The Devil’s Political Dictionary

Some useful definitions of important political concepts:

  • Apathy – From the Greek for “without feeling”. In politics, a state of numbness induced in otherwise healthy voters by excessive exposure to political campaigning.

  • Cynicism – In ancient Greek philosophy, a school of thought with a focus on living virtuously. Therefore followers of cynicism tend to recoil from most forms of politics.

  • Democracy – Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Generally speaking, one out of three ain’t bad.

  • Election – An inspiring process in which the people freely and peacefully choose which incompetent charlatan will get the blame for everything that goes wrong in the nation over the next several years.

  • Party – An informal gathering of miscellaneous people, often involving drinking, drugs and sex. Social norms of sober and responsible behavior don’t apply to parties. The most popular parties are usually those that are completely lacking in adult supervision.

  • Power – All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore to avoid corrupting the innocent, it is normally best if power is given to those who were already corrupt.

  • Voter – In a democracy, politicians ultimately answer to voters. A typical example of the kind of question that they answer is: “Who the frak are you, and why are you trying to kiss my baby?”


Lying with Data, Pilot Suicide Edition

Sometimes I’m tempted to start a whole blog about bad and misleading uses of data. There’s a classic book (as in very old and very good) called How to Lie With Statistics on this. It shows how the facts stated can be perfectly true, yet also completely misleading. Now that we’re allegedly living in the age of big data and it’s very easy for all and sundry to put out impressive looking charts, the problems it describes seem to be worse than ever and there are plenty of new ones to add to the list.

The strangest thing to my mind is that many of the examples even come from reputable people who certainly know how to do better, and who often bemoan stupid uses of data themselves.

One example I saw today…

Pilot Suicide

FiveThirtyEight – of Nate Silver fame – proclaims We Don’t Know How Often Pilots Commit Suicide.

Remember I’m not talking about saying things that are false, I’m talking about misleading people with statements that are true. So what’s wrong with this article?

To most people the factual statement “We don’t know how often pilots commit suicide” translates into the implication: “Be afraid, pilot suicide could be a real danger”. If you just read the headline, if you just read the opening paragraph of the story, or even if you read the whole story but didn’t stop to ponder the numbers, that would be your take-away from the article: Be afraid.

There are a couple of reasons why “Be afraid” is totally the wrong conclusion to draw from the data. Basically there is a critical difference between “We don’t know X” and “We don’t know anything about the possible values of X”.

  • Although we don’t know how often pilots commit suicide, we have a strict upper limit on how often it could be because plane crashes are incredibly rare. So at most pilot suicides while flying are incredibly rare.

  • We can reduce that upper limit even further by removing crashes whose causes are known to be something else. In the end the thing we don’t know (pilot suicides while flying) remains “unknown”, yet constrained into a range of possible values such that the rational response to it should be “it’s so rare it’s not worth losing sleep over”.

Does it matter?

Human beings aren’t so very rational though. They’re more responsive to stories, how the stories are framed, how many stories they saw than they are to the actual data mentioned. After being exposed to all the coverage that’s there’s been about pilot suicide lately, I’d find the possibility preying on mind if I were about to fly. I’d be able to dismiss the worry based on what I know of the stats, but I wouldn’t be able to avoid having the thought that it might happen. That’s how human minds work.

After the average human being reads that FiveThirtyEight article, they’re going to be left pretty uneasy about the whole question of pilot suicide. All the talk in the article about how it’s unknown, instances when it may have happened, listing risk factors for depression, the quotes from a pilot saying “If I had depression I wouldn’t admit it” will leave the reader anxious. Maybe they were already nervous about flying, and some of them will avoid it a bit more now.

That doesn’t sound too bad maybe?

Well on 9/11, about 3,000 people died. In the year after that many people got scared of flying, and switched to driving long distances instead of taking the plane. The problem: driving is much much more dangerous than flying. It’s estimated that about 1,500 extra people died on the roads that year because people were afraid to fly and drove instead.

How to improve the situation?

Of course it is entirely legitimate and responsible to study and write about topics like pilot suicide, or airline safety in general. Part of why flying has got to be so safe is that people have been poring over every incident for decades and learning the lessons from them.

However it’s easy and tempting to write in a way that’s irresponsible. Tempting because scary-sounding stories are going to get more attention, shares, pageviews etc. Easy because there is less work to do – just pick out some interesting facts, don’t worry too much about the context or putting them into perspective for the readers.

Given that, it’s maybe asking a lot that journalists and bloggers should strive for a higher standard. But one thing we can do to nudge them in that direction is call them out on it once in a while.

Saving energy, saving money, saving the planet

Some of my twitter friends had a conversation about saving money on lighting the other day. Energy use is a topic that I’ve delved into a bit previously and I’d like to share some resources and thoughts that might be useful to my friends and to other people.

“Every big helps”

People often have the mentality that “every little helps”. They think switching off a phone charger here or a lightbulb there is important and fret about that. David MacKay, a Cambridge professor and advisor to the UK government has coined the phrase “every big helps” to help restore a sense of perspective. The point is focusing on the big things – the stuff that actually accounts for most power usage – has a much bigger impact on energy use, and therefore on energy bills and on the environment.

Watch this fantastic five minute video to hear him explain:

So what is big?

When it comes to electricity use, you can get a rough idea of how much electricity is used by different items in your home from this table from the US Dept of Energy:

Electric Appliances in the Residential Sector

These are obviously ballpark figures. Every model of appliance is a bit different, and every person and family has a different pattern of usage. All the same, it gives an important rough idea of what is likely to be a big contributor to your electricity bill, and what is probably pretty small.

For example one low-energy light-bulb on for three or so hours a day might only account for $2 of your annual bill, while your fridge-freezer could easily account for $60.

As one of my friends pointed out, the table shows a desktop PC using only 75W. A gaming PC running state-of-the-art games on max resolution could easily be using four times that much or more. So a heavy gaming habit could easily pwn all the lightbulbs in your house put together in terms of energy use.

The table at least shows you how to think about energy use, and back-of-the-envelope math is enough to get a ballpark idea of what is likely to be most important for you. Just estimate and add up…

  • power used when on * hours on
  • power used on standy * hours on standby

This info is for electricity use only, but that’s what sparked this post.

Some probably good things to do

What’s most impactful to do is going to vary from person to person, but some things are likely to apply in a lot of cases.

  • If you’re not already using low-energy lightbulbs, it’s pretty much a no-brainer these days. It might not make the biggest impact but it’s easy and cheap to do.
  • Heating and cooling are big on energy use. That means turning the heating or aircon down slightly could save more than all that running around worrying about lightbulbs.
  • “Heating and cooling” includes stuff like dishwashers, washing machines, fridges etc. When it’s time to change one of those items, getting a more efficient one is probably going to be a great idea. Also using the less power hungry programs, like washing at a lower temperature.
  • Insulation to stop your heat vanishing off into the night air is very good, but putting all that in can be expensive. Sometimes there are grants to help with that though.

The Bigger Picture

Want to know more about energy use, sustainable energy, what it’s going to take to avoid dangerous climate change etc? Here are some great resources…

Sustainable Energy – without the hot air – a website and ebook from David MacKay

The site has a section of videos, which might be a quicker and more enjoyable way to get the main ideas:

Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air with David MacKay (one hour talk at Harvard)

David MacKay – How the Laws of Physics Constrain Our Sustainable Energy Options (18 minute TEDx talk)