• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

I'm right, and they are wrong yet they are not smart enough to know

F

Fade2black

Well-Known Member
Like most Aspies, I'm a pattern thinker. On a recent review of statistical data, a study came up written by a well-renowned Ph.D. about morning rush hour traffic, patterns and accidents with the hypothesis concluding that there would be fewer accidents and better flowing traffic if all drivers simply ate breakfast.

In a nutshell, it the undisputable scientific evidence showed that 42% of rush-hour accidents are caused by people who didn't eat breakfast. The rest of the scholarly paper was laying out different examples of accidents caused by people who didn't eat breakfast and the cost to society and human life. The conclusion was drivers must eat breakfast to save lives and reduce the expenditure of services and tax dollars.

I see something totally different. I see that 58% of accidents are caused by people who DO eat breakfast. And so the fact is, the Ph.D. who wrote the paper was entirely wrong in his hypothesis. What is even more disturbing; is that I've explained this, in detail, yet this is beyond the comprehension of nearly everyone I explain it to. And, beyond the Ph.D. who wrote the paper.

My point is simply how frustrating it is to see something so clearly, and for me to document, explain and show proof in the simplest terms, but not be understood, even by what are considered very bright people.
 
Fade2black said:
Like most Aspies, I'm a pattern thinker. On a recent review of statistical data, a study came up written by a well-renowned Ph.D. about morning rush hour traffic, patterns and accidents with the hypothesis concluding that there would be fewer accidents and better flowing traffic if all drivers simply ate breakfast.

In a nutshell, it the undisputable scientific evidence showed that 42% of rush-hour accidents are caused by people who didn't eat breakfast. The rest of the scholarly paper was laying out different examples of accidents caused by people who didn't eat breakfast and the cost to society and human life. The conclusion was drivers must eat breakfast to save lives and reduce the expenditure of services and tax dollars.

I see something totally different. I see that 58% of accidents are caused by people who DO eat breakfast. And so the fact is, the Ph.D. who wrote the paper was entirely wrong in his hypothesis. What is even more disturbing; is that I've explained this, in detail, yet this is beyond the comprehension of nearly everyone I explain it to. And, beyond the Ph.D. who wrote the paper.

My point is simply how frustrating it is to see something so clearly, and for me to document, explain and show proof in the simplest terms, but not be understood, even by what are considered very bright people.
Click to expand...

Without a plausible hypothesis to explain the relationship between breakfast and accidents I would be skeptical of any conclusions drawn from these statistics. Were there any other variables that might affect the occurrence of accidents? The best one can do is conclude that a potential relationship exists.
 
Fade2black said:
Like most Aspies, I'm a pattern thinker. On a recent review of statistical data, a study came up written by a well-renowned Ph.D. about morning rush hour traffic, patterns and accidents with the hypothesis concluding that there would be fewer accidents and better flowing traffic if all drivers simply ate breakfast.

In a nutshell, it the undisputable scientific evidence showed that 42% of rush-hour accidents are caused by people who didn't eat breakfast. The rest of the scholarly paper was laying out different examples of accidents caused by people who didn't eat breakfast and the cost to society and human life. The conclusion was drivers must eat breakfast to save lives and reduce the expenditure of services and tax dollars.

I see something totally different. I see that 58% of accidents are caused by people who DO eat breakfast. And so the fact is, the Ph.D. who wrote the paper was entirely wrong in his hypothesis. What is even more disturbing; is that I've explained this, in detail, yet this is beyond the comprehension of nearly everyone I explain it to. And, beyond the Ph.D. who wrote the paper.

My point is simply how frustrating it is to see something so clearly, and for me to document, explain and show proof in the simplest terms, but not be understood, even by what are considered very bright people.
Click to expand...
Funny, I was telling my husband what you wrote here and before I could even say that you looked at it as 58% are caused by people who do eat breakfast, He said the exact same thing that you did. He isn't an Aspie but came to the same conclusion before I even told him the whole thing.
 
Fade2black said:
Like most Aspies, I'm a pattern thinker. On a recent review of statistical data, a study came up written by a well-renowned Ph.D. about morning rush hour traffic, patterns and accidents with the hypothesis concluding that there would be fewer accidents and better flowing traffic if all drivers simply ate breakfast.

In a nutshell, it the undisputable scientific evidence showed that 42% of rush-hour accidents are caused by people who didn't eat breakfast. The rest of the scholarly paper was laying out different examples of accidents caused by people who didn't eat breakfast and the cost to society and human life. The conclusion was drivers must eat breakfast to save lives and reduce the expenditure of services and tax dollars.

I see something totally different. I see that 58% of accidents are caused by people who DO eat breakfast. And so the fact is, the Ph.D. who wrote the paper was entirely wrong in his hypothesis. What is even more disturbing; is that I've explained this, in detail, yet this is beyond the comprehension of nearly everyone I explain it to. And, beyond the Ph.D. who wrote the paper.

My point is simply how frustrating it is to see something so clearly, and for me to document, explain and show proof in the simplest terms, but not be understood, even by what are considered very bright people.
Click to expand...

There's a saying in Germany: "Traue niemals einer Statistik, die du nicht selber gefälscht hast."
(Never trust statistics you have not forged yourself)
 
Aneka said:
There's a saying in Germany: "Traue niemals einer Statistik, die du nicht selber gefälscht hast."
(Never trust statistics you have not forged yourself)
Click to expand...

That is awesome. The common phrase in America is "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
 
I agree, based on what you wrote, but I would like to see the original study. I want to see if "have breakfast" and "didn't have breakfast" were the only options. If they are, then these scientists did indeed get their facts backwards. It also means that they haven't really found anything useful, because 42%-58% is awfully close to 50%-50%, as in "Whether you have breakfast or not doesn't significantly affect your chances of being in an accident."
 
Nervous Rex said:
I agree, based on what you wrote, but I would like to see the original study. I want to see if "have breakfast" and "didn't have breakfast" were the only options. If they are, then these scientists did indeed get their facts backwards. It also means that they haven't really found anything useful, because 42%-58% is awfully close to 50%-50%, as in "Whether you have breakfast or not doesn't significantly affect your chances of being in an accident."
Click to expand...
That would depend on how many people are eating breakfast vs not. If only 2% of people of people are not eating breakfast yet causing 42% of accidents the numbers are compelling.
 
Also, due to other variables, there could be say 75% of those 42% who don't eat breakfast but cause accidents who drive better on an empty stomach, so the accidents could potentially get worse if they eat breakfast, whereas perhaps 85% of the 58% who do eat breakfast and cause accidents ought to eat much less to assist their driving better. So overall, much less breakfast seems necessary!

How much breakfast do the researchers eat? I think we could be looking at researcher bias here....
 
I think it could be the fact that many people who skip breakfast do it because they're running late - which points to lack of sleep or not planning ahead. It may not be that eating breakfast makes you safer on the road - it's that having the life management and organizational skills to go to bed on time and get up on time allows you to have breakfast and also makes you safer on the road.
 
Another factor could be alcohol levels. Just because you've slept 6-8 hours doesn't mean it's out the system completely. Likewise any other drugs, recreational or medical.

Then there's sleep factors. Or voiding rates. Fat to muscle mass. Metabolism. So many variables here.
 
VAW said:
Funny, I was telling my husband what you wrote here and before I could even say that you looked at it as 58% are caused by people who do eat breakfast, He said the exact same thing that you did. He isn't an Aspie but came to the same conclusion before I even told him the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I did the same thing as soon as I finished reading the 42% sentence.
 
Could there be a third factor such as eating breakfast while getting in the accident that could hypothetically account for some percentage of that 58%. Now I am genuinely curious.
 
The study came from within my division of the United Nations when I was posted in SE Asia in which I had to approve before it went to publication. I didn't approve the study results because they were indeed, flawed. So no, I am not going to post an unapproved UN report to be scrutinized in an attempt to prove me wrong. Sorry.
 
Fade2black said:
I am not going to post an unapproved UN report to be scrutinized in an attempt to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I did find this study that documents cognitive failures resulting from skipping breakfast: Breakfast and Snacks: Associations with Cognitive Failures, Minor Injuries, Accidents and Stress. It's the best working theory for a cause-and-effect relationship between skipping breakfast and traffic accidents that I've seen.

But I can't find anything on the study you mention. Without the original study, I can't tell whether your argument is valid or just a straw man attack.

I'm not interested in proving anyone right or wrong. I am interested in facts, in real science, and in learning a bit more about how things work in the real world. I would be very interested in reading the original study and discussing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom