To borrow a phrase from Forrest Gump, Twitter is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you\u2019re going to get.<\/p>\n
For example, there\u2019s a particular troll on Twitter who automatically dislikes anything I tweet or write here on the blog \u2013 and yet he follows me on Twitter and reads the blog, presumably as some form of penance. Among other odd attacks, he once took to lecturing me about my writing style. I replied that I don\u2019t take writing advice from a guy with a blog hardly anyone reads and who can barely scare up a following on Twitter. At that point, he accused me of writing controversial tweets simply to gin up retweets.<\/p>\n
Oh, if only I were blessed with such powers of prediction. I have no idea which tweets are going to generate a buzz. I\u2019m reminded of an interview I read years ago with songwriter Paul Simon. He explained that he\u2019s written songs he was convinced were sure-fire hits, only to see them barely dent the charts, while other songs he considered far from his best became chart-toppers. Nobody can predict what\u2019s going to be popular, he explained.<\/p>\n
When I tweeted a link to my post about the Harvard study<\/a> on push-ups and CVD risk, I honestly didn\u2019t expect much beyond the usual number of replies, retweets, etc. Wrong. Lots and lots of people wanted to comment on or argue about that one.<\/p>\n I\u2019m all in favor of Twitter debates, of course. I just wish people who apparently can\u2019t comprehend plain English would remain on the sidelines. As the number of arguments grew, someone with a sense of humor commented that sooner or later, people on Twitter would be accusing me of saying I\u2019m against push-ups.<\/p>\n Yes, that would fit the usual Twitter pattern. Fortunately, it wasn\u2019t the Full Twitter Pattern. To be the Full Twitter Pattern, it would have to go something like this:<\/p>\n The Full Twitter Pattern didn\u2019t happen, of course. But most of us who post on Twitter eventually run into what I\u2019m now calling the Four Types of Twitter Dumb:<\/p>\n 1) Those who argue about something you didn\u2019t actually say \u2013 but they\u2019re convinced you did for no apparent reason.<\/strong><\/p>\n Now and then I reply to arguments with something like I\u2019m sorry you struggle with reading and comprehension.<\/em> That\u2019s because Twitter Dumb will argue vigorously against a point you never made \u2013 and continue arguing against the point you never made even after you explain you never made it.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s suppose you post a tweet about the benefits of eating meat. The odds are pretty good Twitter Dumb will show up and demand to know why you\u2019re opposed to eating vegetables.<\/p>\n So you reply that you\u2019ve never opposed eating vegetables. Twitter Dumb will never, ever admit making a mistake (see type #4), so he\u2019ll reply that you\u2019re obviously<\/em> opposed to eating vegetables. After shaking your head and wondering how this opinion ever found its way into Twitter Dumb\u2019s brain, you ask Twitter Dumb to please cite the post or tweet where you expressed this obvious opposition to vegetables.<\/p>\n Twitter Dumb will, of course, ignore that direct challenge \u2013 Twitter Dumb routinely ignores direct challenges that would prove him wrong. Instead, Twitter Dumb will begin firing off tweet after tweet with links to articles about the benefits of eating vegetables \u2026 thus continuing to argue against a position you never took. If you are silly enough to reply, the stream of pro-vegetable tweets will go on for days.<\/p>\n After I tweeted a link to my Diet, Health and the Wisdom of Crowds<\/a> speech, Twitter Dumb showed up to argue vigorously against my \u201canti-vaccination views.\u201d I explained to Twitter Dumb that I\u2019ve never taken a stance on vaccinations either way. Twitter Dumb replied that I gave that speech at a Weston A. Price event, so therefore I\u2019m obviously<\/em> an anti-vaxxer. Twitter Dumb then continued to berate me for all the children who were going to get sick and die because of my endorsement of anti-vaxxers. Recognizing what I was dealing with, I ended blocking Twitter Dumb in that case.<\/p>\n When I tweeted about the Harvard push-ups study, a surprising number of people replied that by gosh, my criticism was unfounded because Harvard never actually claimed push-ups prevent heart disease. That true. It\u2019s also true that I never claimed that Harvard claimed push-ups prevent heart disease. Harvard did claim, however, that they\u2019d demonstrated the number of push-ups men can perform is a useful assessment of CVD risk \u2013 which simply isn\u2019t true if you look at their data.<\/p>\n I explained this to Twitter Dumb, who nonetheless continued to insist I\u2019d unfairly criticized the study … because by gosh, Harvard had never claimed push-ups prevent heart disease, so why the heck was I criticizing them?<\/p>\n 2) Those who argue that nobody should listen to you if you don\u2019t have an impressive-sounding title.<\/strong><\/p>\n Anytime I criticize a study, the odds are pretty good Twitter Dumb will show up and tweet something like, Oh yeah, I\u2019m really going listen to a comedian instead of doctors and PhDs.<\/em> Amazingly, every time Twitter Dumb makes this comment, he thinks he\u2019s making it for the first time and is being rip-roaringly clever.<\/p>\n Of course, I\u2019m not \u201cjust\u201d a comedian. I\u2019m also a software engineer who deals with math and logic for a living. Observational studies put out by Harvard aren\u2019t sacred scrolls that can only be decoded by wizards with the magic keys. Anyone with access to the study can review the numbers and see if they support the researchers’ conclusions.<\/p>\n As I\u2019ve tried to explain to Twitter Dumb many times, math and logic don\u2019t care about the title of the person who employs them. My degree is in journalism, which means according to the Title Is Everything<\/em> crowd, I shouldn\u2019t be working as a programmer. And yet I am — because my employers care about my actual abilities, not my college degree.<\/p>\n So when Twitter Dumb points out that I\u2019m \u201cjust\u201d a comedian, I reply that if my critique is wrong, he can easily prove it by citing the mathematical or logical mistake in my analysis instead of comparing titles.<\/p>\n Twitter Dumb never accepts this challenge. Instead, Twitter Dumb offers replies like this (which I\u2019ve quoted directly): That title usually comes with LOTS of applicable education that was earned.<\/em><\/p>\n Ah, I see. A Harvard PhD has LOTS of applicable education that was earned, and therefore his conclusions must be correct even if actual data says otherwise.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve often wondered where this desire to simply believe people with impressive titles comes from. I can only conclude that it\u2019s a form of insecurity. Some people simply want<\/em> the authorities to be correct \u2026 because if the authorities can be wrong, we have to accept the burden of thinking for ourselves.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, history tells us authorities are indeed often wrong, and sometimes intentionally dishonest. As I\u2019ve mentioned before, my college physics professor told us to learn math no matter what our career plans were, because \u201cmath is how you know when they\u2019re lying to you.\u201d Granted, I was in his class more than 40 years ago, but I\u2019m pretty sure he didn\u2019t tell us our math could only be correct if we acquired a fancy title first.<\/p>\n 3) Those who are wrong but can\u2019t be persuaded they\u2019re wrong because they have the logical-thinking capacity of a turnip.<\/strong><\/p>\n Twitter Dumb showed up several times to insist the Harvard push-up study is meaningful because the guys who could do more than 41 push-ups had far fewer heart attacks than the guys who could do 10 or fewer. I tried explaining several times that after adjusting for age, the difference was not statistically significant. It says so right there in the study. That tells us the capacity to do push-ups was mostly just a marker for age.<\/p>\n Twitter Dumb replied several times by pointing (again) to the raw data. Terms like \u201cadjusted for age\u201d and \u201cnot statistically significant\u201d apparently don\u2019t mean anything to Twitter Dumb, who kept repeating that push-ups are obviously a good way to assess cardiovascular risk, just as Harvard told us, because the guys who could do more push-ups had fewer heart attacks.<\/p>\n So I pointed out that among the men who could do 21-30 push-ups, the rate of cardiovascular events was 2.3%, while among the group that could do 31-40 push-ups, the rate of cardiovascular events was 3.5%. If we believe the data is solid and meaningful, that means men who can do 31-40 push-ups have a 50% higher risk of heart disease than men who can only do 21-30 push-ups.<\/strong> Does anyone actually think that\u2019s true? No, of course not. But you can\u2019t pick and choose which chunks of data you want to believe and which ones you don\u2019t. The data is either meaningful, or it isn\u2019t.\u00a0 In this study, it clearly isn’t.<\/p>\n When I pointed out the 50% higher CVD rate among men who could do 31-40 push-ups vs. those who could only do 21-30<\/strong>, Twitter Dumb replied that he didn\u2019t believe me. The reason? The authors of the study didn\u2019t point out the difference themselves.<\/em><\/p>\n Ah, I see. Researchers who claim they discovered push-ups are a useful tool for assessing CVD risk didn\u2019t point to the numbers that negated their claim. I guess that means the numbers don\u2019t exist, even though they\u2019re in the study tables for anyone to read. That\u2019s Twitter Dumb logic for you.<\/p>\n This study reminded me of an observational study I once saw comparing meat consumption and cancer. In that study, cancer went up as meat consumption went up \u2026 but as meat consumption continued going up, the cancer rate went down. So what are we supposed to believe? That eating meat causes cancer unless you eat a lot of it?\u00a0 No, the logical conclusion is that meat had no effect on cancer either way.\u00a0 The numbers were just noise.<\/p>\n Same thing with the Harvard push-up study. If the rate of cardiovascular disease goes down, then sharply up, then sharply down again as men could perform more push-ups, that tells us push-ups are not, in fact, a useful measure of cardiovascular risk.<\/p>\n None of this logic had any effect on Twitter Dumb, who kept pointing to the (not statistically significant) difference in cardiovascular disease between the highest and lowest push-up groups.<\/p>\n 4) Those who argue endlessly and absolutely refuse to admit they\u2019re wrong even if you prove it.<\/strong><\/p>\n Sometimes Twitter Dumb keeps arguing because he has the logical-thinking capacity of a turnip (see above). In fact, someone following one back-and-forth argument finally chimed in and replied to Twitter Dumb with Jesus effing Christ. You are literally too stupid to enter this discussion.<\/em><\/p>\n Heh-heh \u2026 yes, sometimes Twitter Dumb is like the tone-deaf person who can\u2019t be convinced he sings off-key \u2013 because he\u2019s tone deaf and therefore can\u2019t hear that he\u2019s off-key, so he refuses to believe he’s off-key. Illogical people can\u2019t be convinced that they\u2019re being illogical \u2013 because it takes a logical mind to recognize illogical thinking.<\/p>\n But other times, Twitter Dumb is actually an intelligent person who simply refuses to admit he got it wrong. He\u2019s a walking, talking, tweeting example of the phenomenon described in the wonderful book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)<\/em>: once some people have taken a public position, they will defend it to the bitter end, even when proven wrong.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t understand that mindset. Nobody knows everything there is to know about a subject, so everyone makes mistakes. The smart move is to admit those mistakes and move on. It\u2019s not all that difficult to say, Sorry, looks like I got it wrong, thanks for pointing out the error.<\/em><\/p>\n I\u2019ve been listening to Principles<\/em>, written by Ray Dalio, who runs one of the world\u2019s most successful investment firms. I\u2019m not planning to become a Wall Street investor, but I wanted to know how this extraordinarily successful guy thinks.<\/p>\n Early in his career, Dalio lost a fortune (his money and his clients\u2019 money) by being too confident in his own calculations. He had to lay off everyone at the firm, become its sole employee, and borrow money to stay afloat. That taught him a valuable lesson: always be willing to be proven wrong. In fact, he surrounds himself with people who are expected to challenge his strategies, his calculations, and his beliefs. All of his employees undergo training to learn to embrace having their beliefs challenged by others — which happens at regular company meetings.<\/p>\n Twitter Dumb would never make it as an employee of Dalio\u2019s firm. When Twitter Dumb is proven wrong, absolutely and positively, he\u2019ll either disappear from the conversation without admitting his mistake, or attempt to change the subject and continue arguing.<\/p>\n As you may recall, a doctor once chimed in on Twitter to deny that \u201chard-working, professional\u201d dieticians would recommend pancakes to diabetics. I replied that a hard-working, professional dietician in a hospital had served pancakes (but no butter) to my diabetic father-in-law as a \u201cheart-healthy\u201d meal \u2013 a meal that caused his blood sugar to blow past 400.<\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s just one dietician, the doctor insisted. It\u2019s not typical.<\/p>\n\n