Thursday, October 27, 2005
Over and Under Analysis
Anyone who knows me will probably confirm that I have a habit of overthinking everything. Especially my poor overburdened research professors, who had to read through the 25 page data books I called reports. Oh well. Scientists are famous for doing things like that - it's what makes us scientists, right?
New research into letter writing behaviors on paper and email suggests that people answer their mail in bursts, prioritize letters to answer quickly and letting low-importance notes linger. Um. No duh? People prioritize all their resource expenditures, and the time it takes to write a letter or type an email (or a blog entry!) is a precious resource. I don't get why this research is worth the letters it's written on.
On the other end of overanalyzing, there is carelessness, for which the US Food and Drug Administration is rapidly becoming famous. The regulating body has decided, contrary to its advisory panels recommendations (sound familiar?), not to require long-term trials of psychiatric drugs before approval. The rational being that it might discourage drug companies from researching new drugs. Or prevent patients from continuing their current routine of a taking a new undertested antidepressant every six months because nothing helps. But of course, there's the chance we might miss a major side effect. But I guess those sorts of things don't bother lobbyists.
New research into letter writing behaviors on paper and email suggests that people answer their mail in bursts, prioritize letters to answer quickly and letting low-importance notes linger. Um. No duh? People prioritize all their resource expenditures, and the time it takes to write a letter or type an email (or a blog entry!) is a precious resource. I don't get why this research is worth the letters it's written on.
On the other end of overanalyzing, there is carelessness, for which the US Food and Drug Administration is rapidly becoming famous. The regulating body has decided, contrary to its advisory panels recommendations (sound familiar?), not to require long-term trials of psychiatric drugs before approval. The rational being that it might discourage drug companies from researching new drugs. Or prevent patients from continuing their current routine of a taking a new undertested antidepressant every six months because nothing helps. But of course, there's the chance we might miss a major side effect. But I guess those sorts of things don't bother lobbyists.
