Posted by: Rajan Sambandam in Baseball on
Aug 30, 2008
Why aren't there any more 0.400 hitters in baseball? The eminent evolutionary biologist and baseball fan Stephen Jay Gould answers this great sporting puzzle in his book, Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, which is only partly about baseball. It is really about understanding basic statistics and along the way you get a great discourse on the animal world and in particular bacteria. He uses these examples, and a terrifying intellect, to argue that just looking at averages (such as the mean) is not sufficient and one has to look at variation within the system as a whole to fully understand trends. With this approach he is also able to answer the question of whether quality of play overall has declined or improved in baseball over time. If you are not into animals, you may want to go straight to the baseball portion, which by itself is not at all a hard read. So why aren't there any more 0.400 hitters in baseball?
Let's say you are a cell phone manufacturer and you have to make a decision about a new phone. Your clever engineers have developed several new features that could make your phone much more distinctive in the market. What do you do? Do you put as many features as you can into one phone, or do you introduce several phones, each with a different set of features? Researchers at the University of Maryland asked this question and conducted a series of experiments to answer it. Surprisingly, their conclusion is that having a larger number of specialized products would be better in the long run.
Posted by: Rajan Sambandam in Comedy on
Aug 19, 2008
Yoram Bauman is a micro-economist who calls himself the world's first and only stand-up economist*. This is his take on an economics text book.
The Ten Principles of Economics
Other, more colorful, routines can be found on You Tube by simply searching for Yoram Bauman.
*This claim is disputed by several others, as posted on his website.
Posted by: Rajan Sambandam in Food, Books on
Aug 16, 2008
In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by
Michael Pollan To be clear, Michael Pollan is not a food scientist, nutritionist, physician or a government employee. He is a journalist with a long interest in food and its impact on society. Consequently this book does not contain a specific diet nor does it focus on combating a particular condition such as weight loss. What it is, oddly enough, is what it says it is - a defense of food. It might seem strange that someone would need to write a book to defend something as fundamental and essential to life as food, but Pollan shows that this book is necessary because the very definition of "food" is under question. He wrote this book as a follow-up to his best seller The Omnivore's Dilemma, which explored the origins of four different meals and in the process explained where our food comes from and how that affects us. In this easy read he focuses on what we should eat, laying out an "eating algorithm" that is based on a very simple rule that is printed right on the book's cover: eat food, not too much, mostly plants. All the guidance you need to eat well and live long.
Posted by: Rajan Sambandam in Psychology on
Aug 09, 2008
Do names have an impact on performance? How about initials? Would major league baseball players with the initial K strikeout more than others? Would people with intials C or D perform worse in class? Are people with white or black sounding names likely to be more or less successful in life? Interesting research has been done in both the areas of initials and names and the results are seemingly contradictory.
Posted by: Rajan Sambandam in Environment on
Aug 03, 2008
Asteroids are space objects and sometimes they hit earth. Depending on their size they can cause great damage. Small asteroids can burn up when they enter the atmosphere. Larger ones can hit earth and cause damage directly and indirectly. The most popular reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is asteroid strikes and the resulting global climactic changes. Okay, nothing new so far. Everyone can agree that asteroid strikes can have no to devastating impact. The next question is how likely are such impacts? To understand how frequently asteroids have struck earth in the past the traditional research method is to look for craters. Using this method scientists have estimated that large strikes happen about once in a million years or so. Then geophysicist Dallas Abbott began wondering if that kind of calculation made sense. Since about seventy percent of the earth is covered with water, wouldn't it make sense that most asteroid strikes are likely to have been in water than land. If so isn't it likely we have been underestimating the number of asteroid strikes on earth?
Insightology