Debasing the Currency

Rational thought is under attack from all sides. New Agers, political ranters, religious fundamentalists are the usual suspects, but having so obviously eschewed logic they are not really a threat. No, the most insidious form of illogic is the ostensibly scientific statistical study. Statistical work is a currency of science (though its Platonic assumptions of underlying truth are tricky), and like any other valuable script it invites counterfeiting. There are the obvious crude imitations in newspaper columns and political arguments, so incoherent or self-serving that they almost negate themselves. But even respectable publications can get passed bad paper. In this occasional series I will more or less randomly pluck some sample from some source that should know better and give it the gimlet eye...

This month's "Atlantic" has, in its Quick Study column a piece called "Grade School Gamblers".

Children who showed high levels of hyperactivity and inattentiveness as kindergartners were much more likely to buy lotto tickets, bet on sports, and play video poker in the sixth grade than were less impulsive students. This suggests that impulsivity is a “developmentally continuous” trait that can lead to a lifetime of risky behavior. And since youthful wagering often precedes compulsive gambling—which leads to poor health, criminality, and substance abuse—it could “easily unravel into a public health issue.” —“Predicting Gambling Behavior in Sixth Grade From Kindergarten Impulsivity,” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

The odd thing about the quoted assertion in its (apparent) context is that it seems to indicate something is new, changing, growing -- "unravelling". Yet there is no change in the pre-conditions: a more-or-less constant proportion of kids are hyperactive; they tend to become risk-taking youth and then gambling adults.

Does that mean the original article is reporting a non-event, as it were, and using the alarmist phrase to make the mundane more interesting? Or, was a key assertion left out of the précis we see (i.e. hyperactivity is affecting more children these days)?

So we were not actually presented an argument, but just the vague form of one. The fault of the original article, or "The Atlantic"? One more bit of imitatation truth, debasing the real thing.