[GeneV]

Now an American linguist has published a paper attempting to show that speaking a language with a defined future tense leads to lower savings. BBC News - Why speaking English can make you poor when you retire I think the NY Times hit closer to the mark with this article a couple of years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/why-we-spend-why-they-save.html?_r=0

Trying to make generalizations about larger traits from language is dangerous territory.

[MRRiley]

Now an American linguist has published a paper attempting to show that speaking a language with a defined future tense leads to lower savings. BBC News - Why speaking English can make you poor when you retire I think the NY Times hit closer to the mark with this article a couple of years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/why-we-spend-why-they-save.html?_r=0

Trying to make generalizations about larger traits from language is dangerous territory.

As Sheldon would say... "Pure hokum!" But typical of the claptrap that comes out of academia these days.

[monochrome]

What then of the Calvinist tradition of humility, hard work and delayed gratification (IOW, saving money)? Weren't those cultural values established by English-speaking people? In our lifetime quest to destroy the "Old Boy" network will we die by the law of unintended consequences?

[GeneV]

I'll bet some other, less flattering, correlations could be made as well, and they would be also be hokum.

The problem with so many of these kinds of studies (including some health and economics) is that the systems being studied are so complex that the variables are almost incapable of control. I like the response that one study had also shown that smokers demand a higher return on their investments.

[Parallax]

I think most "studies" conclude whatever the person conducting them want them to.

[Winder]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

RSA Animate does a nice piece on the concept of time orientation.

[Racer X 69]

I think most "studies" conclude whatever the person conducting them want them to.

Exactly.

[Tom S.]

Some of the smartest people I have known had no common sense. One, an engineer, could do quadratic equations in his head, but didn't know enough to look both ways before crossing the street. Although I don't know this professor, he fits that description.

[normhead]

I think most "studies" conclude whatever the person conducting them want them to.

Not only that, the conclusions of most studies are not supported by the data presented. IN many cases other equally acceptable interpretations are not considered.

But the worst, is modern drug studies.

To be licensed as effective you only need to be 3% more effective than placebo. YOu may have as high as a 10% side effects rate, so with many modern drugs, you are more likely to be adversely affect by a drug. Or to put it another way, you're more likely to be harmed than helped.

In a recent conversation with my doctor about cholesterol reducing drugs.. those with reduced levels of cholesterol in their blood stream are likely to have less heart attacks and strokes. Those with above "acceptable levels" are more likely. It's about 12% to 8%. SO they can tell you that based on a large study if you lower your cholesterol to using drugs to get you into the "acceptable" range it changes your group's odds. But they can tell you nothing about you personally. It could be that the 12% who would have died untreated from the first group, are a different population from the 8% of the second group. Thus taking a cholesterol reducing drug could move you from the 88% of the at risk group who didn't die to the 8% of "lower risk" group who do. It's a numbers game. The drug you take to save you could just as easily kill you. I'm convinced that this type of statistical evaluation without understanding how these drugs affect the overall person will be viewed as so flawed as to be next to criminal. Modern pharmaceutical companies are probably among the most corrupt organizations on the planet.

[monochrome]

Normhead - Statistical Analysis for Decision Making is basic management science these days. The US Army sends it's command officer candidates to Harvard Business School. The US Government sends career bureaucrats; drug companies and the FDA think alike.

Management is an active verb, but to these people management means making a decision that passes a Student's T-test, i.e. any individual in an individual circumstance is known to be a potential and acceptabloe "False" response. The experience of a pool of targets over a period of studfy is truth. Once the math is proven, they manage "truth", not individuals.

[Just1MoreDave]

Now an American linguist has published a paper ...

Not published quite yet! The link in the article says "Forthcoming" in American Economic Review, which could mean the paper might be changed between now and then. More nitpicking, the article calls him a "behavioural economist" and his job title is Associate Professor of Economics at Yale.

...But the worst, is modern drug studies.

To be licensed as effective you only need to be 3% more effective than placebo. YOu may have as high as a 10% side effects rate, so with many modern drugs, you are more likely to be adversely affect by a drug. Or to put it another way, you're more likely to be harmed than helped....

What they don't need to do for approval: compare their new drug to any current treatment. They might have internal tests that show it's not as effective, but they don't have to tell anyone about those results.

[GeneV]

Not published quite yet! The link in the article says "Forthcoming" in American Economic Review, which could mean the paper might be changed between now and then. More nitpicking, the article calls him a "behavioural economist" and his job title is Associate Professor of Economics at Yale.

Interesting points. He could have both of those titles. Combining psychology with economics really points out the difficulties with the conclusions of both disciplines. Behavioral economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[monochrome]

Behvioral Economics leads us to Benevolent Paternalism and the deinal of Dignity, which we're hearing more and more often from academia and Washington.

We poor fools don't know better than to purchase Pentax, so in future government will madate we be offered only the choice of a plastic Canon or Nikon.

[northofpolaris]

While I don't agree with the article, it still is an interesting read. I might bring it up in class and see what my professor thinks about it. I suppose I can see where this makes sense since different languages tend to use a different discourse patterns in academic writing. While I know there are some studies that try to see how this affects social and every day life, I haven't read too many of them myself. I've wanted to major in linguistics but my school doesn't offer any such program since we're a broke, crappy LA district college The freaking English department is in the same building as the music department... Smart planning.

[GeneV]

Behvioral Economics leads us to Benevolent Paternalism and the deinal of Dignity, which we're hearing more and more often from academia and Washington.

We poor fools don't know better than to purchase Pentax, so in future government will madate we be offered only the choice of a plastic Canon or Nikon.

This particular claim is tenuous, but an economic model based more solidly in psychology may be closer to accurate, or to at least recognizing where the inaccuracies are. Too much of economics seems to be faith-based--adopt a theory as unmovable truth, and then, as Jim hints, all facts will be found to support that theory.