!
P.S. Terry Pratchett look out, most of your books are based on just one story.
(*) It could happen!
The phrase 'Too much choice!' holds a special place in my lexicon, and I've decided to use it to describe a series of blog entries that describe situations in life in which the number of options available to choose from is unnecessarily large, and I'm going to start with a particular fave of mine: Monopoly (the board game).
As a child I quite enjoyed Monopoly, I could play against my elder siblings, and had just as much chance of winning as anybody else, since it's not really a game of skill, just a game of rolling dice. As I became older I suppose I found the game a bit dull and old-fashioned. Recently it seems there's a huge, and pointless excess of variants: Dogopoly, Fishopoly, Harley-Davidsonopoly etc. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled money grab, to the extent that it's almost gratuitous. Come on Hasbro, do you really think we're fooled. The game is exactly the same apart from visually. If I was a pop star(*) and I made my second million with a catchy tune, and then re-released it dozens of times with differing CD covers, I'd expect that my career would end there and then. Yet with Monopoly, it's seen as clever and creative.
Seems a bit irrational to me. Too much choice!
P.S. Terry Pratchett look out, most of your books are based on just one story.
(*) It could happen!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Mental illness is an abberation
I read recently that mental illness affects 60% of us. I was shocked by that. Just take a minute to think about it. Right now, both arms, both legs and most of my intestines are likely to be clinically depressed.
Are there any other mamalian species that suffer from mental illness? Are there any documented cases of our closest relatives (Bonobo Apes?) commiting suicide? It's said that Van Gogh displaced his ear due to mental illness; are there any chimpanzees wandering about with less than two ears as a result of self-mutilation? I suspect not, which leads me to believe that mental illness must be an aberration, an affectation, a label used to conveniently reduce something to its lowest common denominator.
If I'm correct, then the solution is simple. Since the majority of us are labeled as being mentally ill, we should use the privilege accorded to the majority, namely of picking on the minority! If you're currently mentally ill, you should be classed as normal, and the cheerful, cogent types should be labeled as defective, and we should pity them, and help them in their difficult journey to recovery. We need new labels: the currently insane will be termed 'normal', and the currently sane will be termed 'absolutely barking mad', or ABM (*)
Currently, I suspect vast portions of health-care budgets are spent trying to combat mental illness. Under my regime this money could be re-directed. After all, I'm convinced that statistics will show that if we leave well alone, people termed as ABM will gradually become normal of their own accord. Think of all the money I've just saved, and yet, I offer these ideas up for free; I must be normal!
(*) All the best maladies and afflictions have three letter acronyms.
Are there any other mamalian species that suffer from mental illness? Are there any documented cases of our closest relatives (Bonobo Apes?) commiting suicide? It's said that Van Gogh displaced his ear due to mental illness; are there any chimpanzees wandering about with less than two ears as a result of self-mutilation? I suspect not, which leads me to believe that mental illness must be an aberration, an affectation, a label used to conveniently reduce something to its lowest common denominator.
If I'm correct, then the solution is simple. Since the majority of us are labeled as being mentally ill, we should use the privilege accorded to the majority, namely of picking on the minority! If you're currently mentally ill, you should be classed as normal, and the cheerful, cogent types should be labeled as defective, and we should pity them, and help them in their difficult journey to recovery. We need new labels: the currently insane will be termed 'normal', and the currently sane will be termed 'absolutely barking mad', or ABM (*)
Currently, I suspect vast portions of health-care budgets are spent trying to combat mental illness. Under my regime this money could be re-directed. After all, I'm convinced that statistics will show that if we leave well alone, people termed as ABM will gradually become normal of their own accord. Think of all the money I've just saved, and yet, I offer these ideas up for free; I must be normal!
(*) All the best maladies and afflictions have three letter acronyms.
Re-usable packaging
I'm a big fan of recycling, but it strikes me that we've allowed the un-acceptable to become acceptable. Why? Well, I'm glad you asked ...
I recently finished a box of breakfast cereal, and this meant that the sensible thing to do was to recycle the box, and the transparent bag within. Sensible? Probably not. Why recycle when you could re-use. After all, the purpose of the box is, is, is... well I'm not quite sure. I suspect it's to make the bags of cereal within stack nicely during transport. So, I feel the sensible thing to do would be to take my box right back to the supermarket, get another bag of cereal, and place it in my existing box.
This probably applies to many things, not just breakfast cereal. for example, I'm quite partial to pickled beetroot, and when I finish a jar I'm left with a perfectly re-usuable jar, perfectly empty, and perfectly capable of being immediately refilled with new pickled beetroot. However, the 'sensible' and 'encouraged' response it to take the jar and get my house-keeper (*) to place it somewhere that the munipality can collect it in a big truck, transport it somewhere else so that it can be sorted, melted down into glass and turned into a jar. But it was already a jar! See, why recycle when you can re-use.
(*) God bless you lupee!
I recently finished a box of breakfast cereal, and this meant that the sensible thing to do was to recycle the box, and the transparent bag within. Sensible? Probably not. Why recycle when you could re-use. After all, the purpose of the box is, is, is... well I'm not quite sure. I suspect it's to make the bags of cereal within stack nicely during transport. So, I feel the sensible thing to do would be to take my box right back to the supermarket, get another bag of cereal, and place it in my existing box.
This probably applies to many things, not just breakfast cereal. for example, I'm quite partial to pickled beetroot, and when I finish a jar I'm left with a perfectly re-usuable jar, perfectly empty, and perfectly capable of being immediately refilled with new pickled beetroot. However, the 'sensible' and 'encouraged' response it to take the jar and get my house-keeper (*) to place it somewhere that the munipality can collect it in a big truck, transport it somewhere else so that it can be sorted, melted down into glass and turned into a jar. But it was already a jar! See, why recycle when you can re-use.
(*) God bless you lupee!
GM Fish
It's not a secret that I made my first million via Genetic Modification (GM), and let me tell you, myself and Dr. Mrs. Irrational lead a very cosmopolitan life because of that. However, it strikes me that one challenge we need to solve is the presence of bones within fish. Really, they cause nothing but trouble.
Whilst dining in a very fashionable Seafood restaurant, I was tucking into my favourite dish of Turbot with a beetroot glaze when I found myself choking on a bone. Thankfully I was able to recover without manual intervention, but my meal was ruined. After that I poked at my Turbot, searching for hidden bones. By the time I was only a quarter of the way through my fillet it was cold, Dr. Mrs. Irrational was ordering dessert, and the waiter was beginning to think my amateur surgery antics quite strange.
So, isn't it time the boffins solved the real problems of life, and set about creating a breed of boneless fish? I don't think a boney skeleton is terribly important to living a healthy life as a fish, so I think the piscine effect will be minimal. After all, Jelly-Fish and Shrimp seem to lead healthy and full lives.
Whilst dining in a very fashionable Seafood restaurant, I was tucking into my favourite dish of Turbot with a beetroot glaze when I found myself choking on a bone. Thankfully I was able to recover without manual intervention, but my meal was ruined. After that I poked at my Turbot, searching for hidden bones. By the time I was only a quarter of the way through my fillet it was cold, Dr. Mrs. Irrational was ordering dessert, and the waiter was beginning to think my amateur surgery antics quite strange.
So, isn't it time the boffins solved the real problems of life, and set about creating a breed of boneless fish? I don't think a boney skeleton is terribly important to living a healthy life as a fish, so I think the piscine effect will be minimal. After all, Jelly-Fish and Shrimp seem to lead healthy and full lives.
The Paralun
It's recently struck me that there's a gap in the market here, and filling it could bring me closer to my second million. The idea is simple: to create and sell the paralun!
Now, I hear you cry, what's a paralun? Well, I'm glad you asked, it's like a parasol, but it protects you from the moon rather than the sun.
Why might you want to be protected from the moon?
1) You're a werewolf.
Imagine you're on a date, you're heading back to your place, but there's a full moon. Next thing you know, you awaken in a dark alley, surrounded by the remnants of your date. Clearly, this plays havoc with your social life, if only you had something to protect you from the moon...
2) You're a lunatic.
Ever heard the phrase 'barking mad'? It's really derived from mental instability associated with barking at the moon (#). Clearly, the moon is the cause, or at least a trigger of insanity. Perhaps this relates to why the murder rate increases three-fold when there is a full moon (*).
If only there was something to protect the vulnerable from the moon...
3) You're fearful of gravity.
We're all taught that the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Now, if the moon can have such an effect on something as vast and powerful as an ocean, what is it doing to us??? We are after all, comprised of greater than 70% water. If only there was a way to protect yourself from the moon...
Well, remember where you heard about it first. The paralun is such a good idea it's a crime that I haven't invented it sooner.
(#) Surely that should be the other way around? - Ed
(*) I guess this could also be related to werewolves?
At the time of writing, Google seems unware of the word 'paralun', I therefore claim it as my own!
Now, I hear you cry, what's a paralun? Well, I'm glad you asked, it's like a parasol, but it protects you from the moon rather than the sun.
Why might you want to be protected from the moon?
1) You're a werewolf.
Imagine you're on a date, you're heading back to your place, but there's a full moon. Next thing you know, you awaken in a dark alley, surrounded by the remnants of your date. Clearly, this plays havoc with your social life, if only you had something to protect you from the moon...
2) You're a lunatic.
Ever heard the phrase 'barking mad'? It's really derived from mental instability associated with barking at the moon (#). Clearly, the moon is the cause, or at least a trigger of insanity. Perhaps this relates to why the murder rate increases three-fold when there is a full moon (*).
If only there was something to protect the vulnerable from the moon...
3) You're fearful of gravity.
We're all taught that the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Now, if the moon can have such an effect on something as vast and powerful as an ocean, what is it doing to us??? We are after all, comprised of greater than 70% water. If only there was a way to protect yourself from the moon...
Well, remember where you heard about it first. The paralun is such a good idea it's a crime that I haven't invented it sooner.
(#) Surely that should be the other way around? - Ed
(*) I guess this could also be related to werewolves?
At the time of writing, Google seems unware of the word 'paralun', I therefore claim it as my own!