As if on cue ...

[hrj]

Thursday I was at this all-day training session at work for "managing multiple priorities". Among the other dumb and questionable things the lecturer said was, "a scientific study has proven that e-mail and texting interruptions lower the IQ twice as much as smoking marijuana." My instant reaction was, "This is just like those pseudo-scientific sound-bite studies that the folks at Language Log are always frothing at the mouth about." (I.e., sociological or behavioral studies with extremely marginal distinctions between categories of individuals based on small data sets where not only is the actual difference statistically insignificant, but is much smaller than each category's internal variation.) I want to see data. I want to see controls. I want to see the study design. I want to see statistical significance.

And then, lo and behold, today's Language Log column makes reference to a column they'd done debunking this exact study all the way back in 2005. Hah! Question #1: Is it worth my time to direct the attention of the trainer to this debunking? Question #2: If I do, is it likely to result in any change in his obviously canned patter?

Comments

[aureellia.livejournal.com]

My first thought is, "Whoa, she needs a partner in crime. I should offer to mail it to him for her. You know, from Annony Mouse.

Then I decided to type out this rant about how you are scientist and you should stand up for science! This person is delivering a "managing multiple priorities" training session to a bunch of scientists and scientific folks? He needs to be bitch slapped.

How can you take anything seriously if he is making use of really awful examples? He is just out to make pot smokers look better, I guess. Look, I like you a lot but I just don't see you as the kind of woman who will haul off and belt a guy when he needs it. I would alert him to his use of bad science because a trainer should know their audience.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

If I was going to belt him, it was when he opened his introduction with, "You can just call me ; you don't have to call me professor or anything just because I have a master's degree." (I think he managed to mention his master's degree at least 10 times in the course of the day.) Have I mentioned that he really really rubbed me the wrong way from the start?

[aureellia.livejournal.com]

Oh. My. God.

He reached "more annoying that Auree" status. He needs a wake up call and so do the people who hired him. I would actually make a comment. I would probably get very gossipy with an influential person about how ridiculous the speaker was and the insults were not appreciated on top of how the training wasted your time.

Sometimes, when people annoy me that much I think about the simple things in life. For example, forcing a person to stand for 8 hours in uncomfortable shoes. Or, the simplicity of tying a person in a wooden chair in a completely white room and leaving them alone with their own brain for hours on end. Or bamboo under their fingernails.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, he wasn't that annoying. I just felt like I wasted the entire day, that's all. And he was annoying.

[aureellia.livejournal.com]

Whew... thought my position of annoyingness was being threatened. Good to know I still hold the title.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

Ack, that should be "you can just call me {given name}" -- I used angle brackets, forgetting that it would try to interpret it as code.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

To which the reply is "That's nice; you can call me 'Dr.'." I rarely use my title(s) in introducing myself, but for certain circumstances I'll make an exception.

A cynical person might speculate as to how many boxtops he mailed in for that master's degree. People who actually work for one generally do so in a context that better illustrates its overall significance.