Manipulating the hairless ape: applied mimicry

A little mimicry, but not too much ...

Psychology - Mimicry - Persuasion - How to Build Rapport - New York Times

The technique involved mirroring a person’s posture and movements, with a one- to two-second delay. If he crosses his legs, then wait two seconds and do the same, with opposite legs. If she touches her face, wait a beat or two and do that. If he drums his fingers or taps a toe, wait again and do something similar.

The idea is to be a mirror but a slow, imperfect one. Follow too closely, and most people catch it — and the game is over....

...Social mimicry can and does go wrong. At its malicious extreme, it curdles into mockery, which is why people often recoil when they catch of whiff of mimicry, ending any chance of a social bond. Preliminary studies suggest that the rules change if there is a wide cultural gap between two people. For almost everyone else, however, subtle mimicry comes across as a form of flattery, the physical dance of charm itself. And if that kind of flattery doesn’t close a deal, it may just be that the customer isn’t buying.

I'm going to test my boss, who I suspect is good at this sort of thing (consciously or not). I'll try changing my hand position and see if she mimics it ...

Big iPhone SDK slip?

Rumor of an end-of-February Apple event are offset with rumors of a major SDK delay ...

iPhone SDK rumors suggest delays, inclusion of simulator

Speaking of taking longer, another more ominous rumor suggests that the iPhone SDK may not be arriving in February after all. Delays in packaging, documenting, and testing the SDK could push the release back as far as WWDC in June. Delays could also be caused by Apple spending tweaking the security "features" of the SDK.

I've been figuring I'd buy an iPhone if Apple came out with a real SDK (access to internal data stores, sync framework, etc), so my purchase time is post-SDK. If it slipped that far I'd wait for the 3G version of the phone.

More money, fewer children. The paradox gets another look.

Almost thirty years ago I was a Watson Fellow. In between recreational diversions in various corners of the world I made a serious study of how one might try to change fertility behaviors.

Even then we'd known for a long time that as nations "industrialized" (became technocentric) families became smaller (Mormons are an interesting exception).

This disturbed me. Back then what's now "evolutionary psychology" was "sociobiology" (name change for branding reasons), and within that framework I couldn't understand how the heck wealth produced infertility. I thought the usual theories [2] were nonsensical in the long term, but they were widely accepted.

My best guess was that technocentric wealth was so different from anything in human evolutionary history that we were "outside system bounds"  and that women (in particular) were behaving "irrationally" [3]. In time we'd adapt to our new technocentric world, fertility would climb and we'd be back to the core business of churning out copies of our genes (children). [1]

I've been waiting thirty years for biologists and behavioral economists to recognize that this was an unsolved mystery. Now, at last, some new thinking has come along ...

Demography and genetics | Kissing cousins, missing children | Economist.com

...Now yet another explanation has been added to the pot. This is that the mixing-up of people caused by the urbanisation which normally accompanies development is, itself, partly responsible. That is because it breaks up optimal mating patterns. The demographic transition is thus, in part, a pure accident...

This is a variation of my "out of bounds" theory. It implies that we'll eventually adapt to urbanisation and that family size will again increase.

It's good to see this topic is in play. Took long enough!

[1] I was looking for ways to reduce fertility, so this suggested that we shouldn't rely on the wealth effect to shrink family size forever.

[2] Lowered infant mortality, economic benefit of education and employment of women, etc, etc.

[3] In a Darwinian sense.

Update 2/14/08: Another new theory. It's nice to see this paradox getting a bit of attention!

Zillow.com: first, have a beverage at hand

Zillow does real estate estimates. Type in your address and check it out.

I did my check after reading this NYT Times post:

... 77 percent of homeowners from around the country believe the value of their home has increased or stayed the same...

... This in spite of a recent Merrill Lynch prediction that “housing prices will remain in free fall,” declining 15 percent in 2008 and 10 percent in 2009, “with more depreciation likely beyond the forecast period,” even if the Federal Reserve continues to cut interest rates.

Stan Humphries, Zillow.com’s vice president of data and analytics, said the results of the survey could be attributed to the fact that most Americans have yet to try selling their homes. “Most people are not really affected by declining values unless they absolutely must sell or need to immediately refinance or withdraw equity,” he said. “This has contributed to the healthy investment intent, particularly in home upgrades, despite the downward trending markets.”

I think I need a Scotch now ...

The GOP isn't the torture party any more

Mitt "thumbscrews" Romney is gone. Even Ron Paul is gone. Only McCain and Huckabee are left.

McCain's opposition to torture is well known. But what about Huckabee?

In December he declared waterboarding was indeed torture.

Huckabee Chafes at 'Front-Runner' Label - washingtonpost.com

... Huckabee joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in declaring his opposition to the interrogation procedure known as "waterboarding," and said he would support closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a contrast with the other leading Republicans...

I'm surprised to be saying this, but the GOP isn't the pro-torture party they were in May of 2007, or even in November of 2007.

Every single GOP candidate that backed torture has been eliminated from contention.

Sure, the rabid right winguts of talk radio still pant ecstatically about the secret joys of agony, but their candidates are gone. Republican voters, after all, have a voice in what the GOP is.

Shockingly, it seems they don't like torture any more -- if they ever really did.

I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this.

I'm even more surprised to be saying something complimentary about the GOP -- or at least today's Republican voters.

The disposable decade: and the economics of the extended warranty: iMac, phones, camera and homes?

The LCD screen of my 2.5 yo $2000 iMac is coming apart. The average cell phone costs about $400 (hidden in the monthly fee) and lasts 1-2 years. My 1.5 yo Canon (made in Japan!) SD600 digital camera's mode switch is failing. The February 2008 Atlantic (not yet online) describes the construction techniques of $600,000 (made in America) McMansions -- they won't outlast their mortgages. Nothing made in China lasts much beyond the warranty period -- if that.

We live in the decade of the disposable. We no longer own material goods, we lease them for their warranty period.

Except for the McMansions, unless you consider your home insurance policy a warranty.

Ok, so there's one very big exception. Modern cars last a very long time. I wonder when that will change.

So, geezers and young-uns alike, let us wrap our minds around the new reality beginning with these guidelines:

1. Products are only as good as their warranty. So before you buy, you need to know the warranty will be honored.
2. Product lifespans are now about 120% to 300% of the extended warranty, with a median value of 140% (so there's a long tail).

In this world extended an extended warranty is not necessarily a bad deal - unless you're the company on the hook for the bill.

Apple provides AppleCare, which these days seems to be better behaved than a year or two ago (at which time Apple's outsourced repairs had severe quality problems and Apple often struggled to get off the hook for repairs). In this world Apple Care might not a bad idea, but that means you need to factor AppleCare into the cost of the product. When you do that the cost of computers is rising, not falling (though the cost/capability is still falling).

The best deal, however, are credit card buyers insurance programs. American Express, for example, doubles the original warranty up to an additional year (so it's basically an extra year unless you're foolish and buy something with a worthless 3 month warranty).

AMEX used to advertise this feature of their credit cards. They don't any more -- I couldn't find any mention of it on their web site. No mystery there. It must cost them a bundle. I wonder if they still offer it with new cards.

My card has this feature, which is why I buy everything with it. The program might be a secret now, but it still works. I couldn't use it for the iMac (I passed the two year limit), but for the Canon I called the secret number (800-225-3750) and a most excellent service person quickly walked me through the process. Here's how it went:

• I assembled the warranty proof (Canon web site), my invoice (Amazon.com web site) and the entry in my AMEX statement (AMEX web site).
• I should have noted the serial number on the camera as they asked for that, but they didn't really need it.
• I phoned.

If they decide to f/u they might request the camera or the documentation, but the last time I called they didn't. Instead the full original cost of the camera was credited to my account.

The buyers insurance program site did warn of "an extremely high call volume". I wonder how long they'll be able to keep offering this program.

In the new world, it's a great deal for me.

Now, about those McMansions ...

Update: The other question I was asked was "how did you learn of the buyers assurance program"? I assume AmEx uses that information to eliminate clues to the existence of the program.

An old post also reminds me that I bought the SD 600 through the same AmEx buyers insurance program when a Canon SD 450 mode switch failed! So AmEx has paid out on two consecutive Canon compact cameras. I'm thinking I might replace the SD 600 with something that's not from Canon.

Update 2/11/08: It took less than 8 business hours for buyers assurance to credit my AMEX card. So far they don't want the camera, though of course I'll hold on to it. Amazing response really, though it seems a risky business for AMEX to be in. (On the other hand, the buyers assurance and AMEX security programs are why we use the card for every possible transaction, so they so make a fair amount from their slice of our transactions.)

Now I get it. The McCain reaction.

Tom Tomorrow helps me feel Rush Limbaugh's pain. That's an impressive feat ...

This Modern World - Why they hate him

Imagine how you’d feel if Joe Lieberman had just captured the Democratic nomination.

That’s how the far right sees McCain.

Of course it's not only the far left of the Dems that would be horrified by a Leiberman nomination -- he'd never even get to first base.

Migraine: how often do meds work?

Siri Hustvedt writes of a life with very severe migraines. After many referrals and medication trials she gets by with biofeedback-trained relaxation techniques and, I would guess, some over the counter analgesic.

This prompts me to confess that, in my days of seeing patients, I felt very unsuccessful treating migraine.

Now that was over 10 years ago, but the medications haven't changed all that much. I used the medications I'd read about, and some of my patients even sat through several rotations, but nothing seemed to stick.

Some meds worked for a while, but then the patient would return. Sometimes a med stopped working, sometimes the side-effects were worse than the headaches, sometimes they were too expensive.

I know others claimed much more success, but I'm suspicious. I know quite a few people with migraine, and they mostly seem to live with them. They often have meds that help about as much as the ones I used to prescribe, and sometimes they need stronger narcotics, but by and large they, like Siri, live with migraine.

Maybe I wasn't imagining things long ago. Maybe we really don't have any great medical treatments for migraine. If so, then it might be useful to admit that in print ...

Cringely provides a sane justification for Microsoft's acquisition of Yahoo!

Cringely makes Microsoft's acquisition of Yahoo! sound potentially rational ...

I, Cringely . The Pulpit . The Men Behind the Curtain | PBS

... BUT KILLING GOOGLE ISN'T THE POINT FOR MICROSOFT.

What we have here at Microsoft is a generational transition like we've seen in many other industries as leading companies go from robber barons to industry stalwarts. ...

Cringely claims that Microsoft wants to become GE 2.0 - a finance and management company rather than a software and services company.

I imagine if this were to succeed we'd see Gates return at age 60 to oversee Microsoft's acquisition of GE 1.0.

I think he's on to something. Ballmer is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

Strict control of type II diabetes increased mortality in one (big) study

I left longitudinal primary care practice before metformin. Back then tight control of Type II diabetes was just about impossible. If we pushed insulin patients just got heavier. In the rare event that we got reasonable control we feared the that occasional hyopglycemia could be deadly.

Times changed. Metformin and subsequent medications transformed Type II DM care. Now it's possible, with a dedicated and disciplined patient, to achieve tight control. Studies of intermediate measures (heart disease, renal failure, eye disease) in patients with both Type I and Type II diabetes showed the value of tight control. Physicians were financially penalized for patients who didn't get good control, and roundly chastised for a lack of energy in pursuing this goal.

There was only one problem. We didn't really know that reducing the rates of nerve, kidney, heart, vessel and eye disease would actually reduce mortality. It certainly seemed that it should...

Diabetes Study Partially Halted After Deaths - New York Times

For decades, researchers believed that if people with diabetes lowered their blood sugar to normal levels, they would no longer be at high risk of dying from heart disease. But a major federal study of more than 10,000 middle-aged and older people with Type 2 diabetes has found that lowering blood sugar actually increased their risk of death, researchers reported Wednesday...

Even the control group, who weren't under "tight" control, had very low glucose levels by the standards of the bad old days. So we're not talking about a return to the dark ages. The question instead is how hard to push, I think this study alone will cause payors to back off on financial penalties for "good" rather than "great" glucose levels.

Incidentally, a similar finding has come up many times over the past 20 years in studies of cholesterol reduction and all cause mortality. We know that reducing cholesterol lowers the risk of heart disease, but it doesn't reduce the risk of death in patients who do not have known heart disease or diabetes (1990:

... Mortality from coronary heart disease tended to be lower in men receiving interventions to reduce cholesterol concentrations compared with mortality in control subjects (p = 0.06), although total mortality was not affected by treatment. No consistent relation was found between reduction of cholesterol concentrations and mortality from cancer, but there was a significant increase in deaths not related to illness (deaths from accidents, suicide, or violence) in groups receiving treatment to lower cholesterol concentrations relative to controls (p = 0.004).

Later studies suggest that, on balance, persons with diabetes or known vascular disease benefit from simvastatin. Maybe a lot. There's still the suspicion that the harm may outweigh the benefit for non-diabetic patients with no known vascular disease (primary prevention) though.

These are tough questions, and in this domain my much loved animal model studies aren't that helpful. All cause mortality can only be studied in humans.

2/15/2008: It occurred to me that results like these could suggest the possibility of unsuspected quality issues with the medications we consume.

Omega-3 fatty acid flop - in transgenic mice

A few months ago Omega-3 fatty acids were promoted as the cure for everything from reading disabilities to autism to dementia -- often based on retrospective case-control studies.

Naturally this has put me on the alert for negative studies. You see, I've heard this story before. Many times. Almost always involving retrospective case-control studies.

Pshaw! Give me transgenic animal model studies any day ...

A diet high in omega-3 fatty acids does not improv...[Neuroscience. 2007] - PubMed Result

Although a number of epidemiologic studies reported that higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids (largely associated with fish consumption) is protective against Alzheimer's disease (AD), other human studies reported no such effect. Because retrospective human studies are problematic and controlled longitudinal studies over decades are impractical, the present study utilized Alzheimer's transgenic mice (Tg) in a highly controlled study to determine whether a diet high in omega-3 fatty acid, equivalent to the 13% omega-3 fatty acid diet of Greenland Eskimos, can improve cognitive performance or protect against cognitive impairment. Amyloid precursor protein (APP)-sw+PS1 double transgenic mice, as well as nontransgenic (NT) normal littermates, were given a high omega-3 supplemented diet or a standard diet from 2 through 9 months of age, with a comprehensive behavioral test battery administered during the final 6 weeks. For both Tg and NT mice, long-term n-3 supplementation resulted in cognitive performance that was no better than that of mice fed a standard diet. ... While these studies involved a genetically manipulated mouse model of AD, our results suggest that diets high in omega-3 fatty acids, or use of fish oil supplements (DHA+EPA), will not protect against AD, at least in high-risk individuals...

Now that's more like it. Nice and negative.

Eons ago I used to teach evidence-based medicine. Back then we had a hierarchy of evidential goodness. The very bottom was "Dr. Schmo at Harvard loves this surgery" [1], the very top was randomized, double-blind case control studies. Retrospective case-control studies were lower tier but respectable given suffient statistical wizardry.

Later "meta-analysis" slipped in, perhaps higher than it deserved [2].

Doing it today I'd want to put retrospective case-control much closer to Dr. Schmo (low, that is), and I'd like to see transgenic animal model studies much closer to the top (wasn't even on the list in my day). Of course this is just my opinion speaking (like Dr. Schmo); I haven't seen any (retrospective) research on how well results from transgenic animal studies hold up 3-5 years later. Hope someone does that in the next year or so.

[1] This never goes well.

[2] Gets messed up by unpublished studies though now the meta-analysts struggle mightily to find the unpublished.

Lessons for MN DFL caucus attendees

Minnesota is, in many ways, an exemplary state.

But not in every way.

I just sat through another Minnesota DFL caucus. This consisted of three parts:

1. Presidential preference. Our candidate received 210 ballots, Hillary Clinton 88, Dennis Kucinich 1.
   
2. Selection of delegates for the next stage in the caucus system on Saturday March 8th, where the real decisions are made. Delegates need to be able to take a Saturday off.
3. Resolutions. Before these were presented our caucus leader passed a resolution that "all DFL resolutions" would be passed unanimously. I confess I didn't quite grasp what this meant, I thought it referred to some sort of official party process. Turns out it applied to anything anyone resolved during the caucus.

There was one good resolution. The rest can be most succinctly summarized as "give me and my buddies some money". They all passed "unanimously". I slowly grasped that they would all die a quiet death at the right time, though I was sorely tempted to add a resolution to "end the caucus system" -- since it would have passed with the rest.

Has any state ever escaped the trap of a caucus system? If any have, how did they do it?

Ah well, the key lessons for future caucus activity are that there are two times to leave:

1. After the presidential preference ballot, which runs from 7pm to 8pm.
2. If you want to be a delegate, after the sign up.

There's no sane reason to sit through the resolutions, that's what the all day meeting is for.

I really need to remember this for next time ...

Update 2/14/08: Caucuses are stupid everywhere. We just need to get rid of them.

Strategic packaging- or just supplier contracts? The 16GB iPhone.

So is it strategic packaging - or just related to contracts, suppliers and channel status? Apple's evil genius is such that none of us know for sure.

Apple increases iPhone, iPod touch storage capacity - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

The iPhone is now available with 8GB (at $399US) or 16GB (at $499US) of storage. The iPod touch is now available in three models; 8GB ($299US), 16GB($399US) and 32GB($499US).

Note that the 16GB iPhone and the 32GB iPod touch are both $499, while there's a one hundred dollar difference between the 16GB iPhone and the 16GB iPod model...

The strategic message here is that there won't be any more iPhone changes until iPhone 2.0 due sometime in 2008 (I'm guessing September/October, but I wouldn't be shocked if it slipped into 2009).

So those of us waiting for a sign have it. I don't need that extra 8GB for music or video of course, I want room for old-fashioned locally resident applications to grow.

Now all that remains is to see that the SDK is real, and that Apple is giving developers the (secure and signed-for-in-blood) keys to the kingdom -- including the calendar and contacts data stores and the synchronization frameworks.

Why must I wait for the real SDK?

The MacBook Air is proof positive (the I/O limits in particular) that Apple isn't making products for the likes of me. Happily I know there's a world of developers who are eager for a paying customer -- and who can live off a smaller base. A working SDK means they'll be beating down the door to my open wallet.

The BlackBerry is jam

As in a fruit squished between the iPhone and Windows Mobile, then spread on toast.

I'm surprised the BlackBerry lasted this long, the old Microsoft would have squished RIM eons ago. Now though, the day of reckoning at hand.

I base my cruel judgment on my personal experience with the BlackBerry Pearl and my knowledge of what Microsoft is selling to large corporations.

First, a step back. I have known for years that the BlackBerry is a terrific Microsoft Exchange peripheral. Nobody I knew, however, could explain whether it was anything more. For that I had to buy my wife the BlackBerry Pearl.

The answer is that it's very slightly more than an Exchange peripheral. Emily's Pearl has 64MB of memory available and a JVM; the combination can run several Google Apps that give it proto-Android features. You can even install ePocrates -- but then you hit the 64MB barrier hard (which I last encountered on a Commodore 64 around 1983). True, the BB can hold a 2GB memory card installed, but it can only store media - nothing useful.

Beyond the severe memory limitations, the BB's built-in applications are crude. They show none of the elegance and loving attention to excellence seen in the original Palm, the pre-multifinder Mac, or the new iPhone. The only thing that impresses in any way is the simple built-in push email app. It works, and for geezers it's an improvement over instant messaging.

Still, as a consumer device, the BB is a step up over, say, the despised Motorola RAZR. Unfortunately, it's not competing against the RAZR. It's going up against the iPhone, and there's no comparison.

So, the BB has no future on the consumer side.

What about the massive business franchise? Every executive worth their weight (not me by the way!) carries a BlackBerry and lives by it. Well, to be precise, they use email, calendar and contacts -- nothing more. Still, it works.

Except that Microsoft is now selling complete communications solutions to corporations that are built around Exchange, Sharepoint, and various messaging technologies. Microsoft's phone OS (whatever it's called today) is a major component of this package, and they'll shove it down everyone's throats. It won't be hard for Microsoft to break BlackBerry's Exchange server integration now that they're making their play for this space.

So, end of story. The BB is nowhere near good enough to compete with the iPhone on the consumer side. On the corporate side the axe is finally coming down.

RIMM's shares are doing pretty well. Maybe they could survive on patents alone. I would like to figure out how to short them though ...

Should I vote for Clinton or Obama?

Like Rebecca Traister, we're Edwards supporters who can't figure out who to vote for tomorrow.

So let's review the list, including, for this purpose, the GOP:

Smartest: Hillary Clinton

Best policies: Hillary Clinton

Most disturbing choice for American democracy: Hillary (Bush Clinton Bush) Clinton

Least bad republican: John McCain

Best executive and management skills: Mitt Romney

Supports torture: Mitt "thumbscrews" Romney

Most disastrous choice: Mitt Romney

Most inspirational: Barack Obama

Toughest fighter: Hillary Clinton (John McCain is next)

Republican most likely to win: John McCain

Best president: Hillary Clinton ties with Barack Obama -- for different reasons. Obama may win overall because slavery is the historic American curse, and Obama can be a part of a cure.

Democrat most likely to win against McCain ...

Ahh, the last is the reason we struggle.

Today Hillary energizes the "independents" -- to vote for McCain. Given time I think she might win over many of the women "independents". Overall I think Hillary can win nationally among women, even if men vote for McCain.

I don't trust white (including, in this case, Hispanic) Florida democrats for vote for Obama -- no matter their silence today.

If they had equal odds against McCain I'd vote for Obama - because slavery really is the curse at the heart of America. If he were a white guy with a similar story he'd still be an astounding person and potentially an excellent president, but he wouldn't be in this race.

I fear McCain would beat Obama though, even though the Giants did win the Super Bowl.

I'm still undecided.

Update: Krugman is pushing me closer to Hillary.

Update: A colleague claims Obama is being smart about mandates -- knowing what Americans would accept. Good point.

Update: My most influential friends are pushing me to Obama. Krugman, another Edwards orphan, feels that electability, my main issue, favors neither. If it's Obama I don't think Nader, despite his GOP funding, will have any traction.

So, for the moment, Obama.

Update 2/5/2008: My reading of James Fallows analysis is that he's in the same spot as Emily and I. Straining the tea leaves, he too favors Obama. The riskier bet, the greater return -- if it works.