Scientists' Success Or Failure Correlated With Beer 349
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."
what is cause and effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
because the correlation just means 3 things:
1) they are unrelated
2) more drinking => bad scientist
3) bad scientist => more drinking
Re:what is cause and effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
WWFD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yay for statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
The article's inverse correlation between beer and success is inside a single country, and seems to be among scientists of only one science. Extending the conclusion to apply to the world and all kinds of science is admittedly a stretch, but not as bad as your example.
Re:what is cause and effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they picked two things that don't go well together and blamed the lack of one for the existence of the other. I've seen some evidence that shows good artists are all depressed whackjobs. Of course theoretical physicists have had some social issues too. There are correlations to other things, but we don't quite understand what they are. I think the human brain/body has a lot to do with the chemicals floating around inside it, and definitely when you remove the chemicals they stop working but exactly how they all interact is still a bit more mysterious than saying beer has a direct effect on good science.
Re:what is cause and effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
It boils down to this: successful scientific workhorses simply don't have the time to socialize.
I am sure that this can be extrapolated to other professions as well -- especially anything that demands a lot of concentration.
On the upside highly successful scientists doesn't regret being singletons, after all they are successful because they are passionate about what they are doing, so no sacrifice here I'd say.
Re:Yay for statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WWFD? (Score:1, Insightful)
One day, he walked down the street and realised that he wanted a drink - despite the fact that there was no reason (e.g. social) to drink right now.
If I remember right, his comment was something along
"The brain is such a beautiful and complicated machine, enabling me to appreciate all the wonders of the world. I did want to risk destroying it.'
"Drinking Feynman" is just as much a bad excuse that "Einstein was bad at school, too"...
Re:teh goggles... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what is cause and effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the flip side though if you are always obsessing about your projects then you are probably missing some important piece of the puzzle that you would get if you just slept or if you let your mind switch gears. I know I was exhausted and making bone-headed moves at work. Then some friends came to visit for 5 days, we partied it up and at the end of it I went back to work and did some pretty darned amazing work. Stuff I thought I couldn't do just came easy to me.
Sometimes a little distance is a good thing, and beer helps you get that distance rather quickly. Of course many people cross the fine line between drinking too much, causing you to be unproductive.
I'd say balance is always a good thing, just like a little exercise helps you clear your mind allowing you to concentrate better than if you'd just sat there for 18 hours straight coding.
Re:what is cause and effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that where I am now is abnormally low, it's just that when I was single, bored, and living by myself in an apartment, I had a hell of a lot more time to focus on work. Wives and children have a way of demanding significant amounts attention.
You might write it something like:
productivity for a given demand = (concentration / total # of demands for attention)
As the denominator goes up, productivity goes down across all of those demands. The total productivity and concentration are, of course, constant.
Re:Many problems with that study (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:teh goggles... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll find plenty of company at the faculty lounge.
Just ask for Bruce:
"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed. "
Ecological fallacy (Score:2, Insightful)