Whoever You Are

by Geggy Tah from Scared Cow

Hello again in this final month of 2009. I have been wanting to write about this for a long time but haven't found the time. So yeah be prepared for one of Dave's long screeds. I was thinking about this for a while based on a few things. The first was some informal discussion among some of my co-workers about how we could improve and facilitate flirting and dating. April Fool Jokes aside, I thought it was a terrible idea but several people said there was real promise and Google's mission is tackle big and complex problems. If there is one thing that cannot be systemized, broken down, and put into an algorithm it is human relationships and emotions. If you don't believe me, check out this program produced by the BBC about using science to predict attraction. These scientists thought they could produce a better matching method by using psychological and social research theories including facial and body type preference, personality tests, makeovers, and a whole slew of things. But the end result: epic fail. Human emotions and behavior are just too hard to predict. The program also did put another nail in the coffin that pick-up artists are actually better at attracting people.

I was thinking about that when I stumbled onto an article about quarterbacks by Malcolm Gladwell. It is has been shown time and time again that NFL teams do a pretty terrible job about picking quality college quarterbacks that will be good in the pros. Gladwell's point is that there despite all the scouting, combine performance, and tests, the pro game is so much different than college that it is very hard to predict which college quarterback will succeed. Again a whole slew of experts and professionals attempting to predict future outcomes with what they think is sophisticated and through methodology but falling victim to the fairly obvious conclusion, that yeah, humans are unpredictable in many important ways.

This crossed my mind a few weeks ago when CWP$ let it slip that he was indeed doing admission interviews for his alma mater, MIT. I chuckled and let it be known that I thought college admissions interviews were not terribly useful in determining who will succeed in college and later on in life. It's my opinion that interviewing a nervous 17 year old to determine if they are the "right fit" for a college is about the same as attempting to scout and determine if a college quarterback is going to make it in the NFL. Both are poor predictive measures for the same reason. I am not against interviewing as a method, I think is great for people who have some amount of relevant experience that can be evaluated for the position they are applying for. In a great deal of cases, a 17 year high school senior has experienced nothing close to what college will be just as the typical college quarterback has experienced nothing close to the pro game. An interview or the NFL combine will give you exactly the results you will expect, the individual's performance for that particular evaluation method, which in itself doesn't predict future success. While being able to interview well is an important skill, I doubt anyone would say that, in itself, is a strong contributing factor to success in college. Just as the skills in the NFL combine are, by themselves, fairly irrelevant to the actual game play in the NFL.

Some people who will remain unnamed disagree with my viewpoint. Their counterargument is that without things like interviews, how could we distinguish among applicants all who have excellent grades and sterling test scores, which in themselves can be imperfect measures of future success. I would reply that we should focus on the things that we can speculate may prepare someone for their future environment. For example, for college admissions I think weighing heavily AP classes, SAT IIs, and college classes they have taken is a good idea because those more resemble what college work will be. Some speculate that the reason why Donovan McNabb, the only quarterback who had success from the 1999 1st round draft was that he had mobility and the ability to scramble, an important skill in NFL game even though he didn't have the strongest arm. Also the ability to learn and adapt. Steve McNair (rest in peace) stood on the sideline with a clipboard his first NFL year to learn the game and sort of apprenticed his way into his job. Nowadays, most of these college quarterbacks are expected to be stars right out of the gate.

So why I have gone on this rambling creed about dating, college quarterbacks, and college admissions other than I am opinionated? Because it illustrates some of our culture's most baffling contradictions - the tension between common sense vs. expertise. There is the Sarah Palin/Tea Party/Right-wing republican strain of culture that rejects scientifically and factually sound evidence concerning global warming, stem cell research, financial markets and deregulation, health issues, and pretty much anything they disagree with no matter how many qualified experts tell them they are wrong. While they may change the words around, their defense is pretty much they don't need some fancy scientist or expert to tell them anything, they have "common sense" that government regulation is bad, global warming is a hoax, etc etc. Yet when it comes to issues like weight loss, relationships, and other things, the same sort of people build up and cling to manufactured methodologies, theories, and philosophies being peddled by all sorts of "experts." For example, both science and common sense both say that if you want to lose weight and be healthy, you should eat in moderation and exercise regularly. Yet we have several billion dollar industry peddling diets, exercise programs and machines, self-help books, diet food, etc all trying to either deny, cover-up, or circumvent this patently obvious fact. Same with human relationships. People have been in them since the beginning of time and pretty much people will tell you there is something intangible - and whatever that is it takes a lot of work to maintain - that makes two people compatible and even if you tried to replicate those same circumstances and characteristics with two other people you probably wouldn't get the same result. Yet we have scientists, engineers, authors, so-called relationship experts, books, services, websites, etc thinking they can somewhat algorithmically formulate a solution that will work each and everytime. To me, it is just as silly as say evaluating three 17 year olds who all have stellar and excellent grades, test scores, essays, recommendations and then saying - 17 year old A deserves an admission slot because he just wowed during an interview that convinces me he is going to succeed in college and after. You know what, more than likely all three 17 year olds, will probably have some amount of success in college and after, an interview is not going to change that. Trying to use that as a way somehow filter out the best in this case is pointless at best, misleading at worst. We have all these football experts analyzing college game footage, combine exercise footage, and so-called intelligence tests when it should be fairly obvious to everyone, college quarterbacks are more than likely going to struggle at the pro level and that those that develop skills and knowledge to succeed in the NFL probably will.

To summarize, there is this movement to disregard the advice of experts on these complex and difficult questions like global warming and stem research research in favor of "common sense." Yet people in that same movement clamor and cling to anyone claiming to an expert and their methodologies on things that should be fairly common sense like weight loss. It is just strikes me as funny, depressing, and alarming all at the same time. Well that is enough of my ranting for one night. Good night everyone!