#259: Dateline Data

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Analytics Power Hour – Episode #259: "Dateline Data"

Release Date: November 26, 2024
Hosts: Michael Helbling, Moe Kiss, Tim Wilson, Val Kroll, and Julie Hoyer

---

Overview

In episode #259 titled "Dateline Data," the hosts of The Analytics Power Hour delve into the critical examination of how data is presented in media headlines. Inspired by the frequent discrepancies between headline claims and the underlying data, the hosts embark on an experiment to dissect various headlines, analyze their validity, and uncover the nuances often lost in translation. The episode emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing data representations to foster better understanding and responsible reporting.

---

1. The Most Streamed TV Shows Are Almost Entirely Reruns

Discussion Highlights: The hosts explore a headline claiming that reruns dominate the streaming landscape. They dissect the ambiguities surrounding the definition of "reruns" and the lack of specificity regarding streaming platforms.

Notable Quotes:

• Tim Wilson [03:01]: "Cry headlines, headlines, headlines. Just give me the headline."
• Moe Kiss [03:50]: "The headline is the most streamed TV shows are almost entirely reruns. It feels like most of the content is rerun content."

Key Insights:

• Definition Ambiguity: The term "reruns" lacks a clear definition, leading to confusion about whether it refers to syndicated shows, repeated seasons, or entirely old content.
• Platform Variation: Different streaming services have varying content libraries, making it difficult to generalize across the board.
• Examples Discussed: NCIS was identified as a potential example, highlighting how long-running shows can skew data interpretations.

---

2. Nearly 5% of Americans Don't Have a Bank Account per Latest 2021 Data

Discussion Highlights: The hosts analyze the accuracy and context behind the statistic that 5% of Americans remain unbanked. They debate the underlying socioeconomic factors contributing to this figure.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Helbling [02:36]: "Everybody, go vote. And I was like, this is coming out at the end of the month, dummy."
• Julie Hoyer [13:38]: "This is an increase or a decrease in people who are living so close to the edge."

Key Insights:

• Contextual Importance: Understanding who comprises the unbanked population is crucial—often, low-income individuals relying on cash transactions.
• Data Limitations: The headline presents a statistic without delving into the reasons behind it, such as trust issues with financial institutions or accessibility challenges.
• Analytical Angle: Emphasizes the need to look beyond numbers to comprehend the real-life implications and causes.

---

3. More Teen Girls Smoke Marijuana Than Boys, Now Study Shows

Discussion Highlights: This headline raises questions about gender disparities in marijuana usage among teens. The hosts critique the study's methodology and the headline's implications.

Notable Quotes:

• Val Kroll [21:29]: "Why don't women use artificial intelligence?"
• Julie Hoyer [16:58]: "It's a pretty long analysis to parse the time frames and data."

Key Insights:

• Study Design Flaws: The original research was a meta-analysis not specifically aimed at gender gaps in AI usage or marijuana consumption.
• Cherry-Picked Data: Headlines often oversimplify or selectively present data, ignoring broader trends and variables.
• Responsible Reporting: Highlights the necessity for nuanced reporting that accurately reflects study intentions and findings.

---

4. Why Don't Women Use Artificial Intelligence?

Discussion Highlights: The hosts tackle a provocative headline questioning women's engagement with artificial intelligence, scrutinizing the underlying research and its misrepresentation.

Notable Quotes:

• Val Kroll [24:40]: "Global Evidence on Gender Gaps and Generative AI was a meta-analysis of 13 different studies."
• Julie Hoyer [25:35]: "It's a horribly irresponsible headline."

Key Insights:

• Misleading Implications: The headline suggests a blanket statement without considering the complexities of AI adoption across genders.
• Research Limitations: The referenced study covered various countries and contexts, making broad generalizations inappropriate.
• Critical Thinking: Encourages listeners to question headlines and seek comprehensive understanding before forming opinions.

---

5. The Order in Which You Acquire Diseases Could Affect Your Life Expectancy

Discussion Highlights: A headline claims that the sequence of disease acquisition impacts lifespan. The hosts evaluate the study's focus on specific conditions and its broader implications.

Notable Quotes:

• Mo Kiss [30:37]: "Why they chose congestive heart failure and psychosis, specifically, remains unclear."
• Julie Hoyer [34:05]: "Sample size concerns and potential biases challenge the validity of the conclusions."

Key Insights:

• Selective Focus: The study examined a limited set of diseases, raising questions about its comprehensiveness.
• Methodological Concerns: Issues like sample size, potential biases, and lack of methodological transparency undermine the study's reliability.
• Practical Implications: While the research suggests possible patterns, the applicability to broader populations remains uncertain.

---

6. Thousands of Cleaning Supplies May Contain Substances Linked to Health Problems

Discussion Highlights: Addressing a headline about harmful chemicals in cleaning products, the hosts discuss the balance between caution and practicality.

Notable Quotes:

• Tim Wilson [43:03]: "Thousands of cleaning supplies may contain substances linked to health problems."
• Julie Hoyer [44:37]: "It's easy to state something obvious without considering the broader context."

Key Insights:

• Alarmist Tone: The headline incites fear without providing actionable or nuanced information.
• Balanced View: While cautioning against harmful substances, the article advises not to abandon cleaning practices altogether.
• Marketing Parallels: Highlights how such headlines can reflect marketing dilemmas, presenting one side of a trade-off.

---

7. Too Much Running Is Tied to Shorter Lifespan

Discussion Highlights: A headline positing that excessive running may reduce lifespan sparks debate over study validity and sample size.

Notable Quotes:

• Val Kroll [52:26]: "The study had a low sample size, making its conclusions unreliable."
• Julie Hoyer [51:49]: "Survivorship bias and sampling errors cast doubt on the findings."

Key Insights:

• Statistical Limitations: The study's small sample size, especially in high-running groups, compromises its conclusions.
• Misinterpretation Risks: Such headlines can mislead the public by overstating findings without adequate evidence.
• Analytical Rigor: Emphasizes the importance of robust study designs to support credible claims.

---

8. Google Delays Third-Party Cookie Deprecation Likely Until 2025

Discussion Highlights: Briefly touched upon, the hosts express skepticism about the headline's assertiveness regarding Google's timeline for third-party cookie deprecation.

Notable Quotes:

• Val Kroll [50:04]: "The headline sounds kind of unbelievable."

Key Insights:

• Credibility Concerns: The combination of assertive phrasing and ambiguous language diminishes the headline's reliability.
• Industry Context: Reflects the ongoing complexities and uncertainties in tech industry practices.

---

Conclusion

Throughout "Dateline Data," the hosts of The Analytics Power Hour underscore the critical need for meticulous data analysis and responsible reporting. By dissecting various headlines, they reveal how easily data can be misconstrued or sensationalized, often stripping away essential context and nuance. The episode serves as a valuable reminder for both analysts and consumers to approach data with a discerning eye, advocate for transparency, and prioritize accuracy over catchy headlines.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Critical Evaluation: Always assess the methodology and context behind data claims presented in headlines.
• Avoiding Misrepresentation: Be wary of headlines that oversimplify or sensationalize findings without adequate evidence.
• Encouraging Transparency: Advocate for clear definitions and comprehensive reporting to foster a more informed public discourse.

Notable Quotes Recap:

• Val Kroll [21:29]: "Why don't women use artificial intelligence?"
• Julie Hoyer [25:35]: "It's a horribly irresponsible headline."
• Mo Kiss [30:37]: "Why they chose congestive heart failure and psychosis, specifically, remains unclear."

Listeners are encouraged to apply these analytical approaches to their own consumption of media headlines, ensuring a more informed and skeptical engagement with data-driven claims.

Transcript

[Michael Helbling]

Welcome to the Analytics Power Hour. Analytics topics covered conversationally and sometimes with explicit language.

[Tim Wilson]

Hey, everybody, welcome. It's the Analytics Power Hour. And this is episode 259. You know, how many times have we seen news articles that make data claims? And once you actually read the article, well, it seems either just like different or overblown or maybe didn't really come to the same conclusion. And as analysts, you know, we have to come up with representations for our data that summarize key points and takeaways in an easy to understand way. And so, like, connecting those two things, we have to, a lot of times give people the headlines and are we doing a good job of it? So we thought we'd do a little experiment. We could sharpen our skills by taking a look at some actual headlines, do a little commentary and analysis, and see what we come up with. So in our best impression of Nicholas Fane, if, you know, you know. Here we go. Do you actually know who that is, Tim?

[Julie Hoyer]

No, of course not.

[Tim Wilson]

It was a friend.

[Val Kroll]

It was a polite laugh.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, okay. It was a polite. I thought it was a knowing. I thought it was a knowing laugh. So I was excited.

[Mo]

No.

[Julie Hoyer]

Oh, no, no.

[Tim Wilson]

I'll explain it. Nicholas Fane was a Fred Armisen character on SNL who would come on Weekend Update and read news article headlines, but he never actually read them. And I love that sketch anyways. But let me introduce my co host today, Val Kroll. How is the Windy City?

[Val Kroll]

It is actually really windy today, which is not even why it's called the Windy City. But it is quite windy here. So happy to be here.

[Tim Wilson]

It does get windy. Maybe we'll see an article or two about that. And Julie Hoyer. How's Cleveland?

[Mo]

Oh, Cleveland's Cleveland.

[Tim Wilson]

I was gonna say, how's the mistake by the lake? But then I was like, they've. They're passed.

[Mo]

You know, they. They won a recent game. They did. I guess we can't call them that this week.

[Tim Wilson]

Yes, that's right. We won't say no more. And Tim Wilson, how is Columbus?

[Julie Hoyer]

Also kind of windy today.

[Tim Wilson]

I don't have anything snappy for Columbus. It's a great title, though. And I'm Michael Helbling holding down the south here in Atlanta, Everybody. Howdy Doody. All right, let's jump into it. I was about to say, everybody, go vote. And I was like, this is coming out at the end of the month, dummy.

[Val Kroll]

So, yeah, Timida strangled you.

[Mo]

Howdy Doody.

[Val Kroll]

So that's where you landed.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah. Everybody, is that your verbal Pick it.

[Mo]

Was the build up this silent. Now I have to say something.

[Julie Hoyer]

So wrong.

[Tim Wilson]

All right.

[Val Kroll]

Okay. Actually.

[Tim Wilson]

Cry headlines, headlines, headlines. Just give me the headline. That's what I say to everybody who's giving me data. Just give me the headlines. Cuz I'm ill tempered and short with everyone. Okay, how do we want to kick this off? We can just maybe go around. Let's share one and we can. We can talk about it. I think it'll be. It'll be kind of fun.

[Mo]

Sounds good.

[Tim Wilson]

Who wants to start?

[Mo]

So mine actually. I feel like this was one of the early ones that I saw that kind of helped inspire this episode. So I'm excited to get all of your reactions to this. Okay. The headline is the most streamed TV shows are almost entirely reruns.

[Tim Wilson]

Interesting.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yeah, I mean, it feels like most. There's a lot more of rerun content than there is new content. So the population that you're drawing from is such that. That would likely be true.

[Mo]

Yeah.

[Julie Hoyer]

Right.

[Mo]

Yeah. I mean, my first thought was literally, duh.

[Tim Wilson]

Well, but I mean, not necessarily because depending on the platform and things like that, like, you know, streaming platforms are always coming out with new content as well, so they're trying to make it popular. But that's interesting on a certain level that it's mostly reruns that people watch.

[Val Kroll]

Was there a specific platform, Julie, that it was referring to or just like in general?

[Mo]

So it was interesting. So this actually came through from a newsletter that I subscribe to, Tim does too, but it was on Instagram. So they post like these headlines. So it comes through with this picture. And I'm not going to give away the TV show because I'm going to make you guys guess what it is. And that's the headline that it says. And then I swipe through this to the next. No, and I swipe through to the next picture. And it didn't give any other detail of like specific streaming platform. Val, to your point, it just had a Bloomberg's like ranked by Nielsen's weekly top 10. That's the only other detail it had is like the title of the data and even the actual comments down below. It didn't give much more of like streaming services. They got this from where the data came from.

[Val Kroll]

Like if it was all like the ME TV that's on in your dentist's office.

[Mo]

Right, Right. Does that count? Yeah. Yeah. So it said minutes spent streaming shows while ranked in Nielsen's weekly top 10. And then the bar chart is by billions of minutes.

[Tim Wilson]

Oh my.

[Mo]

That's Quite a scale.

[Val Kroll]

That's quite an ad.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yes, well, but there is kind of a. I mean, like, Netflix has made news periodically as to what. What data they release and what data they don't. And Nielsen has kind of. It's productly in the news as to what they can and they can't track. So there is a, There is a. There's a part of that where that sounds like it's being stated as, like here's an absolute fact without sourcing. But it's really. There are a bunch of assumptions based on what data they have under the. The hood. So it's like, it's a punchy headline that doesn't necessarily answer the, you know, what the services are. What. You know, if you're excluding a service that skews very far away from original content or, you know, then that would be. But there was. Suits had its. Had a. Had a moment where it was kind of up there. Friends has kind of historically been up there, so.

[Mo]

Oh, yeah. Any other guesses?

[Val Kroll]

Yeah, it's gotta be like. Yeah, some nostalgia itch like some of the ones that Tim was just talking about. I feel like, I don't know. The Office was a good guess, Michael. I can't think of something better than that.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah.

[Julie Hoyer]

And no pregnant pauses are great on a, On a pod podcast.

[Mo]

Editing. Editing.

[Val Kroll]

We'll fix that in post, Tim.

[Mo]

All right. It is ncis.

[Julie Hoyer]

There you go.

[Tim Wilson]

What?

[Val Kroll]

Oh, I mean, there's like, there's like 10 different NCIS.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah. See, people watch that show.

[Julie Hoyer]

But now I definitely question because that's if they were ranking it. That is a. That is with a time frame and a subset because I absolutely guarantee that Friends and suits in the Office, depending on how. How you slice it. So that wasn't in the headline though. They were just. But the, the inventory of content when you've got. Yeah. So many NCIS that have run for a decade.

[Tim Wilson]

Question for you, Julie. Did they talk about the comparison between the reruns versus new content in terms of streaming minutes?

[Mo]

Yeah. So let me. I'll break it down. What I was able to find. It was actually kind of hard to track this down. It ended up. They just said per Bloomberg at the end of it. And so luckily I was able to find the real article on Bloomberg. It was kind of buried halfway down as like part of a larger topic. And what I found was that they said they were examining three years of Nielsen data tracking the most watched shows every week, different streaming services, share of total TV viewing every month. So they were saying that this is one of the first times they looked at, like, streaming service data and like, I guess, non streaming service data. But they were looking at Nielsen top 10 every month for the. It says examining three years is what I'm taking. But to your point, they never said that. They were kind of like controlling for this idea of obviously reruns have been out longer, but not 10.

[Julie Hoyer]

What the is a rerun in a streaming? I mean, I watched, right? I watched.

[Mo]

Does it mean I watched it for the first time or that it's like more than a year old? Like, I don't know how they're defining reruns.

[Tim Wilson]

Maybe it's syndicated.

[Val Kroll]

Yeah, syndicated. That's what I was thinking.

[Tim Wilson]

So in other words, production has ceased on the show itself. Well, that's not true because NCIS, aren't they.

[Val Kroll]

Oh, NCIS. They're still like 20 versions now.

[Mo]

So they're a rerun. So they didn't say anything.

[Tim Wilson]

NCIS Poughkeepsie.

[Julie Hoyer]

Does max content wind up going into syndication? Like, when does Game of Thrones become a rerun? Yeah, so that's actually a re. Rerun is literally a.

[Val Kroll]

Well, Game of Thrones. That's not a good example because that was scheduled. Those didn't all come out at once. So isn't it. If. If you're not watching it at the scheduled time it was released, isn't that considered a rerun?

[Mo]

Yeah, like, if I record it and watch it, is that a rerun? No, I mean, they didn't say, though, is it a rerun to me, a rewind to them. I can't even say rerun anymore.

[Julie Hoyer]

We're going to belabor the crap out of this. But yeah, literally a rerun is based on broad is over the air tv that they are rerunning something not at its original date. So I'm back to the like. Like actually defining what a rerun is. I mean, there's the stuff that is obviously Gilligan's island, the Office. Those would. Sure, that's it. Stop production. It was produced years ago. But I do think you get into what is their definition. And we've probably beaten this into the ground.

[Val Kroll]

So who's. What's your favorite NCIS episode? Let's go around the horn.

[Julie Hoyer]

Really Listen to this, though. Oh, you're just trolling me.

[Tim Wilson]

Okay.

[Mo]

Yeah, just trolling. So get this, though. NCIS has. How do they say it? People have spent 11.4 million hours a week streaming NCIS since March of 2021. In other terms, roughly 11.4 million episodes a week. Is what they said that was, like, further down in the article of ncis, supposedly by their measurements.

[Tim Wilson]

I'd like to think that's like 10,000 people with no life at all.

[Val Kroll]

I used to. I used to definitely consume a lot of crime content as research for how I would evade my captor because I'm so convinced that I'm gonna get kidnapped. Because I'm telling you, you handle a narcissist very different than Tim shaking his head than a sociopath. So I learned a lot.

[Tim Wilson]

Great, great content. But mostly for our sister podcast, True Crime with Val.

[Julie Hoyer]

We're eight minutes into our first example.

[Tim Wilson]

True crime situations with val.

[Mo]

All right, so then let's. Let's put an end to this one. Go around the horn. I say it is poorly written and suspicious.

[Val Kroll]

Yeah. Would you agree this myth is busted?

[Julie Hoyer]

I. I give it two stars. Can we change our ratings as Our ratings?

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, I give it four Pinocchios. And yeah, no, I'd say I agree. Like, it's. It's. It lacks a little context. And so what it's trying to communicate to you is sort of getting a little bit lost in the. The shuffle. So that would be the takeaway. I got. It sort of left me with more questions than I. Than answers. It's time to step away from the show for a quick word about Piwick Pro. Tim, tell us about it.

[Julie Hoyer]

Well, Piwick Pro has really exploded in popularity and keeps adding new functionality.

[Tim Wilson]

They sure have. They've got an easy to use interface, a full set of features with capabilities like custom reports, enhanced e commerce tracking, and a customer data platform.

[Julie Hoyer]

We love running Piwick Pro's free plan on the podcast website, but they also have a paid plan that adds scale and some additional features. Yeah.

[Tim Wilson]

Head over to Piwick Pro and check them out for yourself. You can get started with their free plan. That's Piwick Pro. And now let's get back to the show. All right, I'm gonna do one that I think is pretty decent, actually. And this one says nearly 5% of Americans don't have a bank account per latest 2021 data. So that's the headline. And then the story goes on to talk a little bit about, you know, while this is the lowest number of unbanked people since they've tracked that, it still represents about 5 million people in the country who don't have a bank account. So I thought that was actually a pretty good headline. It was not sensational. It was accurately stated what this data said and was pretty straightforward. I don't know Thoughts? Comments?

[Julie Hoyer]

Julie's like, well, the format was.

[Val Kroll]

You mean, like, not the purpose of this episode?

[Tim Wilson]

Oh, well, I've got, I've got others, Val. I've got others.

[Julie Hoyer]

And Julie's like, so read the headline, get the reactions from everyone, and then give your take on it. So. Okay, cool.

[Tim Wilson]

I just went and gave my take on it right away.

[Mo]

He just rolled right into it.

[Tim Wilson]

Jumped the gun there.

[Mo]

Yeah, I was gonna say, I mean, it sounds pretty solid. I have no reason to question.

[Val Kroll]

I mean, if I trust you, Michael.

[Mo]

You said it so convincingly.

[Val Kroll]

Yeah, I guess I. If you asked me like, what percentage of Americans don't have a bank account? I don't know, kind of like, you know, how many windows are in the city of Chicago kind of question. Like, I don't know how I would have backed into, like, what my gut would have said around that.

[Mo]

Yeah.

[Val Kroll]

But I'd be interested to, to look at some of the source of how they track that. Like, the absence of something being present is always harder to track. So I'd be interested to look at the source of data.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yeah, I mean, the tough one.

[Mo]

It's so funny.

[Tim Wilson]

It's like a decent headline and we're like, yeah, okay, okay. Only do bad ones.

[Mo]

I learned something. I don't know, it was like a new fact.

[Julie Hoyer]

Well, I mean, I suspect that that is, that is, that is very, very low income people who are kind of paycheck to paycheck and those are the ones who use the cash. And then it's the people who just don't trust, which is probably a much, much smaller percentage. So I could see that if the article, like something more useful that might be a. This is, this is an increase or a decrease in people who are living so close to the edge. That bank account, like, they're, they're living in the red and they're paying to live in the red because they're having to use paycheck cashing services or whatever. So to Val's point, the fact that it's just a, it's just a number that's not necessarily anchored on something to not belabor it. Maybe I'll counter this with one that I'll, I'll just choose to segue to one that is, that is more. The headline is more teen girls smoke marijuana than boys now study shows. And we're going to go ahead and give the sub heading was. Overall, the percentage of teens reporting marijuana use fell to 15.8% in 2021 from 23% in 2011. And this is an article that came out in the fall of 2024. Reactions headline, more teen girls smoke weed than boys. Sub headline. The overall percentage in a 10 year period from 2021 to 2011. From 2011 to 2021 fell from 23% to 15.8% and it was self reported.

[Mo]

Did I hear you say that in the headline?

[Julie Hoyer]

It's not in the headline. The. It's actually from an annual school based self administered online survey of U.S. middle and high school students conducted from January to May of this year. Which is another odd bit of phrasing, but I'll withhold my judgment.

[Mo]

So they're asking them 10 years ago if they did.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yeah, I think, well, it's an annual survey so I think they do it every year. Their phrasing referred to this year, but it's reporting results of 2021 compared to 2011. And this was news that made the rounds in 2024.

[Val Kroll]

I love that you guys are like parsing the time frames and data in my head. I'm like, oh, I'm sure it's just because there's more people using edibles. They're just smoking it less. Like that's where my head went. That's so funny.

[Julie Hoyer]

No, that's. I mean I've got, I got a lot of thoughts on this one.

[Tim Wilson]

So I think teen boys just lie to survey people. Obviously. Yeah. I mean right away like the compare and contrast is sort of like raises my eyebrow a little bit. But yeah, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Julie Hoyer]

I mean one, it seems like the lead would be that marijuana use dropped by 6%. Yeah. On top of that, Val's point, the consumption. So I went to vaping versus, I mean edibles, another way to consume marijuana. Vaping, I'm pretty sure over that span of time has like skyrocketed and then has all sorts of bumpy things. The fact that they're, they're talking about this being a survey, like I know organizations close their books at the end of a quarter and then it takes them a few weeks to report results. I know there are macroeconomic indicators that it can take a few months to compile the data. If this is a fucking online survey, surely there's not a three year lag and that they're saying, oh, we just got the numbers in for. Because it actually says so and it says conducted from January to May of this year. But it's also, they're picking 2021. I don't know if you guys remember 2020, 2021 kind of fucked up period. So 2021, in theory they were back. But I'm like surveying middle school and high school students in 2021 like that, that is, that is an atypical period. So it's putting, it's stating these things. I mean it does say, a study says so. It's not necessarily stating it as fact. It does give precision of a, of a tenth of a percent in the, in the subheading. But it just overall I was like this, the study may be it's a nice longitudinal study. Like if you do this every year then but you cherry picked two points 10 years apart. I'm like, oh, if you plotted that by year, is it like super noisy? And you said, what are the points where there was a big spike up and a big spike down? And then report on that? Like that seemed like it totally could be happening big time. So I just, the more that I thought about it, the more. And the fact is the difference between the, the girls and boys, like wasn't, wasn't that dramatic. It just. I'm like, that seems like the, the question I least have about this. And then everything within the article was just making me be like, yeah, this feels like absolute cherry picking of data and not considering external factors like different consumption methods. A pandemic that went with weird back to school stuff. So it, yeah, you can't, can't smoke.

[Val Kroll]

Weed in the school bathroom. If your school is your home. It's a little harder.

[Julie Hoyer]

I mean, they said 2020. If they'd done 2020, I would have been like, come on. But 2021, I was like, that was. I mean schools were back in. But I mean, I know from separates, I mean there was huge massive swaths of kids like never, never showed back up. I'm like, huh. I would wonder if the people who once they had that year of remote schooling didn't return, if maybe those would be in environments that would skew more heavily to smoking weed. Maybe. I mean that's a, that's a theory I have. No, I don't have evidence on that. It just seemed like a very, very surface level kind of making statements. So definitely there's my thoughts on that one. I think that means. Val, you're up.

[Val Kroll]

Okay, well, I'm gonna try my best to stay focused on this one. All right, so here is a headline that was. Why Don't Women use artificial Intelligence?

[Mo]

Oh.

[Tim Wilson]

Oh, wow.

[Mo]

Yeah, that's just, just blanket statement. Don't use it at all.

[Val Kroll]

Like, I'm pretty sure we could attest.

[Mo]

That at least I Myself have.

[Tim Wilson]

Why don't girls play video games? Like, yeah, that's a terrible. I mean, wow, interesting. I'm. Without knowing anything about the article, I would be like, what kind of question is that?

[Val Kroll]

It was published in the Economist.

[Tim Wilson]

Oh, well, so that's.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yeah, that's Fly by Night Rag. Yeah, that's.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, that's hard. Okay, so what were they trying to say there?

[Mo]

I know it feels clickbaity too, because they're like, just pose the question hoping you'll click and read instead of telling.

[Julie Hoyer]

So I feel like. I feel like I saw some posts that I'm assuming were grounded in this, that the underlying was that some attempt to measure the rate and it was showing that a lower percentage of women were using AI tools than men. And so this was a gross generalization. I have issues with some of the commentary on the. That as well, but because, yeah, it's clearly women like you just classified half of the population and said they don't do something. So it's. It's factually cannot be right. And it definitely looks like clickbait, which seems weird for the Economist, but.

[Val Kroll]

Agreed. Any other thoughts before I share some. Some of my.

[Mo]

Give it to us.

[Val Kroll]

Well, so I actually went to find the paper that was being referenced, and the paper is called Global Evidence on Gender Gaps and Generative AI. And so there's like Harvard Business School, Berkeley, Stanford, all got their names all over this. And basically it was a meta analysis of 13 different studies. And none of these studies were aimed at looking at the gender gap between adoption. It just happened to be one of the different factors that was captured along the very. I mean, they studied. Some of them were in Kenya, some of them were in Spain. They were literally all over the globe about AI adoption. And so none of them were trying to demystify this. This was just a meta analysis of them. But 26 countries were included. I mean, even. We don't even have to scroll down too far before they say. But There were exceptions. BCG had a study showing that women are 3% more likely to use AI than men in a sample of nearly 7,000 US tech employees. And so then it has like all these concessions. So it's basically saying. And a lot of these, we were able to find this even though that wasn't the intention of the research, meaning that it wasn't even necessarily controlled for. And we also found some that weren't conveniently aligned with this headline. But we're going to. We're going to roll with that one anyway.

[Mo]

I'm just gonna Stick with the storyline. Wow, that's pretty bland.

[Tim Wilson]

Stay away from that A.I. ladies, please. Yeah, don't even touch.

[Julie Hoyer]

And there was actually, well, another one you caught in there was like it says why don't women use AI which or why don't women use artificial intelligence? And then the study immediately went to generative AI, which is absolutely a small subset, not to mention defining use.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah.

[Val Kroll]

Well, there was another sentiment in here which I really loved that was asking, you know, why wouldn't women want to use generative AI to advise? Because it can help them automate tasks to help manage work and family time demands, which I loved.

[Julie Hoyer]

Wow. So. So some of the people meta analysis were from the dudes from the 1950s.

[Mo]

Yeah.

[Val Kroll]

Apparently men have figured out all the use cases for how to handle the burdens of their home.

[Julie Hoyer]

Listen, a little lady, you can have a look up the recipe for a perfect martini for me when I get home from work because I, it's been a hard day doing my prompt engineering.

[Tim Wilson]

I feel like most of or any commentary at this point point is very dangerous for me.

[Val Kroll]

It was, I mean there were some points in there just, it was trying to make the point that like just giving people access to AI isn't going to get them to adopt the technology which like I think we all could have come to that conclusion before. But a couple of these studies were just about, you know, WhatsApp for Business released an AI function like a, a feature within the tool and fewer women happened to click on it. I'm like, so this is about, we're painting some brush broad strokes about our ability to adopt or use our leverage software just because we didn't happen to click on a new feature. So anyways, it seemed like quite the jump.

[Julie Hoyer]

But that one, that one does seem like the applicability to, I mean you broaden it to where, oh, there's just something collected on as a matter of course on the various ways we do lead forms. And then somebody gets asked to do, you know, maybe a junior analyst or maybe even just, you know, a marketer says oh, I'm going to do this comparison and oh look, this is 55% and this is 44% and they, they jump to like the, the massive thing that is missing there is that you, you kind of hit it on at the very beginning that because that wasn't the research question being asked and now you're trying to repurpose this data, it just like immediately should trigger a million red flags and then by the time it gets filtered through to the headline Writer. Like, it's just stating something like it's not a rhetorical question. It's just like a, it's a, it's a, it's stating, it's implying a fact that is so far from a fact and it's so vague that it's like horribly irresponsible.

[Mo]

Yeah, and just to belabor the point a little bit, Tim, but it is interesting drawing the parallels of like when people have an actual designed experiment, study methodology, whatever, and then your stakeholders ask you to like get other insights than the main one it was made to get. And people are so like, you know, loose about the idea of oh well, if I design the study, then everything about it in comparison, like is fair game. And we know that's not true. But I do think people obviously, obviously fall into that, that trap which, which.

[Julie Hoyer]

Seems like, I mean that would be the sort of thing that if, if there was. It seems like things happen around gender certainly. I think stuff happens with kids or different backgrounds or different things where in the social sciences they are used to saying we should field research to answer this. And if we field a well designed study, it does not have to be horribly cost pro, but can give us a pretty solid answer without doing necessarily like a field experiment. Although that sort of research is only going to give you the what is happening, not the why, which is maybe the other part is like this is asking for causality. And I'm sure there's like speculative garbage in the, in the article, but those are all like one, you're starting with a premise that is so flawed and then you're trying to find the speculate on the causality about something that who the hell knows if it's true or not. Wow. Okay, well, cool triggered. Well done.

[Tim Wilson]

It seems like. Yeah, definitely. The article could have had a much different headline and been very useful. Like is there a gender gap in generative AI usage or something like that and just ask the question. That's very intriguing question and I think a lot of people would want to dig in and understand that better. But it's sort of like, why don't women use AI? It's like, God damn it. Built it just for them.

[Val Kroll]

Like, come on, help them manage their households.

[Tim Wilson]

Oh man, that's a good one.

[Val Kroll]

All right, I'm gonna pass the stick back to Julie.

[Mo]

All right, me. Okay, next headline. The order in which you acquire diseases could affect your life expectancy. New research.

[Val Kroll]

Well, I'll make sure that I acquire them in the right order.

[Tim Wilson]

After reading this, it's always the last One you acquire that kills you, you know.

[Mo]

Oh, damn it. Got me, you know.

[Tim Wilson]

Should have got this one first. Darn it. Yeah, just like the thing you're looking for is always in the last place you look. Oh my gosh. Sorry. That's funny.

[Julie Hoyer]

What is the underlying idea? I mean, yeah, the earlier you get a really serious life threatening the disease, the more likely it is to kill you. Right order.

[Val Kroll]

Or maybe it's like how like you can get chickenpox when you're younger and like the virus is always in you and that's what shingles is and things like that. So like if you didn't get chickenpox, so it's not like you're going to get shingles first when you're six. So the order bit of that is what's interesting to me because like, I mean there's like you, there's so much now about like customized.

[Julie Hoyer]

You should get adult onset diabetes before you're 12.

[Val Kroll]

Yeah, we'll have so much time to try to handle that.

[Tim Wilson]

I'm just, I, the thing going through my head right now is multi disease attribution. You know, it's like which disease was influential and last touch. First touch.

[Mo]

Yeah. Attribution models for disease.

[Tim Wilson]

Multi touch, disease attribution. Oh man.

[Mo]

So yeah, yeah, you all mirrored my, my first reaction pretty well. So I reading this article, it gives a lot more detail of why I think our reactions are valid. So it started off saying pretty much just in general, it said like using statistical models, we examined order and timing of developing psychosis, diabetes and congestive heart failure in patients of the same age, sex and area deprivation and the related impact on their life expectancy. So that was like the first explanation piece I could find. First thing I thought was why those three things and only those three things. And they didn't really mention those three things in the headline. I'm like that's a really interesting pick. But yeah, those sound pretty serious. So not just diseases like ends up. They were only looking at, how do they phrase it? They were only looking at multiple long term conditions. So not, not just diseases, long term conditions. And the only three they looked at were the three I listed. So then they ended up looking at it did. They did say that they had a pretty like robust data set. But even so. And it was like over 20 years and whatnot. But even so they ended up looking at the different combinations of just having one, just having two, having all three and then in what order as well. And it was kind of crazy. They said oh, and they didn't mention the exact method either. I did try to find that and they never listed that anywhere. But pretty much the results were saying that congestive heart failure is the one that cuts your life expectancy the most. Which I don't know if I'm surprised by that. If the list of three options, that's.

[Tim Wilson]

A headline right there.

[Mo]

And they said, yeah, so if you get that one third that cuts the most life off of your, your expectancy. Yeah, yeah, the last one, that's what I thought was like it's always the last one that gets you. And the most acute, I would say maybe sounded like congestive heart failure.

[Julie Hoyer]

Psychosis. Diabetes and diabetes.

[Mo]

Yeah. The one surprising result that they did outline was that you have a longer life expectancy if you have diabetes and psychosis rather than just psychosis. And they hypothesized that it's because if you have diabetes you're seeing healthcare more regularly, which might actually help you better manage it. So I was like, oh, that is actually really interesting. Never would have thought that. But the, you know, the big bad. Congestive. Congestive heart failure.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, that was something counter intuitively if you are have psychosis, you should just eat a lot of sugar so that you get diabetes because then you would. So anyway, I don't mean to make light of some of these illnesses. That's not what I mean to do.

[Mo]

But yeah, but it was interesting. They talked a lot about the order and in the end they were saying, oh, it doesn't matter the order, but they did find more about the combination. But I still am just wondering why they chose the heart failure piece and like that combination of three. And by the end of the article, what I did find, not reassuring but like a, a better thing to focus on was the fact that they were saying this method that they analyze this data with could be applied to different diseases, different combinations of things and it could be really helpful for different programming and knowing if someone gets one disorder, should you be out on. Be on the lookout for another specifically. And I was like, oh, that seems way more helpful than like calling out necessarily the top three. And then again I thought the headline was a little misleading once I got into it.

[Julie Hoyer]

So that they've got, if you take the sequencing out of it and you take the combinations of each single, each had two, each had three. I also like what is the scale? Like what is the, what is the actual broader occurrence in the world? Like if you get it down to where. Yeah, this tiny little sliver, it's really really bad. But it's a tiny little sliver of people. Like, I just. There's part of me wonders if there is some sampling error risk. Like, finding ones who only had one was presumably easier than finding people who had two, which was easier than finding people who had three. And then you put the sequencing for two or three. That seems like you inherently would wind up with pretty small numbers that you're then trying to draw inferences about the whole population. And, yeah, somewhere it feels like there might be some oddly, survivorship bias risk, but I can't quite frame what it is. Like, if you had a couple of these and that meant that you actually were so much more likely to die that you actually were never, like, eligible to be found in the study because they were only looking at people who were 18 to 45 or something. I don't. I don't know. But when you're trying to look at those combinations of factors and you're dealing with a sample, things get pretty dicey because you want to make sure your sample is actually reflective of the population.

[Tim Wilson]

Well, then what happened to cancer and Alzheimer's and.

[Mo]

Yeah, like, did they look at people that had other ones? That's a good point, too.

[Tim Wilson]

It seems like they just sort of like, well, we've got data for these three, so we'll just do this.

[Val Kroll]

Well, and that's what it felt like to me. Like, after 20 years, we have to find something to report on. Like, there's got to be a headline in here somewhere.

[Tim Wilson]

As an analyst, I think we've all sort of felt that pain before. We've got to report something back.

[Mo]

There's all this data.

[Tim Wilson]

Your marketing campaign has cancer. Yeah. That's a good one.

[Julie Hoyer]

Corporate popcorn.

[Mo]

Yeah, we'll go with Tim.

[Julie Hoyer]

Oh, okay. So this one may be a little bit of a cheat because I found it because it had come out that somebody had, like, busted it. It's not quite a headline, but a few years ago, it really made the rounds on. In the media, and it was became a Netflix. NETFLIX documentary called live to 100 secrets of the Blue Zones. You familiar with that?

[Tim Wilson]

I'm literally planning to move to Loma Linda, California, which is a blue zone.

[Julie Hoyer]

Is it a blue zone? I thought the blue zones were all like.

[Tim Wilson]

No, there's one like, in the middle of.

[Mo]

There is in California.

[Julie Hoyer]

There's one in the. Okay, thoughts on the. On that?

[Val Kroll]

Well, it wasn't a headline, and I don't know. I'm not familiar. So no thoughts.

[Julie Hoyer]

I mean, so the blue zones were places that people would live wildly longer. And then. So then it became a whole. Like, well, let's figure out what's unique about those different countries and regions, and therefore we will find the secret to longevity.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, I mean, I thought they were real, so I just started eating a lot more olive oil and feta cheese.

[Val Kroll]

Mediterranean diet.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, just kalamata olives, that sort of thing.

[Mo]

Yeah. I mean, I think it goes a little bit to what we were just talking. Like, my first reaction is, I want to believe it's true as well, because you're like, how are large numbers of each population that they looked at, like, living that long, but at the same time, like, I don't know, how do you. How do you really control for factors to. To prove some of the things they're observing are the cause of it? Like, I don't know. Or is it. How do they know it's not a combination of a bunch of things? Some of the things you're not aware of, you know, and it's just the one thing they kind of focus in on the show. Like, the walking. I think it was an Italian village where the walking. They, like, really honed in on walking. And I think in Japan, it was similar. It was like sitting down, getting up even at 100, like, they sit on the floor and obviously some of their diet there. But I guess those are my first questions I would have.

[Julie Hoyer]

So no one has gone to. Maybe it's just bad data. So there's this guy named Justin Newman, won an IG Nobel this year because he started digging into what those blue zones were, and he posited that, oh, a lot of these are in these regions where, like, record keeping is shitty. So there are lots of people who show up as being old. And then if you're getting any sort of check because, you know, grandpa lives with you and you're getting some from your government and they die, like, do you want to report that they're gone or do you want that to keep coming in? So it's actually like late age and death. Record keeping is. Is actually pretty hard. Like. And people will kind of keep getting a pension check. So basically a confounding variable that it's actually really tough to track when people die. Having said that, I mean, so people went straight to applying, you know, causation. What are the. What are the things. Is it locking, walking long distances, eating this? Is it having familial connections? I kind of wonder. Even the. This Justin Newman's, like, study, I think, raised like, oh, these are, like, some good questions. People Just accept it as fact. And he has some serious questions about the data. I'm not 100% sure that his counter is entirely valid either. I think a lot of things that were found, people are like, yeah, yeah, if you move more, you live longer. So there was a degree of, there were causal factors, but it was one of those where you could find enough things that explain and then you could, you could kind of tell a story that started to completely make sense. But I'm not sure I. I'm not sure I entirely buy into the debunking. But I also think it is pretty funny that entire, like companies and books have been written and they just like accepted as fact. And I think he did find some pretty definitive records of saying, yeah, people aren't living to be that old. That's just, you're just looking at the government recordkeeping in some of these countries that's, it's just not that great. And they're fine with it. So there you go.

[Mo]

I was not expecting that one.

[Val Kroll]

I thought it was some like, death becomes her kind of situation.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, what a downer. Oh, geez.

[Julie Hoyer]

Michael, you got another one?

[Tim Wilson]

I do. All right, here we go. This time I'll wait and get reactions. Here we go.

[Julie Hoyer]

Do it right this time.

[Tim Wilson]

Here's the headline. Thousands of cleaning supplies may contain substances linked to health problems.

[Mo]

Oh yeah, yeah. They're literally full of chemicals.

[Val Kroll]

The poison control, like Mr. Yuck stickers over everything under my kitchen cabinet.

[Tim Wilson]

Thousands.

[Val Kroll]

I mean, I was planning on drinking all of it. So I'm really thankful that this headline's really cut me off at the pass.

[Mo]

Could be harmful. Who would have thought?

[Val Kroll]

Wow, where was that published?

[Tim Wilson]

That was from cnn. So, yeah, while looking for source material, I was like, USA Today and CNN are good areas for me to wander around to try to find bad headlines. So yeah, I feel like that one is sort of like, no, duh, like if, if you presented a headline that like that in a business meeting, people be like, uh huh. Yeah. It's sort of like, you know, the more sales we make, the more revenue we get. You know, it's like, wow, you're never invited to this meeting ever again. Yeah. So, you know, try to avoid that. But it's interesting because in the article they basically were like, yeah, these are dangerous and you should be careful with them. But don't go throwing away all your cleaning supplies because that's bad for the environment to waste them. Just read the labels and don't not.

[Julie Hoyer]

Clean your house because yeah, no, you should clean more.

[Tim Wilson]

It's a weird piece.

[Mo]

Spray those chemicals everywhere.

[Tim Wilson]

It's like, so what am I supposed to do? I'm just supposed to freak out about how the chemicals might be hurting me but don't do anything about it. And then read all the labels very carefully and then try to educate yourself on the top 500 terrible chemicals that might be in a cleaning product. It's like really there's a website they talk about that have like a safe you use. Like I think the EPA has like a this is safe to use type of registry or something that people can apply to. So if you don't know, you can look that up on your phone in the grocery store.

[Julie Hoyer]

But I mean it does, it does bring out, I mean it's funny to like map that to a marketing context. Like there, there are trade offs. Like do you want to not clean stuff? Do you want to clean stuff? But it's like takes forever. Cause it's like it's a horribly tedious because it's totally organic and it only does 70% good of a job. Or do you want to clean it like really effectively really quickly? Like those are, they're different benefits. So there are trade offs. And it is very easy to say let's paint the, you know, state something that is fairly obvious. But I can imagine in a, in a business context where you, you find something that is short term, you know, short term oriented, doesn't actually consider the counter side of it. And it's kind of hoped like oh, I found this thing. But that's just a slice of the consideration.

[Mo]

But also I guess that's a. Now that I'm thinking about it a little more, digesting the initial shock of the headline is I think also. Yeah, in what way is it dangerous? Like obviously any chemical in a potent enough form isn't good for you. But like is it. Don't spray it on your tongue, don't inhale the mist, don't touch it 10 minutes after, don't touch it at all. Like what, in what form or in what contact is it really? Like this is dangerous for you, but it would be good to use on a counter or something really dirty, right? And then you wipe it away and 10 minutes later it's like done its job and it's neutralized. Like, I don't know, you start to get a lot of follow up questions.

[Tim Wilson]

Thousands of cleaning supplies, Julie, and they may be dangerous. So maybe just watch out, watch out.

[Val Kroll]

I mean as someone who grew up in a household that every Sunday smelled like bleach, comet pine Sol and Pledge, when my husband, my daughter was born, went through a phase of like, well, let's clean everything with. With what is it, red wine vinegar or white vinegar?

[Mo]

I was like, oh, yeah, Hard pass.

[Val Kroll]

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. So bring on the harsh cleaning supplies. I'll deal with those health problems because they're going to be in the right sequence and I'll be fine.

[Mo]

That's right.

[Tim Wilson]

But don't you also have to not mix the wrong ones together, too? The article did talk about that. So. Right.

[Julie Hoyer]

Bleach and ammonia. Right. Makes the. And that was because that was so bad. When I was in college, we would. We had to clean the grease traps in the kitchen like, twice a year. And so we would take them, we would go outside because we were going to be responsible. We're like, wow, if you put those together and they're, like, brutally toxic, like, that probably cleans the. Out of the grease. So we would definitely take two, like, big, big, big garbage buckets, put hot water into it, and then just go all in with the ammonia and bleach and kind of stand back. We had gas masks, I think, too. But, yeah, we're outside. We're fine. So.

[Val Kroll]

Oh, my gosh.

[Tim Wilson]

Explain what he might have been, folks.

[Val Kroll]

Here he is reading headlines on a podcast.

[Julie Hoyer]

That's right.

[Tim Wilson]

Wow. I mean, I'll admit to being curious about it, but I never was like, hey, let's do that. Because, like, I always got the warning from my parents, like, never mix these two chemicals.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yeah, we were definitely more of the, like, oh, come on, you're gonna die.

[Tim Wilson]

If you mix these two chemicals.

[Julie Hoyer]

We're like, okay. Yeah. I mean, the fact that we had gas masks to clean the kitchen twice a year, I mean, there was lots of other stuff going on that was.

[Val Kroll]

Yeah, I had them at the ready.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yeah, they were good ones. They were full on army surplus.

[Tim Wilson]

I think the other thing that stands out is, like, this is a needlessly. Sort of, like, a scary headline, too. It's sort of like our whole website is broken and no one can use it. Right? It's like, okay, that's not helpful at all. Right? It's.

[Val Kroll]

You're.

[Tim Wilson]

You're not really broken.

[Val Kroll]

Link in the. In the footer. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Julie Hoyer]

Okay, specifics or shout out to Ezekiel. Yes. The social link posts on our website still do not link to the specific episode post. Can't figure that out. But it's a known bug. A known bug. One of many known bugs on our website.

[Tim Wilson]

Still less bugs than GA4. All right, all right, Val. Do you have another one? We can sneak another one in?

[Val Kroll]

Sure. So when I read this one, it just felt very suspicious. I'll say. So this one came out earlier this year. It says Google delays third party cookie deprecation likely until 2025. So I'll get your thoughts.

[Julie Hoyer]

I always wanted to talk about third party cookies.

[Tim Wilson]

I thought they were. They gave up on deleting those all together.

[Val Kroll]

That's why that headline sounds kind of unbelievable, doesn't it?

[Tim Wilson]

Oh, okay. So I was like, how was I misinformed?

[Mo]

Well, it sounds like assertive in the beginning and then it throws in the likely and it kind of threw me.

[Val Kroll]

Yeah, yeah, that was a throwaway. Okay, sorry. We don't have to pretend like that was real.

[Mo]

Okay.

[Val Kroll]

So this is actually an older one. And I loved using this in presentations back in the day. Trying to explain some of the. The benefits of being thorough. But the headline is too much running is tied to shorter lifespan studies find. Have you guys come across this one?

[Tim Wilson]

Crap. What? Always the last mile you run that kills you.

[Julie Hoyer]

Boy, if you run it with congestive hard fish failure following psychosis.

[Mo]

Not in a good place, too much running.

[Val Kroll]

And there's been lots of articles about this one. So there's another that's on Runner's World. This one is running too much will kill you.

[Tim Wilson]

Having read that article a long time ago, I have really put that into practice, I'll tell you that right now. Avoid it.

[Mo]

I just avoid it.

[Tim Wilson]

I plan to live for a very long time.

[Julie Hoyer]

This seems like the ones that are like you can be. You can over hydrate. Like you know, drinking too much while exercising can cause a problem. But I'm trying to. This should be super obvious to me as to why this is factually accurate but absolute garbage and I'm missing it.

[Val Kroll]

So it's more obvious than you think it was. So the study was low sample sizes first of all. And it was broken and into three groups of low running or no running. Moderate high. And then there was the age. And so the. The group that were older and running at a high amount, whatever the mileage was like 20 plus miles per week or something. Was only three people in it. And over the duration of this 10 year study they died. So it was like mortality rate. They all died. But it was the oldest group, only three people. So yeah, it was just this. It was.

[Tim Wilson]

I wonder if there's anything wrong with our causal model. No, I don't think so.

[Val Kroll]

Crazy.

[Mo]

Well, yeah, because my first question was gonna be like how are they defining too Much in the study. Like, yeah, how did they even look at. Yeah, how much are you running? And then control for all those other things? And then we're gonna follow. I mean, how long was this study to know that your lifespan was cut short? Who did they control against? Like, that's crazy.

[Val Kroll]

All the questions. But if you look like for like, you know, it didn't take too much work for me to put my hands on this one. It was like, too much running will kill you. And I said like circa 2014. And it was like, you'll find so many articles of people like taking this and running with it, no pun intended, or breaking down, like, why this is like such bad research and not a good steward of research practices or data headlines.

[Tim Wilson]

But there is a historical context here because the guy who ran the very first marathon apparently collapsed and died right afterwards. Right, right.

[Julie Hoyer]

That's too much.

[Tim Wilson]

Fittipedes or whatever. I don't know.

[Julie Hoyer]

So the whole distance running movement is actually just a population control design. They're like, this is a good way to.

[Tim Wilson]

It's basically a suicide culture.

[Val Kroll]

Heaven's gate.

[Tim Wilson]

Did we learn nothing from the ancient Greeks?

[Julie Hoyer]

Like, wow.

[Tim Wilson]

Oh, terrible. That's good. All right, well, you, as you've been listening, have probably thought of a few headlines you've seen over the years that have been kind of like, what's going on here with this data? If you want to share a couple, we would love to hear from you. You can reach out to us at LinkedIn or on the Measure Slack chat group or also by email at contactnalyticshourio and we'd love to hear from you. And I think, Julie, Val, Tim, thanks. Thanks for doing this. It's been a lot of fun and it's kind of fun to kind of dig in and kind of look at data from another perspective.

[Julie Hoyer]

Fun for us.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, it's just a little mix up. We did a switch up. There's probably a study out there that says listening to too many podcasts is gonna kill you also. But until that study comes out, we're gonna keep doing podcasts. So I don't know. Any closing thoughts, anybody?

[Val Kroll]

Check your sources.

[Tim Wilson]

Check your sources.

[Mo]

Question everything.

[Julie Hoyer]

I mean, I will. I will say the. I thought this was gonna be a lot easier to find stuff than it turned out to be. So that actually was. I agree with somewhat glimmer of a positive, like, yeah, oh, like I think there is a lot of these big media has. They have data journalists. They have been burned in the past. They have become laughing stocks for one reason. Or another we should call out that we explicitly said we weren't doing any kind of, you know, political agenda oriented stuff. So putting those aside, reasonably responsible journalism may put out stuff. Like the ones that we found that were bad were kind of like, yeah, they just. They needed some filler and they found something and stated something silly. But this wasn't. I feel like this would have been. Was much more egregious 10 or 15 years ago. And there is an increase in responsibility and sophistication inside publications in journalism.

[Tim Wilson]

I took the other thing, Tim. I was like, they're not even bothering to share good data anymore. That's what I was. I was looking for that article. Like, you could find, like, studies, like, study shows drinking coffee increases your lifespan. And then another one is like, studies show drinking coffee reduces your lifespan. It's like, all right, who's writing these articles?

[Julie Hoyer]

Well, I mean, it seems like it used to be that some of these media outlets would just, like, conduct their own research, like just completely irresponsibly go out and ask, you know, 20 people on the street, and they would. They would, you know, state their. Their conclusion. Now they're generally trying to cite studies. They do caveat them. They do talk to somebody who can speak knowledgeably about their limitations. Headlines are tough.

[Mo]

Yeah. But hopefully this inspires you for the internal headlines you get at work. Maybe question those a little more.

[Julie Hoyer]

Look at Julie bringing it home. Like, this is. This is why you listen to this whole thing.

[Tim Wilson]

Full circle moment.

[Mo]

You made it this far.

[Val Kroll]

Keep putting up with this till the end.

[Tim Wilson]

99% of podcast hosts on the Analytics Power Hour think you should take care, Take it. Pay more attention to your titles.

[Mo]

Just. My arm doesn't agree.

[Julie Hoyer]

Right.

[Mo]

Just that point, you know, that 1%.

[Tim Wilson]

Well, Mo wasn't here today, so we don't know what her perspective is. Might be totally different.

[Val Kroll]

She's only 1% out of five.

[Julie Hoyer]

Yikes.

[Val Kroll]

Dig into that data.

[Tim Wilson]

Well, frankly, I just need to understand whether she's using AI or not, to be really honest with you, before we can really, you know. All right, listen, this has been fun. It's been a great time hanging out, talking about this stuff. And of course, no show would be complete without a huge thank you to Josh Crowhurst, our producer. Does all the stuff behind the scenes to make the show possible. And you can catch us on what I said before. And also We've got a YouTube channel now, so check that out. Subscribe. Do the things that you do on YouTube. It's a good place to see the show happen, too. All right, well, I think I speak for all my co hosts here, Val, Julie, and Tim, when I say no matter what the headline is, keep analyzing.

[Michael Helbling]

Thanks for listening. Let's keep the conversation going with your comments, suggestions, and questions. Questions on Twitter @analyticshour, on the web at analyticshour.IO, our LinkedIn group and the MeasuredChat Slack group. Music for the podcast by Josh Crowhurst.

[Julie Hoyer]

So smart guys wanted to fit in, so they made up a term called analytics. Analytics don't work.

[Michael Helbling]

Do the analytics say go for it no matter who's going for it. So if you and I were on the field, the analytics say go forth. It's the stupidest, laziest, lamest thing I've ever heard. For reasoning in competition.

[Tim Wilson]

All right, goes five count. We'll get this thing rolling. Of course, this is right when my dogs decide it's time to bark and stuff. I don't know if you can hear that or not.

[Mo]

It's squirrel o'clock.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, exactly. They're ridiculous. Try to do a podcast. We can just maybe go around. Let's cheer one and we can. We can talk about it. I think it'll be. It'll be kind of fun.

[Mo]

Sounds good.

[Tim Wilson]

Who wants to start?

[Julie Hoyer]

Just run it exactly like we planned and scripted it out.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah.

[Julie Hoyer]

Just stick to the script.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, but I'm trying to give the impression of spontaneity. Tim.

[Julie Hoyer]

Oh.

[Mo]

It'S quite a fragile balance.

[Tim Wilson]

Six out of seven podcast hosts agree. Three.

[Val Kroll]

That Howdy Doody is definitely how you want to start an episode.

[Mo]

A fan favorite.

[Tim Wilson]

It's a way to start and.

[Val Kroll]

Not wrong.

[Mo]

No, you're not.

[Julie Hoyer]

Maybe that's what we do, though. Whoever does it gets to pick that. It's like what. When you pass the talking stick. The talking stick.

[Mo]

What do they call it? Corporate popcorn. That's why I yelled popcorn. And then I said, michael, corporate. You've never heard that? I've been on scary. Let's do popcorn.

[Tim Wilson]

I thought this is what we bought from the Boy Scouts every Christmas.

[Julie Hoyer]

So it's corporate popcorn. That's what winds up in the office. Because you take it in.

[Tim Wilson]

Corporate sale. Three different flavors. Everybody help yourself.

[Val Kroll]

He does.

[Julie Hoyer]

Rock flag. And eagles live 53% longer than squirrels.

[Tim Wilson]

It's because the squirrels are getting killed by the eagles.

[Julie Hoyer]

By the eagles. Yeah. And I have hasty Googling. That is absolute garbage number.

[Mo]

So you googled it. That's more responsible. I thought you really just made it up.

[Julie Hoyer]

It was essentially what? Turns out there are lots of different types of eagles. Lots of different types of squirrels and lots of broad ranges for all of those. So I eventually said, yeah, I'll make it up.

[Mo]

Tim's so responsible, he couldn't even make it up for a rock flag.

[Val Kroll]

Meta analysis.

[Tim Wilson]

Yeah, a meta analysis. A distribution of eagles versus squirrels on a histogram like.

[Julie Hoyer]

I'll get back to you on that.

[Tim Wilson]

I think we've got a super weak time.