Skip to main content

The joy of dodgy studies

As a science writer I get sent lots of press releases about scientific studies. Some describe serious research, but there is always a smattering of studies sponsored by companies with entertaining PR in mind (think the ones that give the formula for making the perfect sandwich, or some such thing), rather than any scientific outcome. I've just received the most entertaining one I've had in some time, which I feel needs sharing. The press release opens with:

Born in August and named John or Mary? You might be a genius.
A new study analysing more than 1,000 of history’s greatest minds reveals common traits among the world’s smartest people—from birth month to name. Could you be one of them?

You might think this study was performed by a publicist with a degree in dog grooming (say), but unlike many such press releases, it does refer to an original paper. Admittedly they get that a bit wrong, saying it was 'published on ResearchGate' which is a portal - it was published in Current Psychology, which is a Springer Nature journal. It is also from 2022, so not exactly new, but this is because the company behind the press release, World of Card Games, has apparently conducted 'an original analysis of the 1,000+ historical figures to identify patterns in names, birth months, and zodiac signs among geniuses'.

The ResearchGate link is a systematic review of studies that attempt to show 'how a name influences its owner’s personality, decision-making, and life outcomes.' I haven't been able to obtain a full copy of the paper, but I do have a slight concern about its quality when I read in the introduction 'To give the new coming to a survey of the forest, not the trees, we concluded the current literature to three approaches...'. It is, of course, possible that the review concluded all this stuff is timewasting nonsense, but the abstract gives no clue as to whether or not there was any critical analysis of the sources reviewed.

What's of interest here are the key findings from the 'original analysis' undertaken by World of Card Games, which, according to the release, are:

Key findings:
  • John is the most common name among geniuses, appearing 18 times (1.60%) among history’s most acclaimed inventors, scientists, mathematicians, and entrepreneurs.
  • Mary leads among female names with 15 occurrences (1.33%). Other top names linked to intellectual and entrepreneurial success include Margaret (14, 1.25%), Maria (13, 1.16%), and Elizabeth (12, 1.07%).
  • August is the top birth month for brilliant minds, with 117 renowned figures (10.41%) born in this month. February (101, 8.99%), November (101, 8.99%), July (96, 8.54%), and April (94, 8.36%) follow closely.
  • Leo is the most common zodiac sign, with 114 notable figures (10.14%). Taurus (101, 8.99%), Aries (101, 8.99%), Aquarius (97, 8.63%), and Scorpio (96, 8.54%) round out the top five.

If we ignore star signs per se for the obvious reason that astrology is baloney, but simply consider the birth dates (that's all star signs tell us, after all), we see relatively little variation in the lower rated months/signs - certainly too little to be statistically significant - but the tweak up for August/Leo is slightly interesting, even though it is almost certainly just the scale of outlier we might expect. It is worth noting that around this time of year (September more accurately) tends to have a birth peak, due to the celebrations 9 months earlier. I did find it odd that May doesn't come in the top 5 months, despite Taurus (two-thirds of which is in May) being second equal - that feels dubious. 

What is absolutely hilarious, though, is the names part. Here we have to dig out that old trusty statistical mantra that correlation is not causality. Just because A (name) and B (genius) appear to be linked does not imply that A causes B. It could be pure coincidence, or equally it could be the other way around that B causes A (admittedly, unlikely here) or a third factor causes both (very likely here). In a good quality, real study, you would control for obvious 'confounding' factors - something else that linked A and B. 

A particularly obvious such factor jumped out to me, and with all of 2 minutes research it appears to be highly likely to be the main cause. Historically, popularity of names changed much slower than it does now. If we look at the most popular boys' and girls' names in the UK, for example, 100 years ago, they were John and Mary. Hmm. Do they look familiar? 

What have we discovered, then? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Image from Unsplash by Andrew George. Of course, Albert was not one of the top names, and Einstein was born on 4 March, making him an apparently less than high-performing Pisces.

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

Buy me a coffee

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
123 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more