On Statistical Assumptions

I work for a market research firm, so I deal with statistics on a daily basis. Listening to radio programs where statistics are thrown left and right to support absolutely opposing views, I recognize that anyone can pull a study that will show that their viewpoint is upheld by some report or another. People have this bizzare faith in statistical analysis that is only matched by their assertion that statistical analysis can be used to say whatever you want it to say. It reminds me, in fact, of the way people have historically used religious texts to validate their politics. When data is left open to interpretation, whether it's a biblical parable or a statistical report, people need to take whatever rationalization that comes out if it with a grain of salt (or in some cases, a block).

The reason I bring this up is that I was listening to a radio program that had a guest on, talking about a research study that supposedly shows that calorie intake, as well as other dietary factors, correlates with having one gender or another. This person was talking about how calorie intake makes evolutionary sense, since when there is a plenty of food to be distributed, the human race can afford more males (the study showed that the more calories, the more likely to have a boy). So, female babys can survive with less, while it takes more, statistically, to have a boy. They finally asserted, as a result of these findings, that a woman can influence her likelihood to have a boy or girl based on her diet.

The major, though not the only, problem with this is that it overlooks the obvious fact that while boys are genetically more dependent on calorie intake in the womb, the child's gender is determined relatively from conception. It's only a survivability factor that this study shows to exist, not a gender-influence factor. A woman who has conceived what will be a boy cannot decide to eat less and eventually have a girl. It will only increase the chance that her baby will die from a lack of caloric intake. Obviously, these conclusions are in totally different ballparks. It surprised me that the host did not make this glaring contradiction to the guest's assertion more apparent.

The EU as Empire

The idea of the European Union as an empire had never really crossed my mind before today, but the more I reflect on the idea, the more interesting the issue is to me. The way I came across the idea in the first place was by looking up which countries still have a system of monarchy as at least part of their government (quite a few more than I'd realized). Going over the list, I came across the fact that Japan is the last country in the world that is considered an Empire. Other countries are under dictatorships, constitutional monarchies, constitutionally democratic monarchies, federations, emirates, etc., but only Japan is listed as Empire. A footnote details this tidbit:

"After its origins as a Western European trade bloc, the Post-Cold War era European Union has since issued its own currency, formed its own military, and exercised its hegemony in Eastern European nations and abroad. As a consequence, political scientist, Jan Zielonka, has argued that the EU has transformed itself into an empire by coercing its neighbors into adopting economic, legal and political patterns in its own image."

Now, a classic definition of "empire" will almost certainly include such activities, with one additional condition required - something to the effect of "ruled by a single person, group, or authority." It could be argued that the EU meets at least one basic definition, "supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority." However, in my opinion, and I believe the opinion of most people, there are two problems with such an argument. Most empires in history have been led by one single person as the head of the empire: Genghis Khan of the Mongolian Empire, Alexander the Great of the Macedonian (or Alexander the Great's) Empire, the monarchy figures in the British, Dutch and Spanish (and so so many other) Empires, etc.

The other problem I have with the argument is that the EU does not hold supreme political power over its members. It certainly has vast coercive and political powers, but each individual nation holds its own autonomous authority apart from that of the EU. In that sense, the EU is much more a federation - actually, almost identical to the original formation of the United States of America. There was a time when the United States "were," not "was" something. The U.S. is a Federated Republic by nature, and has been incorporated into being defined as one nation with states, not States.

Perhaps this will be the ultimate fate of the EU - the United States of Europe, so to speak. But certainly, I don't think, without explicit imperial ambitions or a single figurehead ruling upon high, the EU will be considered an Empire. Interesting thought though...

I might follow this up with a thought about my understanding of the American Empire arguments... that's pretty interesting as well!

4:20

For anyone who might have noticed that my first blog post was posted at 4:20, and wondered if that time has any special significance for me, or if there's a reason I ponder philosophically at that time... there's not. It was just... a... "remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection."

It made me giggle though.

First Musing... Coincidentally coincidental.

So, I started this blog as sort of personality therapy - a way to write down the things that I am thinking about, without really worrying about who reads it or what I might want to talk about. Coincidental Musings is a title that I came up with for a potential book, and really was the only thing I could think of when I was asked to put in a title for this blog, though I had no serious intention of musing on coincidences or making my musings a coincidence.

It just so happens, however (which is another way of saying, "Coincidentally...") that my first "Musing" involves coincidences.

Supposing coincidences aren't actually coincidences, and they are actually clues to an unrealized greater connection between all things, would we ever discover that? At this point, we all know what a coincidence is: "A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection." What got me thinking about this is actually a pretty disturbing thought, and certainly one that doesn't even require further attention because it is ridiculous. January 20th is a day that seems to keep popping up in my life - it is a day of beginnings. For this story, the two main points are that Barack Obama will be sworn in as President, and I will be starting my next history course -  a transnational history course titled "Modern Terrorism."

These two concurrent beginnings have absolutely no causal connection, but when I thought to myself, "Oh, Modern Terrorism will start the night of Obama's inauguration," I caught myself in the thought. Modern Terrorism... will start when Obama becomes President... What if it did? What if this country became embroiled in terrorist activity over his presidency? What if January 20th is the beginning of something terrible? Well, that's crazy... it's just a coincidence... and besides, it's not as if everyone in the world has a class in Modern Terrorism that would make this a global warning, and I'm certainly not important or clairvoyant enough to have my coincidence matter in the grand scheme of things! It would be crazy to think otherwise.

But maybe this is the point... what if I'm NOT the only one having this type of coincidental connection. What if the entire world had some sort of Doomsday-on-the-20th experience, and we all just think that's too crazy to consider. No one is going to talk about it with others. I'm not going around talking about how January 20th is going to begin a new era of terrorism, simply because a random thought made an irrational connection to unrelated events. No one talks about coincidental things because they feel inconsequential. But what if collective coincidence exists, and these happenings are signs to be interpreted?

Coincidences used to be considered signs from the gods. People to this day will say that there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidence. Some believe that all things truly are connected, and that a coincidence is a sign of that fact. Just as some believe there are no accidents, the idea that coincidences are signs of connectedness implies a certain grander scheme. Whether this is God's plan, or the rational order of the Universe, or a massive collected consciousness of energies moving toward the same goal is a matter of personal consideration, but there is something common connecting these ideas that suggest that perhaps coincidence deserves consideration.