Data doesn't create meaning--you do

The majority of us reading these words speak english as a primary language. Clearly that statistic is going to be changing in the near future but for the most part, we will be able to communicate clearly and effectively with a common dialect and lexicon of understanding. Underlying this ability to share thoughts and insights will be a new mother-tongue--statistics. We are awash in big data and the ability to measure our health metrics, entertainment preferences, consumer habits, and overall personal and professional outcomes will be unparalleled. Troubling to those of us in the medical space, either as writers, researchers, practitioners, or journalists is the lack of understanding of what these data points reveal.

The Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet Dr. Richard Horton, warns that a large majority of published research is "unreliable", if not completely "fraudulent".

 Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

---

Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), states

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Not only in the fire-hose 24-hour news cycle but in our individual data collection we have the potential to mislead or misinform. Mobile health and the increasing volume of mhealth products are flooding the market as we count steps, respiration rates, monitor our weight and upload biochemical measures. Telemedicine is around the corner and will require a sentinel of awareness and the ability to distinguish relevance. When we are educated about statistical concepts we own a power to discern between tampered data sets, media hype, and rigor that we can trust. Talithia Williams presents a compelling case for asking questions of our data.

The new breed of high-tech self-monitors (measuring heartrate, sleep, steps per day) might seem targeted at competitive athletes. But Talithia Williams, a statistician, makes a compelling case that all of us should be measuring and recording simple data about our bodies every day — because our own data can reveal much more than even our doctors may know.

Our bodies will become the nerve centers of critical information exchange. Take ownership of your data. You are the expert. You are the authority. Medical doctors are experts on the population NOT the experts of you, at the patient level. 

Counting versus understanding...

Susan Etlinger reminds us that "data doesn't create meaning, we do". I observe a parallel evolving understanding of epigenetics and the forces rewriting the interplay of genetics and disease. The importance of context requires multi-modal understanding of the humanities, social sciences, sociology, rhetoric, philosophy, and ethics to create stronger critical thinking that informs our understanding.

Susan continues and states,. "Because after all, if I can spot a problem in an argument, it doesn't much matter whether it's expressed in words or in numbers. And this means teaching ourselves to find those confirmation biases and false correlations and being able to spot a naked emotional appeal from 30 yards, because something that happens after something doesn't mean it happened because of it, necessarily" ..."Romans called this "post hoc ergo propter hoc," after which therefore because of which."

About 30 years ago, the culture critic Neil Postman wrote a book called "Amusing Ourselves to Death," which lays this out really brilliantly. And here's what he said, comparing the dystopian visions of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. He said, Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture.Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us, and Huxley feared we would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.--Susan Etlinger

Go create something meaningful!
@graphemeconsult

Thoughtful discussions about content development and outcomes analytics that apply the principles and frameworks of health policy and economics to persistent and perplexing health and health care problems