Bishopblog catalogue (updated 26th Sept 2014)

Source: http://www.weblogcartoons.com/2008/11/23/ideas/

Those of you who follow this blog may have noticed a lack of
thematic coherence. I write about whatever is exercising my mind at the time,
which can range from technical aspects of statistics to the design of bathroom
taps. I decided it might be helpful to introduce a bit of order into this
chaotic melange, so here is a catalogue of posts by topic.

Language impairment, dyslexia and related disorders

The common childhood disorders that have been left out in the cold (1 Dec 2010)
What's in a name? (18 Dec 2010)
Neuroprognosis in dyslexia (22 Dec 2010)
Where commercial and clinical interests collide: Auditory processing disorder (6 Mar 2011)
Auditory processing disorder (30 Mar 2011)
Special educational needs: will they be met by the Green paper proposals? (9 Apr 2011)
Is poor parenting really to blame for children's school problems? (3 Jun 2011)
Early intervention: what's not to like? (1 Sep 2011)
Lies, damned lies and spin (15 Oct 2011)
A message to the world (31 Oct 2011)
Vitamins, genes and language (13 Nov 2011)
Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags (24 Feb 2012)
Phonics screening: sense and sensibility (3 Apr 2012) What Chomsky doesn't get about child language (3 Sept 2012) Data from the phonics screen (1 Oct 2012)
Auditory processing disorder: schisms and skirmishes (27 Oct 2012)
High-impact journals (Action video games and dyslexia: critique) (10 Mar 2013) Overhyped genetic findings: the case of dyslexia (16 Jun 2013) The arcuate fasciculus and word learning (11 Aug 2013) Changing children's brains (17 Aug 2013)
Raising awareness of language learning impairments (26 Sep 2013) Good and bad news on the phonics screen (5 Oct 2013)
What is educational neuroscience? (25 Jan 2014)
Parent talk and child language (17 Feb 2014)
My thoughts on the dyslexia debate (20 Mar 2014)
Labels for unexplained language difficulties in children (23 Aug 2014)
International reading comparisons: Is England really do so poorly? (14 Sep 2014)

Autism

Autism diagnosis in cultural context (16 May 2011)
Are our ‘gold standard’ autism diagnostic instruments fit for purpose? (30 May 2011)
How common is autism? (7 Jun 2011)
Autism and hypersystematising parents (21 Jun 2011) An open letter to Baroness Susan Greenfield (4 Aug 2011)
Susan Greenfield and autistic spectrum disorder: was she misrepresented? (12 Aug 2011)

Psychoanalytic treatment for autism: Interviews with French analysts (23 Jan 2012)
The ‘autism epidemic’ and diagnostic substitution (4 Jun 2012)
How wishful thinking is damaging Peta's cause (9 June 2014)

Developmental disorders/paediatrics

The hidden cost of neglected tropical diseases (25 Nov 2010)
The National Children's Study: a view from across the pond (25 Jun 2011)
The kids are all right in daycare (14 Sep 2011) Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (21 Nov 2012) Changing the landscape of psychiatric research (11 May 2014)

Genetics

Where does the myth of a gene for things like intelligence come from? (9 Sep 2010)
Genes for optimism, dyslexia and obesity and other mythical beasts (10 Sep 2010)
The X and Y of sex differences (11 May 2011)
Review of How Genes Influence Behaviour (5 Jun 2011)
Getting genetic effect sizes in perspective (20 Apr 2012) Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (21 Nov 2012) Genes, brains and lateralisation (22 Dec 2012) Genetic variation and neuroimaging (11 Jan 2013) Have we become slower and dumber? (15 May 2013) Overhyped genetic findings: the case of dyslexia (16 Jun 2013)

Neuroscience

Neuroprognosis in dyslexia (22 Dec 2010) Brain scans show that… (11 Jun 2011) 
Time for neuroimaging (and PNAS) to clean up its act (5 Mar 2012)
Neuronal migration in language learning impairments (2 May 2012)
Sharing of MRI datasets (6 May 2012)
Genetic variation and neuroimaging (1 Jan 2013) The arcuate fasciculus and word learning (11 Aug 2013) Changing children's brains (17 Aug 2013)
What is educational neuroscience? ( 25 Jan 2014) Changing the landscape of psychiatric research (11 May 2014)

Statistics

Book review: biography of Richard Doll (5 Jun 2010)
Book review: the Invisible Gorilla (30 Jun 2010)
The difference between p < .05 and a screening test (23 Jul 2010)
Three ways to improve cognitive test scores without intervention (14 Aug 2010)
A short nerdy post about the use of percentiles (13 Apr 2011)
The joys of inventing data (5 Oct 2011)
Getting genetic effect sizes in perspective (20 Apr 2012) Causal models of developmental disorders: the perils of correlational data (24 Jun 2012) Data from the phonics screen (1 Oct 2012)Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (1 Nov 2012) Flaky chocolate and the New England Journal of Medicine (13 Nov 2012) Interpreting unexpected significant results (7 June 2013) Data analysis: Ten tips I wish I'd known earlier (18 Apr 2014) Data sharing: exciting but scary (26 May 2014)
Percentages, quasi-statistics and bad arguments (21 July 2014)

Journalism/science communication

Orwellian prize for scientific misrepresentation (1 Jun 2010)
Journalists and the 'scientific breakthrough' (13 Jun 2010)
Science journal editors: a taxonomy (28 Sep 2010)
Orwellian prize for journalistic misrepresentation: an update (29 Jan 2011)
Academic publishing: why isn't psychology like physics? (26 Feb 2011)
Scientific communication: the Comment option (25 May 2011)
Accentuate the negative (26 Oct 2011)
Publishers, psychological tests and greed (30 Dec 2011)
Time for academics to withdraw free labour (7 Jan 2012)
Novelty, interest and replicability (19 Jan 2012)
2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (29 Jan 2012)
Time for neuroimaging (and PNAS) to clean up its act (5 Mar 2012)
Communicating science in the age of the internet (13 Jul 2012) How to bury your academic writing (26 Aug 2012)
High-impact journals: where newsworthiness trumps methodology (10 Mar 2013)
Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) A short rant about numbered journal references (5 Apr 2013) Schizophrenia and child abuse in the media (26 May 2013) Why we need pre-registration (6 Jul 2013)
On the need for responsible reporting of research (10 Oct 2013)
A New Year's letter to academic publishers (4 Jan 2014)

Social Media

A gentle introduction to Twitter for the apprehensive academic (14 Jun 2011)
Your Twitter Profile: The Importance of Not Being Earnest (19 Nov 2011)
Will I still be tweeting in 2013? (2 Jan 2012)
Blogging in the service of science (10 Mar 2012) Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013)
The impact of blogging on reputation ( 27 Dec 2013) WeSpeechies: A meeting point on Twitter (12 Apr 2014)

Academic life

An exciting day in the life of a scientist (24 Jun 2010)
How our current reward structures have distorted and damaged science (6 Aug 2010)
The challenge for science: speech by Colin Blakemore (14 Oct 2010)
When ethics regulations have unethical consequences (14 Dec 2010)
A day working from home (23 Dec 2010)
Should we ration research grant applications? (8 Jan 2011)
The one hour lecture (11 Mar 2011)
The expansion of research regulators (20 Mar 2011)
Should we ever fight lies with lies? (19 Jun 2011)
How to survive in psychological research (13 Jul 2011)
So you want to be a research assistant? (25 Aug 2011)
NHS research ethics procedures: a modern-day Circumlocution Office (18 Dec 2011)
The REF: a monster that sucks time and money from academic institutions (20 Mar 2012)
The ultimate email auto-response (12 Apr 2012)
Well, this should be easy…. (21 May 2012) Journal impact factors and REF2014 (19 Jan 2013)  An alternative to REF2014 (26 Jan 2013) Postgraduate education: time for a rethink (9 Feb 2013) High-impact journals: where newsworthiness trumps methodology (10 Mar 2013)
Ten things that can sink a grant proposal (19 Mar 2013)Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) The academic backlog (9 May 2013) Research fraud: More scrutiny by administrators is not the answer (17 Jun 2013) Discussion meeting vs conference: in praise of slower science (21 Jun 2013) Why we need pre-registration (6 Jul 2013)
Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate (12 Sep 2013)
High time to revise the PhD thesis format (9 Oct 2013)
The Matthew effect and REF2014 (15 Oct 2013)
Pressures against cumulative research (9 Jan 2014)
Why does so much research go unpublished? (12 Jan 2014) The University as big business: the case of King's College London (18 June 2014)
Should vice-chancellors earn more than the prime minister? (12 July 2014)

Replication and reputation: Whose career matters? (29 Aug 2014)


 

Celebrity scientists/quackery

Three ways to improve cognitive test scores without intervention (14 Aug 2010) What does it take to become a Fellow of the RSM? (24 Jul 2011)
An open letter to Baroness Susan Greenfield (4 Aug 2011)
Susan Greenfield and autistic spectrum disorder: was she misrepresented? (12 Aug 2011)
How to become a celebrity scientific expert (12 Sep 2011) The kids are all right in daycare (14 Sep 2011) 
The weird world of US ethics regulation (25 Nov 2011)
Pioneering treatment or quackery? How to decide (4 Dec 2011) Psychoanalytic treatment for autism: Interviews with French analysts (23 Jan 2012) Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags (24 Feb 2012)

Women

Academic mobbing in cyberspace (30 May 2010)
What works for women: some useful links (12 Jan 2011)

The burqua ban: what's a liberal response (21 Apr 2011) C'mon sisters! Speak out! (28 Mar 2012)
Psychology: where are all the men? (5 Nov 2012)
Men! what you can do to improve the lot of women ( 25 Feb 2014) Should Rennard be reinstated? (1 June 2014)

Politics and Religion

Lies, damned lies and spin (15 Oct 2011) A letter to Nick Clegg from an ex liberal democrat (11 Mar 2012)
BBC's 'extensive coverage' of the NHS bill (9 Apr 2012)
Schoolgirls' health put at risk by Catholic view on vaccination (30 Jun 2012)
A letter to Boris Johnson (30 Nov 2013)
How the government spins a crisis (floods) (1 Jan 2014)






Humour and miscellaneous

Orwellian prize for scientific misrepresentation (1 Jun 2010)
An exciting day in the life of a scientist (24 Jun 2010)
Science journal editors: a taxonomy (28 Sep 2010)
Parasites, pangolins and peer review (26 Nov 2010)
A day working from home (23 Dec 2010)
The one hour lecture (11 Mar 2011)
The expansion of research regulators (20 Mar 2011)
Scientific communication: the Comment option (25 May 2011)
How to survive in psychological research (13 Jul 2011)
Your Twitter Profile: The Importance of Not Being Earnest (19 Nov 2011)
2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (29 Jan 2012)
The ultimate email auto-response (12 Apr 2012)
Well, this should be easy…. (21 May 2012)
The bewildering bathroom challenge (19 Jul 2012) Are Starbucks hiding their profits on the planet Vulcan? (15 Nov 2012) Forget the Tower of Hanoi (11 Apr 2013) How do you communicate with a communications company? ( 30 Mar 2014)
Noah: A film review from 32,000 ft (28 July 2014)

Should Rennard be reinstated?

©CartoonStock.com

Things could not be much worse for Liberal Democrat party. After catastrophic results at both council and European elections a couple of weeks ago, there have been questions raised about Nick Clegg's leadership, and resignation of senior LibDem Matthew Oakeshott. Now it's being suggested that Chris Rennard, former Chief Executive who was suspended from the party in January after allegations of sexual harassment were made against him, should be reinstated.



A few days ago, Rennard issued an apology to the women who had complained about him, something he'd been asked to do before his suspension. His supporters, who include powerful people such as Alex Carlile and David Steel, argue that the party needs him: he has undoubted skills that have come from experience of managing the party over many years. In particular, Carlile is quoted as saying that Rennard had now done ‘everything asked of him’, and:

Lord Rennard has been harassed by this inquiry for a year and a half nearly…He [Rennard] may have misjudged situations and been less aware of the personal space of his interlocutors and has misjudged the effect of what he perceived as friendliness would have on them. That’s exactly what he apologised for

I was particularly intrigued by comments from Shirley Williams, who said on Radio 4 that the case had been 'blown up'. She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "He was a very decent and loyal member of the party as the chief executive, he did huge amounts for the party," adding:
"If I may say so, there are some comparisons which suggest there are real, serious sexual harassments and so forth, and I don't think he's one of the most serious cases."



Meanwhile, Rennard is threatening legal action against the Lib Dems if he is expelled from the party.



So it seems that the case in favour of Rennard's reinstatement is that:

• He is a superb politician of value to his party


• He didn't do anything wrong - or at least not intentionally


• Insofar as other people think he did something wrong, he's said he's sorry that they are upset


• He could cause a lot of trouble for the party if they don't let him back in


• He has suffered enough

I'm amazed that powerful supporters of Rennard seem to think that this makes a credible case for Rennard's reinstatement.



Of course politicians aren't perfect. They are human beings like the rest of us, doing a difficult job. I don't like deceit but I reckon, for instance, that infidelity is so common a human failing that it would be ridiculous to sack a politician over an affair. Furthermore, I don't assume that a man who makes sexual advances to a woman is a sexist beast: if no man ever did that, then the human race would die out. And let's not pretend that such advances are always shunned by women.



But context is everything. Flirting was invented as a means of establishing whether your advances are indeed welcome. If a man isn't receiving clear signals of interest from a woman he should keep well away. To impose yourself on another person who is giving you no encouragement whatsoever is a violation of personal space. It's hard to believe that Rennard can't read the signals - rather, it seems he chose to ignore them.



I disagree with Shirley Williams that this is not serious. I'm sure Shirley will have had her fair share of hands on knees or pats on the bottom over the years, and either ignored them or given a withering put-down. Some of the women who complained about Rennard have been interviewed on TV and, as you would expect for women who have made a mark in politics, they are articulate and gutsy and look well able to stand up for themselves. Nevertheless, it's clear that they were upset and disturbed by Rennard's behaviour - my impression was that it was partly because it was so surprising - a sudden grope out of left field, so to speak, without any warning.



Then there's the question of power. This piece by Polly Toynbee argues it better than I could, emphasising that  more powerful you get, the less likely you are to be challenged in anything you do.  Since complaints about Rennard date back at least to 2007, it's clear that this is a pattern. I find myself wondering whether the incidents that we're aware of are just the tip of the iceberg, and whether other women were also affected but too afraid to speak out.



Perhaps the strongest argument against Rennard, though, is not his wandering hands, but the way he responded as events unfolded. First with denial ("I didn't do anything wrong"), then with threats ("I'll take you to court") and finally with a plea for our sympathy ("the events of the last fourteen months have been a most unhappy experience for him, his family and friends"). The apology was supposed to "draw a line" under this issue, but it does just the opposite. If there's one thing his apology makes clear, it's that he just doesn't get it - and nor, it seems, do his supporters. His words (with my emphasis) speak for themselves:

He does recognise as suggested in the full report, that he may well have encroached upon “personal space”. In relation to this, Alistair Webster suggested in his report that Lord Rennard “may well wish to consider an apology”. He would therefore like to apologise sincerely for any such intrusion and assure them that this would have been inadvertent. He hereby expresses his regret for any harm or embarrassment caused to them or anything which made them feel uncomfortable.

Here's what a proper apology might have looked like:

I accept that I encroached upon personal space of the women, and in so doing caused them harm and embarrassment. I sincerely regret doing so and undertake not to make unwanted physical advances to women in future.

Alas, we're not going to see that, because Rennard doesn't think it's true. And as long as that remains the case, then he, and his supporters, are a massive liability to the party.

How the government spins a crisis: the blame game

from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkHb9q-jpDU

Thousands of people in the UK had a truly miserable Christmas, with extreme weather leading to flooding and power cuts. They were shocked and cold, blundering around in the dark, sometimes for as long as three days. When David Cameron went to visit Yalding in Kent on 27th December, he got an earful from local residents, who complained they had been abandoned, and had no help from the council, who had "all decided to go on holiday."



Cameron's visit was widely seen as a PR disaster: he was criticised for using the floods as a way of getting cheap publicity, and his government's cuts in spending on flood defences were commented on.


On 30th December, we had Owen Paterson, the Energy Secretary stating that energy companies had "let customers down" in their response to the storm.


Yesterday we heard that Tim Yeo chairman of the energy select committee, planned to summon bosses of energy companies to explain their poor performance.


Now, I have no love for the energy companies, whose rapacious pricing strategies are causing real hardship to many. But I find myself wondering what exactly they were supposed to do over the Christmas period. Presumably, if a power line comes down, it requires specialised machinery and replacement parts to be sourced and brought to the site – which may well be affected by flooding – and engineers who not only have the expertise to diagnose and correct the problem, but who are also fit and brave enough to do this in horrendous weather conditions. I doubt that large numbers of such people are just sitting around waiting to be called upon, and indeed over the Christmas period, some of them may have gone away on holiday, and others may themselves be affected by the flooding.  There was much criticism concerning the lack of information given to those affected by flooding and power cuts. But it's just not realistic to expect an organization to magic up large numbers of call centre staff out of nowhere in the middle of a crisis-ridden Christmas break. It's also worth noting that much of the valiant work of helping people deal with the flooding crisis was the responsibility of the fire service, currently under pressure from cuts to funding.


I simply don't know whether the energy companies could have done better; maybe they could have done more with live updates of information through websites, Twitter or local radio. Maybe they could have issued earlier warnings, or cancelled leave for key staff. But it concerns me that we have the Environment Secretary making a very public judgement on this matter, directing blame at energy companies, just a few days after the Prime Minister has been criticised, and long before there has been a chance to evaluate what happened, and which agencies were responsible for what, in a calm and thorough manner.



Forgive me if I seem cynical, but a rapid and punitive response seems to have become a standard reaction of government to situations where they are attracting adverse publicity. Find a scapegoat and come down on them heavily, whether it be Brodie Smith, Sharon Shoesmith or David Kelly. This deflects criticism from the government and makes them look strong. All the better if the criticism can be laid instead at the door of a person or organization who is already unpopular.


By all means, let us consider the response to the crisis to see what could have been done better. But the issues are far too important to be used as propaganda to enhance a government's popularity. Let us not be distracted from a much more important priority: calling the government to account for its policy of cutting back on measures of flood prevention.

A letter to Boris Johnson

Dear Boris,

Last week you  created
a media storm with your speech
at the Centre for Policy Studies in London. As a self-publicist, you make Katie Price look like a case of social phobia,
and maybe you are pleased with the column inches you attracted. But perhaps you are also made nervous by the many
commentators who have suggested that you have damaged your chances of greater
political glory by letting the avuncular mask slip and revealing what lies behind
it.

As a eulogy for Margaret Thatcher, your speech was most
effective, though it came across as a transparent bid to take on her mantle.  But it also revealed a blind spot in your
understanding of your fellow human beings.  This is evidence in the two themes that run
through the speech: (1) people are motivated solely by competition with others;
(2) those who win competitions are morally superior and more deserving than
those who lose.

Let’s look at the evidence in the speech.  The first comment that gave me pause was
this: “Of the 193 present members of the
UN, we have conquered or at least invaded 171 – that is 90 per cent.” This
is presented as if it is something to be proud of. As someone who’d like to
peaceably get on with my neighbours, I find it disturbing that a man who has
ambitions to lead our country sees domination of other nations as an admirable
goal.

You then go on to argue that as Britain’s empire waned, we
suffered from a “spiritual morosity that
bordered on self-loathing”.  Not my memory
of the 1960s-70s. It was all rather jolly what with flower power and the sexual
revolution (all made possible through science and the advent of the pill).  According to you, part of Thatcher’s greatness
was that she revived the nation and created “a buccaneering environment where there was no shame – quite the reverse
– in getting rich.” So instead of invading other countries and stealing
their resources, we could elbow our way ahead of others in our own country, and
feel smug about it at the same time. I do remember those days, which was exactly
when my own spiritual morosity set in. Encounters with various businesses –
utilities, banks, large shops, car hire firms, airlines – which had previously
been straightforward and uneventful became obstacle courses that you had now to
negotiate with extreme caution, because they were all trying to rip you off. You
needed to be on your guard, as the default assumption was that they’d try to
stitch you up and lock you in to the wrong kind of deal, with unnecessary
insurance to boot and nasty little charges added on at the last moment. Those
of a more recent generation may find this hard to believe, but you used to be
able to interact with any large-sized company on the assumption that they were
honest and cared about their reputation.  The “buccaneering
environment” that Thatcher introduced delivered us into the hands of the
pirates. Which was a good thing if you were a pirate, but not much fun for everyone
else.

The part of your speech that has attracted most comment is
when you talked about IQ. Full marks for demonstrating an understanding of the
normal distribution, but less than full marks for the logic of your argument:

“Whatever you may
think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about
equality that as many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while
about 2 per cent have an IQ above 130. The harder you shake the pack, the
easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top.

And for one reason or
another – boardroom greed or, as I am assured, the natural and god-given talent
of boardroom inhabitants - the income gap between the top cornflakes and the
bottom cornflakes is getting wider than ever. I stress: I don’t believe that
economic equality is possible; indeed, some measure of inequality is essential
for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a
valuable spur to economic activity.”

It’s unclear how far you understand IQ – some people have
suggested you think it’s a measure of innate ability. But in a sense it doesn’t
matter whether you recognise it is
modifiable or not; the real problem is you confuse someone’s intellectual
abilities with their worth. You seem to be saying that bright people deserve to
succeed (and indeed we should give them knighthoods for their wealth generation
activity) – whereas at the same time you seem to accept that there are some individual
differences in ability. So are you saying that the less able people deserve to
be poor? The cornflake analogy you use is not entirely clear, but it seems to
amount to saying that you want to stimulate further inequalities between people
– and surely that means the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer?

What I find particularly chilling in your speech is the view
of human beings as motivated primarily by envy, greed, and the need to get to
the top, as well as the implication that if you don’t you are stupid. You seem unaware
that there are large numbers of people who are motivated by things like
interest in what they are doing (e.g. scientists), a desire to help others (e.g.
doctors, nurses, teachers or carers), or a creative urge (e.g. writers and
artists). When confronted with a banker whose annual income is fifty times as
much as average earnings, for many of us the feeling is not so much envy as
incomprehension. Why would anyone need all that money? Don’t they feel embarrassed
at having so much more than everyone else? Weren’t they taught that you care
for those less fortunate than yourself and that greed was a bad thing? Well,
clearly not, because, as you tell us, Thatcher changed the culture so that
there was “no shame – quite the reverse –
in getting rich.”  

You don’t say what you think about the legions of people who
exist happily on moderate incomes, but the implication is that they are all
suckers, who’d be better off with a good dose of greed and envy. Indeed, you
imply they are parasitic on the rich, who create all this wealth by paying
massive amounts of tax. This is a good way to enrage a substantial part of the
electorate.

At least from time to time you give a nod of recognition of
the need for philanthrophy:

“But I also hope that
there is no return to that spirit of Loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively
riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless; and I hope that this time
the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed – valid motivator
thought greed may be for economic progress – as for what they give and do for
the rest of the population”

But, dear Boris, if you set up a system that rewards the
greedy, you can hardly expect them to change their ways and start being
philanthropic once they’ve made it. The main reason the very rich end up
commandeering all the resources is because they are never satisfied. Like you,
they are motivated by a sense of intense competition with everyone else. They
won’t think about whether their income is sufficient to live a comfortable
life; all they care about is having more money than everyone else.  And people like that are not going to make
philanthropic donations; on the contrary they will avoid paying tax using any
means that is legally available to them.  And you, by clapping them on the back for
their avarice, are just encouraging them.

I agree with you that capitalism and competition are
unlikely to disappear; they are an inherent part of our economic system. I also
agree that we cannot prevent inequality; the key question for politicians is
how best to manage it. According to you we should give greed and envy a free
rein because they have such good consequences.  I disagree. I do not feel proud to be British
in a country that treats its most vulnerable citizens with contempt, and values
the qualities of competition, envy and greed over those of co-operation,
compassion and moderation.