Sunday, 10 December 2017

Did Popeye Really Increase Spinach Consumption and Production by 33 percent in 1936?

Identity VerifiedThinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Mike Sutton

Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

Did Popeye Really Increase Spinach Consumption and Production by 33 percent in 1936?

Apr. 24, 2011 6:24 pm

ARCHIVED AT http://archive.is/9O8Bc

Categories: Counterknowledge, Dysology, Politics

Keywords: spinach, Popeye, Crystal City, spinach production, Texas

How can we be sure that we are seeing real patterns in data and not merely seizing upon that which meets our biased prior expectations?

Can We Crack the Popeye Statistical Challenge?

There is a widely accepted story that spinach growers in Crystal City Texas erected a statue of Popeye in 1937 in recognition of the comic character’s creator E. Segar increasing spinach consumption in the USA by 33 per cent at a time when farmers were hard pressed. The statue still stands in Crystal City but can the story stand up to statistical analysis?

It has long been noted that humans see patterns in data and attribute them to causes. Hence people see a man in the moon, or Kate Middleton's face on a jelly bean, and concoct conspiracies from random data.

It is hypothesised that we are pattern seeking animals and that this pattern seeking was essential for human progress and survival (Shermer, 2007 p. xxiv). Seeing patterns in random data is compounded by the fact that people have a tendency to try to prove their current hypothesis is correct by picking out only examples that confirm it, while ignoring all that do not (Sutherland, 2007. p. 99). Availability error (Sutherland 2007) may lead us to focus upon only spinach production data for 1936 – the year when Popeye was a box office smash in the cinema. Then there is the problem of Mertonian self-fulfilling prophecies, which have a general tendency to convert little effects into big effects (Gilovich 1991. p.6) which means we need to consider also whether spinach farmers might have planted and harvested more spinach in anticipation of increased spinach demand driven by Popeye.

To gather data with an aim to check out the Crystal City Popeye statue story, in 2010 I wrote to every single United States Department of Agriculture station in the USA asking for any historical data they had for annual spinach production.

The data are presented below in Table 1. As my simple annual per cent change analysis reveals, it turns out that Texas did indeed have a 33 per cent increase in production (not consumption) in 1936.

Was Popeye’s spinach eating the cause of that increase? Only the right statistical analysis can tell.

Can we tell from examining all the historical data whether this is likely?

Set out below is the data I collected form the USDA and briefly analysed by way of simple percentage change analysis.

What statistical method is best suited for helping us decide whether this data is random or whether there is a pattern related to Popeye? Knowledge in this area might help to inform what we currently know about effective media use in bringing about nutritional attitude change.

I will of course publish an attribute to whoever helps to crack the Popeye Challenge and will include it in a book I am writing on Dysology.

Additional possibly relevant information:

· 1930 - 36 the dustbowl years focused on the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma, and adjacent parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas. The Winter Garden area where spinach was grown would have been relatively safe.1930 Texas and Oklahoma, and adjacent parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas.

· 1930 something unusual happened in 1930 to significantly reduce spinach production in Texas - but it continued to rise in other states.

· 1931 Popeye strip cartoon reveals for the first time that spinach is the secret of Popeye’s super powers.

. 1932 (December) Popeye delivers a political message in comic strip "If ya don't give the farmers relief, I'll knock ya all out from in between yer ears and lay ya among the swee' peataters like nobody's business!

· 1936 FDR’s New Deal introduced. Soil Conservation Act encourages farming other then wheat, rice, cattle in favour of non soil eroding crops. This may have had some impact. USA also introduced Agricultural Adjustment Act to control supply of 7 basic crops (not including spinach) - may have led to more supply of spinach as farmers encouraged togrow more diverse crops.

· 1936 - First two reel colour movie Popeye the Sailor V Sinbad the Sailor. Either posted alongside or above as the main feature at cinemas.

· 1936 Last year of the dustbowl that began in 1930

· 1936 Largest spinach crop for all states.

· In Texas for the 5 YEARS BEFORE Popeye even ate spinach (which was first published in a newspaper strip in 1931) (1926-1930), production increased 135 % on the previous 5 year mean (1921 -1925) acreage. Average acres production increased 51 % over the next 5 years.

Table 1

THE POPEYE EFFECT ON USA SPINACH PRODUCTION
50 years of acreage of Spinach Harvested 1928 - 1978 by Dr Mike Sutton (2010)
Year	Texas	California	Washington.	Colorado	Total	Texas p.a. % change
1928	25600	1,000	620	300	29448
1929	28650	1,400	750	400	31200	12
1930	25060	1,550	709	450	27769	-12
1931	27850	1,700	990	500	31040	11
1932	30800	1,830	920	700	34250	11
1933	44000	1,690	850	770	47310	43
1934	35500	2,220	850	730	39300	-19
1935	36000	2,300	720	840	39860	1
1936	48000	2,170	830	1260	52260	33
1937	46000	2,400	1120	1320	50840	-4
1938	40000	2,800	1290	1450	45540	-13
1939	35400	3,000	1130	1200	40730	-12
1940	34400	3,200	1210	1500	40310	-3
1941	35400	3,000	1210	1700	41310	3
1942	41000	3,000	1150	2000	47150	16
1943	38500	3,800	1500	2800	46600	-6
1944	38600	3,400	1700	3000	46700	> 1
1945	36000	2,800	1650	3200	43650	-7
1946	38000	3,000	1850	2300	45150	6
1947	34400	3,100	1530	1900	40930	-9
1948	27,000	3,100	1720	1700	33,520	-22
1949	28000	3,000	600	1500	33100	4
1950	22000	2,800	350	1500	26650	-21
1951	14500	2,800	350	1200	18850	-34
1952	15500	2,500	350	700	19050	7
1953	11000	2,500	330	800	14630	-29
1954	11500	2,000	290	700	14490	4
1955	10000	1,900	290	900	13090	-13
1956	10500	1,900	290	1100	13790	5
1957	9300	1,800	no data	1300	12400	-11
1958	9800	1,800	no data	1600	13200	5
1959	9300	1,800	no data	1800	12900	-5
1960	8500	1,600	no data	1900	12000	-9
1961	7600	1,400	no data	1900	10900	-11
1962	6900	1,500	no data	2100	10500	-9
1963	5800	1,600	no data	1700	9100	-16
1964	6800	1,700	no data	1500	10000	17
1965	6900	1,700	no data	1100	9700	1
1966	6500	1,600	no data	1300	9400	-6
1967	6000	1,600	no data	1200	8800	-8
1968	4500	1,400	no data	1100	7000	-25
1969	6000	1,360	no data	1100	8460	33
1970	5800	1,450	no data	750	8000	-3
1971	6200	1,520	no data	910	8630	7
1972	5100	1,650	no data	900	7650	-18
1973	5600	1,700	no data	1100	8400	10
1974	4500	1,900	no data	1000	7400	-20
1975	4100	1,900	no data	650	6650	-9
1976	3300	2,150	no data	860	6310	-19
1977	3400	2,800	no data

Fukushima and the Curse of the Lucky Monkey Principle

Archived at http://archive.is/TvfOb

Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Mike Sutton

Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

Fukushima and the Curse of the Lucky Monkey Principle

Mar. 12, 2011 4:58 am

Categories: Politics

Keywords: odds, Grand National, general betting odds, 100-1 odds issue, Biologist Richard Dawkins,Fukushima, lucky monkey principle, mike sutton

What do the Fukushima Incident and the Grand National have in common?

In 1967 a horse named Foinavon defied an outsider rank of 100-to-1 odds (starting price) to win the Grand National.In 2009 Mon Mome won the Grand National. And this horse too was a 100-1 starting price outsider. See: http://www.grandnational.org.uk/previous-winners.php

Had you started out in 1960 making a side bet each year at odds of 100-1 on the Grand National that any one of the several 100-1 (starting price) outsiders would win you would be what we British call quid’s-in already. And if you were aiming to be in it for 100 years then you’d still have another 49 years to go. Would you fancy your chances at very good luck over the next 40 odd years given such 100-1 odds on 100-1 outsiders? Of course you would. And that is why no gambling establishment would be so irrational as to make such a bet with you.

But what if we reverse the general betting odds scenario so that the 100-1 odds on any of several other 100-1 odds bets winning is not about winning but losing? Would our governments make such a bet on our behalf where the bet involves a stake of thousands of human lives? You bet they would. Because they already have.

Given enough time, the odds that seem in our favor start to turn against us. Let me explain.

In 2004 the Biologist Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 2004. p 148) wrote about how isolated islands became populated with mainland wildlife because over many years outsiders will win. For example:

‘The point about intercontinental rafting of monkeys, or rodents or anything else, is that it only has to happen once, and the time available for it to happen, in order to have momentous consequences, is way outside what we can grasp intuitively. The odds against a floating mangrove bearing a pregnant female monkey and reaching landfall in any one year may be ten thousand to one against. That sounds tantamount to impossible by the lights of human experience. But given 10 million years it becomes almost inevitable.’

And now for the scary bit. Humans are betting on 'safe, clean, nuclear power'. But Dawkins (2004) goes on to write (p.150) :

‘I can't resist remarking how chilling this kind of 'it only had to happen once' logic becomes when you apply it to contingencies nearer home. The principle of nuclear deterrence, and the only remotely defensible justification for possessing nuclear weapons, is that nobody will dare risk a first strike for fear of massive retaliation. What are the odds against a mistaken missile launch: a dictator who goes mad; a computer system that malfunctions; an escalation of threats that gets out of hand? What are the odds against a terrible mistake, initiating Armageddon? A hundred to one against, within any one year? I would be more pessimistic. We came awfully close in 1963.’

Is nuclear energy a clean safe choice? Iran thinks so - and its government adopts the same argument as other nuclear nations for wanting its own nuclear power plants. How can we argue with their logic when it is the same as our own? And it is exactly this same logic that will enable them to produce nuclear weapons as well. Now what odds, I wonder, would a gambling establishment give me that a rogue state with an irrational government might just decide, one day in the next 100 years, to go all in on a whim?

Nuclear weapons and rogue governments aside, in 1979 the USA came close to disaster with the Three Mile Island incident, which involved a partial meltdown. That had been preceeded by the SL-1 incident in Idaho. In 1986 Russia had the Chernobyl disaster. Earlier than all of the above, we've had the British Winscale incident of 1957 and the Kyshtym disaster of that same year in Russia. Now in 2011 we have the Fukushima incident. That can be evened out to create an average of one serious nuclear reactor incident for every nine years in the 54 years since 1957.

In light of our recent history of mishaps, misfortune and failure to adequately consider tsunami and earthquake effects, the chances of there being a catastrophic nuclear disaster somewhere in the world - as hundreds more reactors are commissioned over the next 50 years - seems as Dawkins suggested to be much less remote than 100-1 against every year. And yet, perversely, they tell us that nuclear energy is the clean, safe, solution.

Japan, which is among the three largest economies on Earth, depends on it for 30 per cent of its power. Is it safe and clean? Even with over 440 commercial reactors world-wide, it is relatively safe and clean today compared with the personal risk of road travel, and the dirt and Co2 from coal fired power plants for example. But, over time, it's only relatively safe - to paraphrase Dirty Harry - "..if ya feeling lucky punk."

The chances of your house burning down are very remote, on average, but you insure your home and its contents against it - just in case - because you would be hard hit if disaster struck. But there is no general insurance that the general population can buy that is worth having against the catastrophe of a nuclear disaster. So why do we dice with it? Why do we let our politicians make the decision to go ahead with it on our behalf? Short termism perhaps?

A team of anonymous gonzo criminologists writing on The Bent Society blog warned us that something like the Fukushima incident would happen. Today they are writing that they “told us so”. See: http://bentsocietyblog.blogspot.com/

Do you agree with them? Is Richard Dawkins right? What , exactly, are the rational arguments that nuclear power is safe and clean?

Reference

Dawkins, R. (2004) The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. London. Orion Books.

Sunday, 10 December 2017