Conniving buggers

Hi, all. Today I shall feature 3 examples of nasty half-truths which I gleaned from newspaper articles. Now, it may not be that our local newspaper is trying to con us on a regular basis as some articles they feature are adapted from other media sources around the world. But case in point: the "dumb following the dumber following the dumberer following......" syndrome is very apparent in the world even though we're so much more intelligent nowadays.

Warning: long ranty post ahead!

***

1. Article on how mothers who eat more at time of conception have higher probabilities of conceiving boys

- Researched by: a joint effort between the University of Exeter and Oxford University in England

- Credibility: published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

- Research essentials: Researchers asked 740 pregnant, first-time mothers who did not know the sex of their baby about their eating habits before and during the early stages of their pregnancies. The women were then split into groups according to how many calories they consumed around the time their babies were conceived.

- Bottomline of research: The study found that 56 per cent of the women in the group with the highest caloric intake at conception had boys, compared to 45 per cent in the group with the lowest energy intake.

I SAY: What kind of bullshit are you guys trying to promote? Not only do you waste precious taxpayers' money which goes into funding (Oxford leh) you also eat up our precious rice. No wonder price of food is going up. Wasted on useless people like these!!

In the first place, any rookie Biology student knows that the sex of your baby depends on whether the sperm provides the "X" or "Y" chromosome, which, unless you're trying to imply that eating more at time of conception makes the lady's egg preferential to sperms with the "Y" chromosome, it's totally not possible to control the sex of your child. By means of a simple genetic cross diagram (Punnett square) which I sketched using the Paint software:

(For those not in the know, the man gives "XY" chromosomes and the woman gives "XX" chromosomes, from which only one each is taken from each sex to form the blastocyst for the embryo.)

We see from above diagram that according to Mendelian genetics (the basis and the Big Daddy of all genetics), the probability of getting a boy or girl is 50% each. God is fair, c'mon...

Secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, the study states that "56 per cent of the women in the group with the highest caloric intake at conception had boys, compared to 45 per cent in the group with the lowest energy intake". Now, if you compare the difference in percentages - 11%, that seems like quite a big number (think: 11% increase in your $3k paycheck is an additional $330!). BUT, how many readers notice that the difference was calculated between the 2 extremes: "highest caloric intake" versus "lowest energy intake"? Please, don't try to con me by using synonyms (caloric vs. energy). Now if you go draw a graph and extrapolate your findings, you'll realise that the average percentage of women who had baby boys is

- drumrollllll -

50%, dammit.

(I know you anal ones will say hey, 56% + 45% divided by 2 = 50.5% so if you eat more at time of conception you have 0.5% higher chances of getting a baby boy. To which I will say, please bear in mind that 45% vs 56% are rounded-off figures, asshole.)

MY BOTTOMLINE: Please, ladies, the good Lord is fair, so don't go stuffing your faces just so you can use that as an excuse to "get a baby boy". It don't work that way; you'll just get fat and spend more on postnatal slimming treatments. Quality over quantity: nutrition is always much more important. Moreover, "what man proposes, God disposes."

But I do believe younger mothers have higher chances of conceiving boys. Substantial information will come another time...

(Article was featured in 14 May's issue of Mind Your Body. To read the article from another source, visit here.)

*

2. Article on SMU graduates' fat paychecks

I apologise, but I don't have an excerpt of this article (didn't read this article but it was published some day this month), and this half-truth was also not discovered by myself but a Mr Chu Singfat, whom I salute for being as vigilant as I am in spotting the twisting of facts.

Basically Mr Chu says:

"Singapore Management University reports that last year's graduates' average starting pay was $3,040. The top 20% got $5,600 on average. This implies that the remaining 80% got an average starting pay of about $2,400. This is just about the $2,350 starting salary for graduates with a pass degree entering the civil service."

MY BOTTOMLINE: SMU, please don't cheat our money and feelings by playing with facts like this.

~ For those wondering how the calculations work out, thanks to yifan who pointed out to me the simple algebra of it all...

let Z be the average pay of the lower 80% of graduates (total of 860 graduates - from SMU's website)

total pool of money involved = 860 graduates x $3,040 = $2,614,400

top 20% of graduates = 172 graduates; other 80% = 688 graduates

therefore $2,614,400 = 172 x $5,600 + 688Z

=> Z = $2,400 ~

*

3. Article on our local newspaper's James Bond mission to check if local front-line staff's English and service standards are up to par

("It's mostly service with a smile - and good English too" -- The Straits Times "Home" section, 26 May 2008)

- Research: A Straits Times check of 101 outlets in two popular shopping centres with regards to English proficiency, friendliness, speed and product knowledge.

- Bottomline: "Only 12 of 101 front-line staff put to the test can't speak English well" (by xy's calculations, that's 12%, which sounds like a really small value, but...)

I SAY: Another article with small facts and figures hidden in the mass of words which displaces the small 12% which most people assume is the correct figure. Since the main point of contention that led to this survey is that "retailers do not think English-language lessons are needed for front-line staff" (with respect to foreign workers), I shall only focus on the English-standard part of the 'research'.

What's not in bold and font size 20 alongside with the 12% thing is that "78 Singaporeans and 28 foreigners were surveyed". Ah-ha. So in the first place the proportion of locals to foreigners surveyed is totally out of whack. Secondly, only "5 Singaporeans fared below par on (the English aspect)".

By way of simple calculations,

number of foreigners surveyed with terrible English = 23 - 5 = 18 foreigners

This means that 18 out of 23 foreigners surveyed had atrocious English. In other words, that's a WHOPPING 78.26%!!

MY BOTTOMLINE: See lah, trying to con me again. Singaporean's English not all that jia lat one, ok!

***

Disclaimer: The above-stated personal opinions are that of a regular newspaper reader who feels that media-reporting should be done responsibly and objectively so please do not sue me.