I read this excellent article by Michael Lewis in the print version of Portfolio. Then I looked at it online. The online version was much better: It had reader comments.

When will The New Yorker online follow Portfolio‘s lead and allow comments? Comments on fiction should be especially interesting.

I suppose I’m especially sensitive to this issue. Spy had a regular feature called Letters to the Editor of The New Yorker. (At the time, The New Yorker did not publish reader letters.) I wrote two of them, here and here.

… is likely to become a recognized psychiatric disorder via inclusion in the next edition of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of the American Psychiatric Association. From an editorial about it:

[There are] at least three subtypes: excessive gaming, sexual preoccupations, and e-mail/text messaging. All of the variants share the following four components: 1) excessive use, often associated with a loss of sense of time or a neglect of basic drives, 2) withdrawal, including feelings of anger, tension, and/or depression when the computer is inaccessible, 3) tolerance, including the need for better computer equipment, more software, or more hours of use, and 4) negative repercussions, including arguments, lying, poor achievement, social isolation, and fatigue. . . Some of the most interesting research on Internet addiction has been published in South Korea. After a series of 10 cardiopulmonary-related deaths in Internet cafés and a game-related murder, South Korea considers Internet addiction one of its most serious public health issues . . . . The average South Korean high school student spends about 23 hours each week gaming.

Stop reading this!

From an article in Rolling Stone about mercury and autism:

The CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe,” Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the [Institute of Medicine’s] Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result “Walt wants” — a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

From Chapter 12 of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

`No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’

`Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!’

`Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

Eerily prophetic, no?

1. Forensic science = science relevant to the judicial system. Like CSI.

2. Forensic psychology = legal-system-related psychology. Like the personalities of serial killers.

3. Computer forensics is about using computers in the legal system.

4. Yet forensics by itself = public speaking.

Huh?

The Indian health tourism company Indicure has appointed Dr. Ranjit Chandra, whose story is told here, to be one of its panel of experts. Few scientists have a more impressive resume:

Dr. Chandra has received 16 honorary degrees including DSc honoris causa recently from Panjab University. He has received over 100 awards worldwide. In 2003, he was given the Jubilee Gold Medal by the Queen and the title of Honorable Baron of Blackburn. Prof. Chandra is an Officer of the Order of Canada, the highest award given to Canadian citizens.

More about Chandra. His work remains influential.

One of Malcolm Gladwell’s best articles is “ Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg“, about a Chicago woman who seemed to know everyone and enjoyed introducing them. In The Tipping Point, Gladwell called such people Connectors. When I met a Connector, a Berkeley psychologist named Karine S., at a Los Angeles party, I wanted to know more.

You like to connect people? How do you do that?

I think the root of my desire to connect people stems from being from a collectivistic culture (Israeli). Also, friendship means a lot to me and I take it very seriously. So I like to bring friends together when I know that they will get along. I do have to say that I’m very selective about which friends I combine though. And often times people connect because they meet over and over at events/outings that I plan/initiate. But ultimately I have to say that I think that people in my life connect because of a common experience. For example, when I moved up north [the Bay Area] I spent a lot of time with friends in the time before at “going away” outings. So I think there was a common emotion experienced which led to them bonding. So now some of my friends back home and are now friends because they met through me. Of course when I come down we all get together again. I think it just comes down to making a plan and inviting a bunch of people that are my friends which leads them to connect and get along.

You say you’re selective about “which friends [you] combine”. Can you say more about this? Such as how you decide?

I guess it stems from being so sensitive and attuned to people’s feelings and experiences that I know who will hit it off and who won’t. It’s also somewhat selfish because I will end up “babysitting” people if they do not blend with others and engage. I’d like to say that most of my friends get along with each other, but there are some who have not hit it off. I think I combine those who are open to diversity and are not judgmental much more easily. Come to think of it, in big settings I combine mostly everyone. But let’s say it’s a Sunday on Melrose…window shopping, eating lunch…I invite those that I know like each other. It’s basically a personality assessment. Some people are very open to being around others and there are some people that are so uncomfortable in their own skin that they cannot be around others comfortably and it shows. And when you have known people for a long time, it doesn’t require much thought. I know I’m pretty good at doing this because there are people who share me as a friend, and now hang out because they met through me.

Can you think of a mistake you’ve made bringing people together?

One time I brought two people together who I thought would hit it off and didn’t! It was like a bad accident! I thought they would bond about things and enjoy each other and it turned out that the “philosophical” conversation turned into a battle of egos. They verbally attacked each other and it was so bad. This all happened at a restaurant and carried over to my house. One of them reassessed whether she wanted to be friends with me if I was to have this other friend in my life. I think now when someone has as strong a personality as this friend did, I make sure to talk to that person about how expressive they will be about their viewpoints. I think this issue only comes up with certain people in my life…meaning there are certain friends that I cannot bring around just anyone because they are fragile and/or not as mentally sophisticated/intelligent as the other people in my life.

A nice article critical of Gladwell’s thesis.

In a recent NY Times health blog by Tara Parker-Pope was the following:

Dr. Parikh says it is a lesson pediatricians have already learned. He notes that doctors weren’t paying attention in the late ’90s, when patients were just beginning to go online en masse and theories about vaccines and autism were first circulating.

“We weren’t paying much attention until parents started to refuse vaccines. When we looked, we realized that many parents were exposed to story after story on autism Web sites and in chat rooms about the dangers of vaccines. That echo chamber of opinion became a reality despite our best efforts to prove otherwise…. Would things have been different if we had engaged our patients from the get-go by providing them with alternative Web sites, scrutinizing and rebutting anti-vaccine “science,” or posting studies demonstrating vaccine safety in the public domain? I would answer, emphatically, yes.”

To Parker-Pope, in other words, everybody knows — or at least every sensible person knows — that “anti-vaccine ‘science’” wasn’t really science and that vaccines were safe. Not quite. Further examples: NYT vs. business reality. NYT vs. political reality.