Slashdot Mirror
Scientists' Success Or Failure Correlated With Beer
mernil sends in an article from the NYTimes that casts a glance at a study done in the Czech Republic (natch) on what divides the successful scientists from the duffers. "Ever since there have been scientists, there have been those who are wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after another, and those who are not. And since nearly the same time, there have been scholars arguing over what makes the difference. What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud? After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex, and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer."
Scientists' Success Or Failure Correlated With Beer
Oddly enough, that finding carries over to Hookers, as well.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Could it be that they drink more because they are unsuccessfull instead of the inverse?
because the correlation just means 3 things:
1) they are unrelated
2) more drinking => bad scientist
3) bad scientist => more drinking
If there was any truth to this idea it would lie in the promotion of creativity via altered states.
I record my sleeptalking
I guess that people having more fun in their life have better results!
I hope that this article doesn't result in more alcoholics though..
The study says that beer consumption is inversely proportional to academic success. The more beer you drink, the less likely you are to produce high-quality, well-regarded papers.
It's been long known that beer is the drink of the underclasses. Wine, of course, being the preferred drink of the upper classes. And hard liquor a habit of the dregs of society. Is it any wonder, then, that people who consume beer, being from the lower classes, would be unable to create and innovate at the level that wine drinkers do? No, it only stands to reason that, as Murray 1996 shows, that intelligence is intricately tied to success. Therefore, the lower average intelligence of beer drinkers would necessarily be unable to compete with the higher average intelligence of wine drinkers.
In other words, beer consumption is a symptom, not the cause of the lower quality academic product.
If ever any scientific breakthrough have deserved to kept secret for the good of mankind, this is it.
Arrogant Bastard Ale.
Goes well with academic elitism.
I've never published any peer reviewed papers, and I drink plenty of beer, so it must be true [burp].
One day I read that to 100% restore high-level brain functions, one needs 2 weeks of sobriety. The one who has couple of beers/wine etc each week or two is simply working on suboptimal level if brain is the main tool. It's ok for other workers and maybe CEOs, but not for scientists, where you need as much advantage as you can.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
The summary should mention that it's a *negative* correlation. I.e., increased beer intake is negatively correlated with success in the field. Successful scientists "just say no". ;)
What Would Homer Say:
Beer: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
---Homer---
...D'oh!
I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
In many research groups it is common to go out and have a few beers once a paper has been accepted. So this should lead to a positive correlation between beer consumption and research output. However, it is likely that among Czechs these paper beers do not have a large effect on their overall consumption (they drink even more beer than Germans).
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
In order to find out if beer is good or bad for scientists, I have to read the article?
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Ok, this is perhaps the most widely disseminated scientific concept among the laity, so to see an "evolutionary biologist" cock it up so readily is pretty disheartening.
All together now: correlation does not imply causation!
sic transit gloria mundi
If I were a scientist studying worthless things like whether beer makes a great scientist, I'd determine that all those years in college were for nothing and I'm making no contribution to society. I'd eventually go and get some beer in order to cope, beer is of course a Depressant. Thus the beer gets me more depressed, I get more depressed, and I accomplish nothing. Vicous cycle, maybe they should do something important.
What Would Feynman Do?
ahh. good to see that next years Ig-Nobels are already hotting up.
Women in Denmark have larger breasts than women in Canada. There are more moose in Canada than in Denmark. So more moose means smaller breasts.
Statistics are like miniskirts; they show a lot but hide the most important facts.
that TFA didn't explain the direction of the correlation. A little story: When I was quite young, my father and I used to hang quite a bit and he'd have a beer of two. Then, in his relaxed state, he would muse with me about all manner of things related to time and relativity, like "How do you measure time, if you are floating in a spacesuit in interstellar abyss..." Now, this may be an exception, but I am posting here at Slashdot as arguably a direct result of my father's drinking. Of course, I am not a scientist, so this probably isn't really related. My thoughts, nonetheless.
I had a prof in University that had a full division of mathematics named after his work. He would describe a math proof by how many cans of beer he drank before finishing the proof. (no kidding).
- SPT
Really? Perhaps that is why I wasn't able to do error calculations at 2 in the morning whilst off my head on 8 pints of wifebeater. I've also heard it can affect your driving skills.
I'm so glad people are getting paid to do this research.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
but is that statement statistically correct?
Moderate alcohol consumption is good for cognative function. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/150/6/580.pdf
Social drinkers are also more likely to be gregarious than their non-drinking cow-irkers. That makes them much more likely to be promoted.
There has to be something else at work here.
He had a house with a faucet that gave fresh beer - just next door to the Carlsberg brewery.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Knowing that would let us judge (by their own criterion) whether this paper is useful, or garbage.
But,just to be on the safe side I think I'll switch to whisky
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Now waitttthere jussh a minit...
YOu tellin me I can find da mooos with biggish breshsh in Demark or Cansas?
AN what does minishirtsh haves to do with it?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Studies that make these kinds of leaps are generally BS. It could be that the scientists who don't drink AT ALL are the type AA driven types who don't socialize much at all. Or it could be that the ones who like to go drink are lazy. Or it could be some unknown effect of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The point you make is spot on; the researches need to take a better look at possible causation and not jump to conclusions.
Maybe it fits here http://xkcd.com/323/
As a professional scientist who travelled a lot between universities in Europe, USA and Japan, I can say the following:
a) Correlation does not imply causation. Some regions are generally poorer, meaning their universities get less money, they attract less good scientists, etc. And these regions also have higher alcohol consumption. And so observation that alcohol consumption anti-correlates with scientific achievements doesn't necessarily imply that drinking makes you bad scientist.
b) I just moved from UK to USA and the amount of alcohol people drink in UK is completely unheard of in USA. Basically, we used to have three British pints 4 times a week. Properly drunk. In USA I can convince my colleagues to have one beer (over two hours!!) once a week. And yet, UK is THE most scientifically successful country per dollar spent.
c) My feeling is actually the opposite: alcohol acts as a social lubricant and many personal frictions can get dissolved that way. After two pints, the guy who you hate so much for having more papers than you, suddenly seems an ok chap. People are more likely to speak about their work, share opinions on papers, don't be secretive about future projects, etc. This effect must have bigger positive impact than negative effects of drinking.
Actually, the summary is kinda misleading in that it doesn't say that they actually discovered an _inverse_ correlation. The _less_ beer you drink, the more likely you are to have your work published in some peer reviewed journal.
So basically what it says is: altered states won't actually make you more creative. Or at least not alcohol and not in science.
So basically put down the bong, lay off the booze, and get some honest sober work done, if you're in science. Maybe being drunk and/or stoned off your arse works for arts, I wouldn't know, you may stick to that myth for now. But if you want to discover the next particle, apparently nothing beats having the neurons working normally, without other crap interfering with your synapses and clouding your judgment.
Can't say it's that surprising, really. I can even imagine how if you're, say a painter, you could get the colourful vision for your next painting while you're on acid. But science is less about crazy ideas and more about maths, evaluating those ideas based on critical cause->effect thinking, and the like. And it's getting more abstract by the year. And I can tell you first hand, that at least being drunk (no idea about other altered states) doesn't really help you with maths and logic. _Maybe_ being too drunk to draw a straight line helps when painting some modern art stuff, but not with science.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The guy who wrote the paper admits at the end of the article to occasionally "enjoying drinking 12 beers in a night".
I guess that means that his results are dismissable. But then that means his beer drinking should not affect how we look at his results. Which means that his results...
Microsoft did a study in the late 80's.
The programming skill of people peaks when those peoples' BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) stays in between certain thresholds.
Now programming is a science... so I think the BAC of the scientists should be studied in more detail!
The Ballmer Peak: http://xkcd.com/323/
This is a definite conflict of interest. Czech Republic has the highest world consumption per capita of beer at 156 liters per person. Compared to Germany at 119, UK at 99 and the whimpy US drinking our watered down p*ss at 82 liters per person.
Well, no screaming eagle shit! You mean to tell me that there might be a correlation between success and beer consumption? Who the hell would have ever considered that possibility? Oh, wait, perhaps thats why the majority of prominent professions require a drug AND *alcohol* test prior to employment.
What does alcohol do? It's a sedative, it slows the brain down. Consumption of alcohol in any quantity is going to have an effect, whether immediately noticeable or not.
You could easily relabel this one "[fill in the blank] Success Or Failure Correlated With Beer" and it would be accurate for a wide number of professions.
In other news, pirates stop global warming.
But if it's for science, I'll have another beer. :)
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
This is NOT new.It is known as the Ballmer Peak! check out: http://xkcd.com/323/
It actually works that way, to a point, yes. If you drink lots and regularly, you build up "alcohol tolerance". I.e., small quantities of alcohol which would make someone else tipsy, just get you back to the baseline. It compensated all right.
The problem is that that compensated state remains so even when you're sober. That's how eventually DT happens. The brain chemistry is "compensated" to work right with a lot of alcohol in the system. Without that alcohol, however, you're fucked up and can even die.
It's, if you will, like compensating for pushing a wardrobe to the right. Hard. So you compensate by slanting it to the left. When that force is applied, congrats, the components cancel out and the wardrobe stays like that. But when that force isn't applied any more, now it falls over to the the left.
That's in a nutshell how you die of DT. It's not the alcohol that kills you, it's the lack of alcohol. At that point your brain has changed so much to keep working when marinated in alcohol, that eventually it became unable to function without it.
That incidentally, also has the following implication for the post-alcohol-impairment I was talking about. It's easy to think "bah, I'm resistant to alcohol. Why, I only even start feeling a little warm after the fourth pint." Congrats, if you're at that point, your brain's equilibrium is now already waay off center. You _will_ have decreased brain power even when alcohol has left your system. In fact, _because_ all alcohol has left your system.
I couldn't care less, actually. Equally, a couple of century ago, mercury was the only known treatment for syphilis. It doesn't mean we should keep doing that. Nowadays we have better ways to deal with that.
Similarly, nowadays we know how to filter and disinfect water. So whatever need for alcohol might have existed, doesn't exist any more.
I'm not proposing to ban either alcohol or tobacco. If you want to nuke your brain, be my guest. I wouldn't even stop you from hanging yourself or playing russian roulette. If you want to, by all means, go ahead.
I'm _only_ saying "don't be surprised if it affects your IQ", really. But if you can live with that, go ahead and drink yourself silly, for all I care
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
But what about the Ballmer Peak?
A much more interesting study would be to compare scientific production with time spent reading and commenting /.
Never mind, I better write that article instead...or maybe just read a couple more stories...
So, the "scientist" applies linear correlation to the beer-publications space? And then he makes a conlusion? Since we don't know much (mathematically) about the beer-publication space it seems a bit odd to simply assume that it is linear. This is pretty much garantied to be wrong. From a practical point of view unknown spaces are almost always highly non-linear. So, don't trust the guy. Drink beer!
Germany.
This clearly needs to be tagged "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense"
And we probably shouldn't talk about the difference between gratis beer and libre beer.
They say the mind is the first thing to
Drinking beer IS success.
old geek
Covariates in the data array would only imply beer.
/. post) .... ... more drink, total loser ... tenured alcoholic
... in the world (maybe universe) from the breweries in Pilsen Czech is a scientific fycking fact.
The publicly acceptable endless social loop (as stated in another
Failure drink, more failure
(maybe department head) due to social skills, not performance.
Another maybe is genetic link where a portion of well educated are AADD/Dyslexia/...
handicapped and production/performance focus is lacking/absent, and they genetically
like beer more than wine.
IOW: There are the odd abstract/eccentric ephemeral epiphany scientist that like guzzling the best damn beer (Czech Pilsen Urquell Budweiser) in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_beer and the wine sipping OCD scientist who is far more likely to complete papers/studies/research.
The best damn beer Urquell, Budweiser
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
correlation =/= causation
...OK, so when did the Preview button start killing the topic you put in? I put this one in for my last post, previewed, and it put back the "Re:" topic in the subject box...grrr....
/me takes Slashcode and twists it into little pretzel shapes
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
The full text of the journal article is located here:
A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists
Unfortunately, you have to be somewhere that's paid the journal's ransom.
Sam
No matter how little you drink or what super foods you eat, it is impossible to become the next Darwin or Einstien if you do not have the natural aptitude. Some scientists produce numerous highly regarded papers in the same way that some Directors or Actors produced highly regarded films. I'm guessing that scientists who produce great stuff don't particularly like drinking and have found a scientific niche in which they really flourish.
It must be more about early development, environment, colleagues, etc as about how much beer. If the study indicated that the parents of great scientists did not drink/smoke/etc., then the study may have more meaning.
Art is the mathematics of emotion
It's somewhat disturbing that you automatically link social status/wealth with intelligence. The "underclasses" may have fewer opportunities for education, but that doesn't mean they're all stupid. Likewise, I know plenty of rich, wine-drinking idiots.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Why is Budweiser like making love in a canoe? They're both fucking close to water.
You posted the wrong link for Delirium Tremens.
They didn't survey the geologists on this one.
That's why I'm a writer, not a scientist.
Almost all of the great writers were heavy drinkers.
Woo-Hoo!!
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
I've got to call shenanigans on this so-called study! It's quite obvious that the sample size is so puny that any relationship you could possibly get out of this is virtually insignificant and meaningless! If the only scientists you surveyed were Czech ornithologists -- bird watchers -- so much for the rest of the world!!!! Next time, try surveying a few chemists from other countries -- your results may differ. I happen to know a few biochemists with quite respectable publication lists (and grants, too :-) that could quite easily drink the authors of the study under the table any day of the week,...
I have to believe that drinking a few beers actually increases your publication record, and that it looks something like a right-skewed bell curve. My own experience in science, some of the most stimulating, rewarding and ultimately fruitful conversations about science were over a beer.
Without a beer in hand once in a while, the grant writing process alone, much less publishing, would consume you. I think it's important to realize that drinking beer in a manner represents socializing, also.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Young Einstein invented beer, and he was the smartest man in the world. I saw it in a movie, so it's a fact.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And that correlation doesn't equal causation.. sweet jeebus! Yet another example of an egregious take on statistics that got hyped by the press.
Beer for brilliance. As far as I'm concerned, I'm prettier, smarter and downright hilarious when I drink. Who wrote this report, I'm going to snap his neck! Wait, I have a funny joke, let me tinkle in the corner here.. alright where was I? Oh right, I was proceeding to give my opinion on peak oil. (jokes, jokes people
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
I read the article...if you look at the one figure, pretty much the whole effect is due to five people who drank a shitload and never published. Given that Dr. Grim drinks 12beers/day, and according to pubmed has only 2 english publications, I'd guess he is one of these outliers. He does reference an article which investigated the relationship between picking mushrooms and scientific productivity. Good analysis of this story at Discover's blog.
Scientific success found to be inversely correlated with social success!
Chemists who invent new drugs were shown to be exceptions to this rule.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
If not for beer, I'd be a genius, instead of merely brilliant.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
We have known for a long time that alcohol consumption is not good for those gray cells. Is our culture so alcohol addled that these blunt truths can't otherwise be common public knowledge ?
This is a link to the article (you probably need an academic IP to be able to access it)
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2008.0030-1299.16551.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A(tomas+grim)
If you take the time to read it, you see that the data comes from no more than 18 people and the r^2 value of the alcohol consumption-publication correlation was 0.55. That doesn't convince me at all. In fact, it is a shame that the NYTimes picks up on this type of sensationalist pseudo science.
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Is beer a cause of effect.
It could be that less capable scientists are more social or have other factors that also make them more prone to beer drinking and if they stopped there consumption it may not have any improvement in there work.
It could very well be that there education was impair by earlier beer drinking or that the scientist that are more consumed and passionate about there science were far less likely to waist time drinking beer and participating in Social activities. Basically the more nerdy, the less beer drinking.
As a hard core nerd, and in a circle of friends who are hard core nerds, none of us drink beer. And maybe drink one bottle ever 5 years or less.
We just don't tend to end up in places with beer and don't tend to fit in or be comfortable in those environments but stay in our comfort zone of logic, science and think Chess, prime numbers and Pi are fun.
J
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Correlation doesn't prove causation.
'One day you read' is not proper attribution.
Just FYI you are still completely sober after one or two beers.
I can believe it takes two weeks to completely recover if someone gets knee walking, knuckle dragging drunk.
Having one or two drinks is still remaining completely sober (scaling for body weight of course).
Yeast in your gut makes about a drinks worth of alcohol per day (unless you eat no sugar at all).
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
I always liked these lines on ale:
Fill with mingled cream and amber,
I will drain that glass again.
Such hilarious visions clamber
Through the chamber of my brain --
Quaintest thoughts -- queerest fancies
Come to life and fade away;
What care I how time advances?
I am drinking ale today.
-- Edgar Allen Poe
Nothing to say here... move along
all of you sladhsot (hic) hypocrates! ...oops ..eat only the source - barlkeyt, wheet and grapes
I drink
oops... (hic)
You're oversimplifying it. The CNS isn't simply a lightbulb that goes between depressed and manic. It's a complex system where a chemical unbalance doesn't just move you between manic and depressed, but can disrupt the signal processing in a lot more ways. E.g., hallucinations, sympathetic nervous system malfunctions, and a whole slew of other problems.
Alcohol acts upon _some_ pathways and receptors, and the compensation in the other direction (i.e., downregulation of some receptors, and up-regulation of some transmitters) is somewhat understood by now. Yes, it essentially makes _some_ receptors "manic", or rather hyper-sensive, which is what creates those hallucinations. Unfortunately, some of those are in the sympathetic system, which is why you get arrhythmia and the like, and why it kills.
Or, if you will, take your own advice: stop making things up >:)
Again, there are long term changes to that chemistry. I don't care if your oversimplified alcohol-for-dummies pages didn't mention that, or maybe you think they'll go away if you refuse to believe in them, or whatever your problem is. Those long term changes are real and documented.
Since you've proved that you can read Wikipedia, I'll refer you again to that Delirium Tremens link I've already posted. It even spells out which neurotransmitters are involved, and that, yes, there are long term adjustments to them just like I've described.
As opposed to your making up pversimplifications as strawmen? Heh. I'm amused. Yes, you've read the superficial executive-summary introduction pages. Big deal. Look a bit deeper into what neurotransmitters are actually affected, and what happens with them _without_ alcohol, an then we'll talk. We're not talking "well, generally a little alcohol does this or that to your mood" alcohol-for-dummies simplifications, but actual chemistry changes of very specific pathways and mediators. And you obviously don't have a clue beyond those generic alcohol-for-dummies oversimplifications.
Briefly, take your own advice: "Stop making things up: you evidently have no clue about the physiology of alcohol or alcoholism."
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Really I do.
I am a very scatter brained person. After having about 2 beers (slight buzz, beyond that there is no positive change) , it seems to help me focus...
To make a processor analogy (sorry not a car):
Before i drink my brain is like a 40 core processor at 1Ghz.
After a few beers my brain functions like a dual core at 4Ghz.
Billiards may not be a completely cognitive game, but i still think this makes my point - to quote a friend:
"No! I will not play you, you have been drinking"
This is because I am very good at billiards, but only when i'm concentrating.
i don't drink beer (my body doesn't react well to it) and my papers suck. but then again, i'm not a scientist. they should check how beer affects people with a BA degree.
Years ago an Italian writer, Stefano Benni, in his romance "Terra!", at a certain point describes a scientist with a funny character, very good in science but often drunk, offensive and so, which latin motto was "Nulla teoria sine hosteria". Translated from Latin to english sounds like "No theories without a pub".
This is called ecological fallacy.
http://www.grcrun11.gr - MUDA tribute
I for one welcome our new vodka overlords.
Here is the original publication. I can view fulltext from my computer on campus, but it could be a subscription-only.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
My null hypothesis would be that the number of beers consumed does not inversely correlate to the lack of social life a scientist has
meridian at tha.net