To Retract or Not to Retract, That is the Question. Whether Tis Nobler...

Sometimes as we strive to understand the world in which we live, we are handed a moment of clarity. We need to accept these gifts and learn all we can. We had two major retractions in wildly different fields recently - the power pose renunciation by study co-author Dana Carney and the birther retraction by candidate Donald Trump. But first, the power pose.

Amy Cuddy is a social scientist who has found semi-renown with a current New York Times best seller Presence. In 2010 she and her colleagues published results of a study on the effectiveness of "power poses" in building confidence, as measured by levels of cortisol and testosterone. She famously advocated "fake it till you make it" and now it appears that is what she may have done, or at least the statistical techniques were applied sloppily.

Cuddy's co-author of the study, Dana Carney, recently renounced the findings of the original study, which researchers have been unable to replicate. That renunciation provides a moment of clarity because the arguments about the validity of the results can stop, we can all agree there was a problem, and we can turn our attention to understanding better what went wrong and how do we fix it.
Cuddy's Ted Talk available on Youtube is entertaining.
Dana Carney, who went from Columbia to Berkeley after the paper was published, has a special comment on the power pose study which is a clear renunciation.
Retraction Watch has a post on the study. Carney says the paper should not be retracted. We will likely see more activity in the weeks ahead.

When I originally watched Cuddy perform, I noticed that her ways of thinking about herself and the world often fundamentally differ from mine. She concludes that doctors who have a warm social interaction with their patients are sued less often, regardless of their competence. (I am not familiar with that study or how competence was measured). I lean toward the belief that doctors (and really other professionals) who are the most competent are the most confident -they have every reason to be - and therefore the least defensive, so they are able to engage their patients more directly.

So she looks for mechanisms that do not offer intuitive appeal to me. For example, she posits ways to build confidence for job interviews and chooses the example of Usain Bolt thrusting his arms in the air after the race as a natural "power pose". But that is backwards! Usain throws his arms up after he wins, after the validation of winning, not before the race. In the past, before a client meeting - or an interview - I would don the suit and tie and stare at myself in the mirror for 5 seconds taking myself in as a stranger would. It was almost a way of saying to myself - see, if I saw that person on the other side of the table, I would assume they are capable and belong there. I thought of my little ritual as getting psyched for game day. Frankly I never saw this kind of self-help as requiring scientific study. Isn't this just the "ruby slippers" effect in the Wizard of Oz? The cowardly lion had reason to feel brave because he had acted bravely. The scarecrow made wise recommendations, so he really did have a brain. And the Wizard really was a wizard because he helped the others understand they had every reason to feel confident. Cuddy leaves open the question of how a person lacking in competence can feel confident in areas beyond their expertise and whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

The power pose results failed the common sense test (for many, but not all of us). The primary goal of at least one of the authors seemed to be to help women feel more confident and to be able to validate the recommendations by pointing to "science proves it". Almost as if to say - "See you can really feel more confident if you use this technique, and you can feel confident in this recommendation because science backs me up on this.

Dana Carney's rejection of the findings is big news. Many statistical studies have failed to replicate in recent years, especially in social psychology. Sometimes a study can not be replicated because the data is kept confidential (not good), but the findings fly in the face of common sense. For example, I thought I understood the most important mechanisms for unruly passengers -- access to overhead storage, access to under-the-seat storage in front of you, seat tilting and other confined quarters conflicts, timely access to a clean restroom, emotions sometimes fueled by alcohol, which happens to be offered free in first class, usually at the start of the flight. But a recent study found that unruly passenger disruptions were more common in flights with economy passengers walking through first class than with economy passengers entering the flight behind first class. Maybe, but it will take more for me to believe it. Passengers in first class are not always a rarefied elite. The same persons fly economy, but are bumped up with rewards points to first or business class. Studies like this are potentially dangerous because the airlines could start building more planes with middle entry instead of addressing the real problems - plenty of overhead space for luggage, timely access to restrooms, adequate seating room - all because legitimate concerns about income inequality morphed in popular culture into concerns about elites being cordoned off from the masses on planes, boats, and trains as well as stadiums.

On power pose, this afternoon Amy Cuddy issued her response to critiques of her research, which is actually a response to the Dana Carney's clearly backing away from the original research findings.
We will wait for the response from the experts on statistical methods. Suffice it to say that Cuddy decries the "chilling effect on science. In the last six months, three labs have contacted me to let me know that they have conducted high-powered studies on expansive postures or “power posing,” but that they are reluctant to submit them because they fear being “targeted” for doing research in this area. Open science must be inclusive." I was not aware that scientists are such cowards.

An upcoming post will compare and contrast this evolving situation with the Trump retraction on birtherism and the press treatment of science and politics. As a start, it is interesting that in Trump's retraction, he blamed Hillary Clinton for birtherism. Cuddy lashed back at her co-author for the failures -" I also cannot contest the first author’s recollections of how the data were collected and analyzed, as she led both. By today’s improved methodological standards, the studies in that paper — which was peer-reviewed — were “underpowered,” meaning that they should have included more participants. I wish we had conducted those studies with the rigor of today’s methodological standards, which I firmly believe are moving our field in the right direction."

In the end, the story is not about individuals, but about applying standards of rigor and fairness to produce accurate results and reporting. More to come.

The Asymmetry Challenge

Here at WTBP, we sometimes wonder if a fair shorthand for the current political mess would be - "Liberals inquire, 'What If', But Conservatives Shout 'F**k You!" (WIFY)Now, if that happens to be true, then there is important asymmetry between the parties which leads the following logical consequences, among others.
If asymmetry can be proven, then the he said/she said/ both-sides-do-it balanced model used by the mainstream objective media giants breaks down.
If the model for media balance breaks down, it needs to be replaced.
If the media fairness standard needs to be replaced, with what?
You can almost see Adolph S. Ochs spinning in his grave.
Begin with context and research meaningful patterns of behavior. Pay attention to patterns of speech, too. With Trump and Clinton as candidates this year, the media was handed a generous gift, two opposing candidates with long records of activity in the public sphere. Lots of information at your fingertips. Lots of living people who can talk about their experiences with them. Build a model of that candidate yourself, based on the available evidence. And when an accusation is made about the other candidate, test it against the portrait of the candidate you have built under the new fairness model. Only report the accusation in context, if at all!

Context Alert: Donald Trump is someone who has spent a lifetime taking advantage of weaknesses in the systems in which he operates. Those weaknesses often derive from the principle that most people act in good faith in their dealings with others throughout their lives. In business, a man with four bankruptcies has used and abused the system. So has a man with a history of using his charities to pay off his debts, even when those charities collected funds only from others. He certainly seems to be a man who refuses to pay his bills mostly because he hates to part with his money so much. The list goes on. If many people who knew Ted Cruz throughout college and law school could not stand his personality, Donald Trump has stood out in business as someone who achieved success through intimidation and shaking down bill collectors to accept less. And now, at least since 2011, he first took advantage of the weak "fair and balanced" reporting standard of our objective press in pursuing the "birther" accusations, and then, in 2015 and 2016, he took advantage of weaknesses in the Republican primary system that reward candidates for outrageous statements and promises and avoiding clear expressions of policy.

What can be done? We point to two groups. The press who refuse to examine context first. And the moderates who happen to still be Republicans who succumb to tactics as policy.

Extreme example of context: So telling that at almost precisely the moment the WaPo posted their article on Trump's week of lies, NYT posted their article on Trump's week of lies. Imagine. These two outlets needed Trump's extreme three-pronged insult to feel that they had permission to call him out. But this was not the first week like this. Nor will it be the last. But such was his power over the press. Imagine what coverage would have been like if the press had been using that prism all along.
More to come on WIFY in an upcoming post.

What's Wrong With Calling Trump a Liar

What's wrong with calling Trump a liar? It misses the point. His statements - accusations, denials, insults, labels, claims of omnipotence - are all made for effect,to express feeling,  not meant to actually express statements of fact. His followers know this and embrace it. They know he does not know anything, and they don't care. No political correctness there. Our traditional journalists struggle with this. Their knee jerk "fact checking" is a weak response. The NYT backpatted themselves over calling Trump a liar on the birther issue. Really? When the false accusation had served its purpose for years and no longer had a purpose, he reverses himself, and you congratulate yourselves? Are you kidding?  If Trump is to be interpreted and understood, he must be treated like a Mafia Don. Do you fact check a Mafia Don? When the Don says - How are your children Claude and Emily enjoying your seaside cottage with their lovely mother, Clara, do you say - so nice of you to ask? No, you know what he means. But you can't prove it in court, can you. When Trump is intimidating, the Donald is like the Don. His threats are veiled, but he gets away with it because our news media, even when critical, treats the existence of the threats as an opinion. When he gets called on these outrages, the reaction is still mild, considering the extremity of his statements. Suppose the candidate of a major party should be arrested and charged with threatening a Presidential candidate? Could that indictment ever happen in a system that assumes a certain amount of good faith of the actors within it? No, not now
When he roughly talks policy because he is backed into a corner, he springs from the place of "truthiness", like George W. Bush. In a situation like this, it doesn't matter if statements are factual,  - that is not the issue - journalists could turn the focus to experience, expertise, and other qualities that a president needs - whoops, that is an opinion. Nope, can't go there, can we. Sigh.

What's All This About Asymmetry?

Scholars and the blogosphere are getting excited about asymmetry - and you should too -- because this is the key to reforming standards of political journalism in the U.S., the UK, and any country with a free press that bends over backwards to appear unbiased by tracking down every negative story at the expense of context and true fairness - to readers, fairness to the subjects.
Asymmetric Politics is a new book from Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins on this topic. More to come on that.
Washington Monthly has a shout out to Jay Rosen's blog piece on the subject.
See Why Asymmetry Matters.
As you read, keep in mind the seminal theory of the Six Points and related pages Beyond the Pale, Key Takeaways and Both Sides Do It
As noted in the Six Points the two groups in society who hold the power to change the dangerous direction of American politics are the journalists, who need to modify (really replace) the current standards, and moderate Republicans, who need to take the chance to threaten to form a rump group to leave their caucus in order to weaken the Tea Party scorched earth tactics.
If you read all of these posts and the arguments make sense to you,  Congratulations! You have just been thoroughly brainwashed. Kidding! But really, that's was the Times editors seem to be saying in their recent News Analysis of the Clinton twitterstorm. All liberals apparently, who did not vote for Bernie think alike and wait for commands from their leader, Hillary. That would mean the Bernie Bros believe whatever their leader tells them. If these people do not think for themselves, how did they decide between Bernie and Hillary in the first place.

Birtherism as a Service (BaaS)

No one should be surprised that Donald Trump claimed his promotion of birtherism was a service to America or that it was all Hillary's idea (deny, distract, accuse). Any fair analysis of his "admission" it is untrue would need to be severely critical. For the MM, balance requires finding a parallel action by the Clinton campaign. Why make the MM do the research? Better for the Donald to hand them the balance outright - Hillary made me do it, it was all her idea. The NYT statement "No, it was not." misses the point. Of course it was not. But the point is that birtherism is a tactic. So criticism of birtherism requires discussion of the tactic - the deep and sometimes hiding in plain sight reality of that tactic and how truly sinister it is. So sinister, we did not have proper words in our language to describe it and came up with "birther" and "birtherism". Is it treason? Almost.  The point is the essential truth that some feel that Obama could not be a legitimate president, even if elected by a majority. The natural human response for many Republican voters and independents who do not inhabit the fringe is to view the birther debate from a distance and decide, well, it's turned into a debate so it may be true...then the debate continues, so it is probably true.

The Times headline "Donald Trump Clung to 'Birther' Lie for Years, and Still Isn't Apologetic" screams the cluelessness of the MM. Are you kidding. Apologize? The tactic had worn out its usefulness and needed to be dropped. He never actually believed it was true, but mostly never cared. That was not the point. The "claim" existed only to drum up support in a run for president, at least in testing the waters, and to send the MM into fact-checking mode, putting the President and Democrats on the defensive. In a world where the base of the Republican party is mostly intuitive and dwells in a land of concrete ideas dominated by ideology and the base of the Democratic party is more analytical, creating the so-called "birtherism" debate is a splendid tactic. This sent the President and Democrats into defense mode, just when the new President and Democrats had the opportunity to advance legislation like the ACA. As a strategy, better to have the Dems busy with their analytic expertise focused on explaining why Obama really was born in the U.S. than explaining proposed legislation to the American people who might actually focus on real issues if not distracted by these tactics.

The "reversal" on birtherism was a gift that the MM did not know how to receive. The birtherism tactic, like similar tactics that succeed primarily when employed by the right, relies on obfuscation and the resulting confusion created among the MM and analysts  Part of the problem is their confusion caused by seeing the world as an array of facts to be studied in the absence of context. Context, when understood, provides meaning to facts. Without context, facts are just a matter of debate and we are left with debates about whether or not statements or lies, which lead to whether or not the person who utters the statement is a liar, but we are left without meaning.

How sinister is birtherism? MM can not face the question squarely due to the limitations of the required balancing act. The meaning of birtherism changes with the passage of time. Before Obama was elected President with majorities in the Electoral College and the popular national vote, the debate was about his legitiimacy as a candidate, but after the election, it became about the legitimacy of our democracy. Birtherism is inextricably linked to the "voter fraud" meme as attacks on the legitimacy of every law passed in 2009 to date, including "Obamacare" - the name itself chosen by the right, now used by "both sides" because the left gave up fighting it. Birtherism lends legitimacy to the possibility of armed insurrection and grants credibility to fringe militias. The calls to the fringe right, in code and obfuscation to the "Second Amendment folks", to "take matters into their own hands" is the next logical step - really completing the recipe for reaction to the illegitimacy of democratically elected presidents when they are Democrats.

More to come on this and what to expect in the not-so-Presidential Presidential debates.

They Call Him Flip Flopper Flip Flopper

Sometimes, to understand what is happening, it helps to observe what is not happening. One hallmark of Trump's success is the limited use of the media's customary favorite election-year pejorative label - the "flip-flopper". Sure, there have been plenty of accusations, but not the drumbeat we have seen in the past. Like the word "lie", the accusation has a broad enough application to avoid intelligent scrutiny and be made to stick. Absolute proof of meaningful flip-flopping is elusive, leaving listeners to apply their own worldview. For John Kerry, who as a Senator used votes for and against bills with similar or identical provisions as a parliamentary tactic, the accusation was a made in a one-two punch using the doctored visual of his windsurfing. Turning a strength - his physical fitness-into a weakness - "flip-flopper" is standard playbook - making for double duty. If the "flip-flopper" is a long time favorite of Republican strategists and a media darling, why fewer flip-flopper accusation this year?

When the accusation is lying and the pejorative label of choice is "liar",  you don't need "flip-flopping". "Liar" as a label means that you are always lying. "Flip-flopper" means you say one thing and then turn around and say the opposite. If a "flip-flopper" is lying, then turns around and says the opposite, that would be the truth, but if he or she is a "liar", that is impossible. If the candidate is being accused of lying and being accused of flip-flopping, both of which imply a permanent state, a contradiction on a particular issue could arise, calling the accuracy of both labels into question. The accuser does not want this.

The clearest instance of outright "flip-flopping" is Trump's reversal on the legitimacy of the Obama presidency based on his birthplace. Neither Democrats nor the media accuse him of "flip-flopping", the one-time favorite label to discredit a candidate, favored by Republicans, but used by both parties, because the substance of the Trump actions shows them to be so repugnant on their face, that there is no added value to the flip-flop label which thus becomes a distraction. That label is generally more about gamesmanship than substance - and so is the "liar" label by the way - that we do not see it used much this year.

Sam Stein at HuffPo has his own take Why the Clinton Campaign Isn't Attacking Trump As A Flip-Flopper

That Which Does not Kill You

Taking a break from meta-politics. Let's talk about football. Well, football strategy.

Source: bostonglobe.com

In my pool of mostly Pats fans, I can count on the others to pick the Pats week after week out of loyalty. Last night I outsmarted myself with game theory tactics to try to take advantage of that perceived weakness of the opposition. They would pick the Pats whether or not the Pats were more likely to win, so if I picked against my own interests, I might improve my chances in the pool. Unfortunately, my focus on the vulnerabilities of the pool participants made me forgot about the strength of the Pats - they find a way to win games, especially with home field advantage, and find new ways to win. This is the dynamic of Belichick, Billy Bean and all the rest. You employ new game strategy and by the time opponents catch on and employ it themselves, you are on to the next strategy. Success comes only with the willingness to take chances  and to recognize its a matter of luck + skill. When a tactic fails, you look foolish to the uninitiated. So what, who cares?

Warriors discusses tactical examples - punching out the ball on defense, use of massive tight ends and the short low pass to agile receivers. Belichick era punters are left-footed, producing an unsettling reverse spin on the ball for the punt receiver. One of the most effective adaptations is that Pats players take on multiple roles more than other teams. So they can fill gaps in this game with frequent injuries and confuse other teams with different looks on offense and defense. But throughout this era, the offense has been built around Tom Brady's arm and other skills which come with the inability to turn a broken pass play into much of a run. Using a different quarterback or different role for Brady was limited to trick plays -- Brady calls the signals but the ball is snapped to a different player, Amendola pass to Brady, or even the Flutie drop kick. Even with Belichick's willingness to take big risks, mixing up the quarterbacks during a game to confuse the opposition was just too risky.

Until now. Imagine the new offense when Brady returns if Garoppolo recovers from his injury. Three battle tested quarterbacks to choose from. How does an opposing team prepare for the possibility that Garoppolo or Brissett may be inserted at any time? If Brissett suddenly goes in, does that mean it may be a pass, but not a long bomb? Is it a quarterback draw? Or has Brissett been practicing the long bomb all week and we need to anticipate that? If Garoppolo goes in for Brady, what in the world does that mean now? Will he run? Short pass? The mind boggles.

What does this say about some other teams willing to sign extravagant multi-year contracts, but still struggle to find one good enough quarterback. Like the Texans.

The extreme penalty of the 4-game Brady suspension together with the bad luck of the Garoppolo injury, forced playing time for both Brissett and Garoppolo. The Gift from Goodell, forced Belichick to build and have the team execute around an offense with both backup QBs that will be a threat for the remainder of the season. Thank you Roger. All is forgiven.