Statistics lie or dumbfound? found it fascinating to think of the blind alleys that await the modern neo-Nazi among others on tuning in or sniffing out those attributes as ethnic stereotypes, along with the myriad ways we could kill ourselves trying to be healthy if we pick the wrong thesis to follow. Isn't "Just Give Up" easier, with roughly the same outcome - we die? But then again, did that french fry study really show that eating french fries 2x or more a week kills you early, or that it's an indicator that the rest of your diet/movement sucks too and you'll quickly cash out? (and is it something in the potatoes, or something in fried foods or another correlation/specification?)

And it says a lot about statistics and the danger in the wrong hands for how we "prove things". Tied to Kahneman yet again in the "Law of Small Numbers", where we pump up the significance of things that occur rarely just because we notice them. [something like "if a tree falls in the woods and we notice, does that mean all the trees fell? well, yes, or are in danger of...."].

Another "In the News" piece notes how we all lie, and one of the areas noted is the number of gays - once thought of as 10% of the population, now guessed/measured to be 2-3% only. But if 15 years ago you said it was only 10%, there'd be some complaints about your regressive attitudes and your understanding of human sexuality. And of what importance was the mistaken number in say pushing gay marriage high on the agenda in 2004, and how was it correlated to the fight for more action against HIV/AIDS?

BTW, some analysis of Kahneman's Fast & Slow Thinking notes that he also got some of the issues drastically wrong due to flawed studies, such as whether someone on a winning streak/hot hand really does, along with some examples of priming. I.e. he gives food for thought, but not a complete nutrition still. What to do, epicureans? the more we progress, the more we're in a stir fry or a smorgasbord. i'm hungry, let's eat.