A Critical Thinker’s Perspective on Gun Control and Violence (Part 2)

As stated in Part 1 of this article, my first step in making an informed decision on the subject was to uncover as many facts as possible. Although one would think this would be easy, reality proved otherwise, as most of the Google results I looked at were clearly biased, taking positions on either side of the debate, then presenting facts to support that position. Such confirmation bias is not surprising; it is human nature. That's how our brains evolved, and a hallmark of solid, critical thought is the ability to minimize these biases. The preexisting beliefs I outlined in Part 1 shouldn't drive what evidence I choose to look at, or how I interpret that evidence.

One particularly useful source of information is the article Gun nation: Inside America's gun-carry culture published March, 2012 in the Christian Science Monitor, a paper known for its original reporting and fairly well-balanced perspective. From this article we learn several facts, including: 1) Gun-rights and gun ownership have expanded significantly over the past 10 to 20 years. For example, the number of concealed-weapon license holders in the US has gone from a few hundred thousand ten years ago to more than six million today; 2) Violent crime and intentional homicide have declined precipitously over the same time period. We are actually living in the most non-violent period in US history; 3) Because of this, not a single scholar in the field will claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime; and 4) Recent Supreme Court decisions and the Obama administration's own policies have actually buttressed the right of Americans to own weapons; not hindered them. I found all of these facts non-intuitive, and they are exactly the opposite of what most people believe.

Another relatively objective source of information is an interview with Harvard psychology professor and author Steven Pinker, whose book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined also turns conventional wisdom on its head. He points out that the rate of violent crime and intentional homicide in the US are about half of what they were twenty years ago despite increasing gun ownership and increased popularity of violent video games. He tells us that the rate of mass murder incidents has not increased since the 1920s, contrary to popular belief which is driven in part by improvements in communication and instantaneous reporting of news from any part of the world. In short, more people than ever go about their normal lives never being affected by a crime or violence. Finally, he cautions that our discussion about violence and murder should be focused on the 16,000 people who are murdered per year (45 per day) in the US that we never hear about, as opposed to the relatively few who are murdered in rampage killings like Newtown, as such incidents are still so rare that they are nearly impossible to predict and determine the cause.

The final part of my discovery process was compiling data and doing my own analysis. The sources above focus on the US, but it is a big world, and it is meaningful to look at homicide rates by country across a number of independent variables. I chose four variables which the literature and public commonly talk about as potential root causes of violent crime and homicide. They are:

1. Rate of gun ownership (G). Yes, people in other countries do own guns, and murders do occur.

2. Annual video game sales per person (V).

3. Income inequality (I) defined as the average annual income for the wealthiest 20% divided by the average annual income of the poorest 20%, or R/P 20%.

4. Percentage of the population that are males between the ages of 18 and 24 (M), as this group is more likely to commit murder than any other.

I considered including the use of assault-style weapons, but data was not readily available and even in the US, I learned that these weapons are used in a small percentage of all murders committed (2% to 7%, depending on the source).

Comparison nations are those with standards of living and lifestyles most similar to the United States; particularly Canada, most European nations, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. Data, shown in Table 1, comes from a variety of sources (noted below). Although this data is not rigorously vetted and may not be authoritative, I am assuming it is reasonably accurate for my purposes.

The data was analyzed using multivariate regression after normalizing each variable from 0 to 1 so that resultant coefficients could be directly compared. Prior to analysis, the distribution of each variable was qualitatively looked at, and all appeared reasonably normal except for the two highlighted values (gun ownership in the US, and video game sales in South Korea). Because of this, the analysis was performed both with and without the US and South Korea. Results without the US and South Korea are shown in Table 2. Coefficients for G and V are very small and have insignificant t-Stats, meaning the rate of gun ownership or video game sales has no measurable relationship to the homicide rate. Coefficients for I and M are larger, and they have marginal t-Stats, meaning income inequality and percent of the population that is young and male may explain some of the murder rate, but not much of it. The adjusted R-squared value of 0.22 is consistent with this conclusion, indicating that the 4 variables explain just 22% of the overall homicide rate across all countries. Inversely, almost 80% of the homicide is rate explained by something other than these 4 variables (or perhaps some combinations of these).

When we add the US and South Korea to the analysis (Table 3), the results become more complicated. Note that the adjusted R-squared value increases to 0.54, meaning the 4 variables now explain up to 54% of the overall homicide rate across countries. Coefficients for I and M also increase considerably, while t-Stats remain marginal. This means that the effect of income inequality and a young, male population may be larger than we previously thought, but we can't definitively draw that conclusion because there's either too much country-by-country variation or we don't have a large enough sample (or both). Finally, coefficients for G and V also become moderate with marginal t-Stats; just like I and M. Therefore our conclusion about the effect of these variables is the same as I and M, but there is probably even more uncertainty with G and V since the addition if just two data points completely changes the result.

So what does all this mean? It means that the problem is really complicated. What is not complicated is the reality that the homicide rate in the US is 2 to 7 times higher than other peer countries. We are much more likely to kill somebody to solve a problem. This is a fact. But although everybody has an opinion, nobody really knows why. The evidence deflates some arguments, simply says "maybe" on others, and even contradicts itself sometimes. It is easy to see how people on both sides of the guns and violence debate can cherry-pick data to support their position.

My analysis is admittedly overly-simplistic. There are many other independent variables that could be included such as unemployment, drug trafficking and other illegal activity, and gang violence. Gun ownership does not mean the same thing in all countries, as there is large variability in what types of weapons can be purchased, who can purchase them, and when and where they can be used. But simple doesn't make it invalid. Especially considering the whole point of this article was to provide an example of how to minimize confirmation bias, table preexisting beliefs, and use critical thinking skills to base conclusions on facts and evidence.

So what are my conclusions?

1. There simply is not a strong relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership or video games. Violent crime and murder rates have declined for 20 years, while gun rights and gun ownership have expanded, and violent video game playing has come of age. Data analysis across most countries results in effects that are small and statistically insignificant.

2. If there is a relationship between gun ownership and murder rates, it is uniquely American. There is something in the fabric of our country or our cultural psyche that drives us toward confrontation, violence, and guns to solve problems. Although violent crime has declined, our murder rate is still much higher than any other developed country. The mere presence of guns may not be the root cause, but whatever emotions, fears, or anxieties drive us to buy so many guns may be the same ones that drive us to so many killings.

3. Given those facts, I do not support contraction of gun rights on most weapons, as it would have no affect on crime rates. However, I would support increased regulation or bans on certain types of high-capacity assault weapons, with complete understanding that it would have little impact on overall crime. It would make a large percent of the American population feel safer, and that is a valid perspective on our civil rights. I.e. One person's right not to live in fear trumps another's right to say certain things, or to own certain types of weapons. (Interestingly, this same "makes me feel safer" argument is used by many gun advocates to justify concealed carrying of guns.)

4. We need to accept that gun ownership is something fairly unique to our country, just like 3 car garages and Sunday football, and begin to change the dialogue from for or against to safe and appropriate use. The NRA would probably be happy to lead this charge, and this would be the start of shifting the American psyche. Look at how quickly attitudes toward unprotected sex and smoking have changed in just a couple of decades, and I believe a similar shift could occur regarding the use of guns to solve problems.

5. As part of number 4, I would support state-level licensing to own and buy guns, with graduated requirements based on the lethal capacity of the gun. The process and education required to buy and use a large caliber weapon should be at least as rigorous as the one required to get a commercial driver's license. Both help ensure responsible behavior and public safety. This restricts a person's right to bear arms no more than studying and taking a driver's test restricts a person's right to drive.

6. Finally, I agree with Steven Pinker that the discussion on this topic needs to revolve on the 45 people who are murdered each day, every day; not on the rare, Newtown-like massacres. The individual murders are the ones that add up to 16,000 killed per year and the highest murder-rate in the developed world. As hard as it is to acknowledge, mass killings are unpredictable, random events that are nearly impossible to prevent. (However, I might change my mind on this one if 2011 ends up being the start of a trend, as opposed to a typical, random clustering of unlikely events.)

I encourage everybody to take some time, try to put your preexisting beliefs aside, seek objective or well-balanced information, and draw your own conclusions. They may be the same as mine, or different, but in either case they will be informed and provide the foundation for a real, productive discussion. That's what critical thinking is all about.

Data Sources:
Intentional Homicide Rate: Wikipedia list of countries by intentional homicide rate for most recent year available. Most numbers are 2010, with some 2008 and 2009.
Gun Ownership: Wikipedia number of guns per capita by country for 2007.
Annual Video Game Sales: Most data from Video Game Sales Wiki for 2008, with other sources used to fill in gaps.
Income Inequality: Wikipedia list of countries by income equality using R/P 20% from United Nations Development Program, 2008.
% of Population Male 18-24: Most data from Nation Master for 2010, with other sources used to fill in gaps.

A Critical Thinker’s Perspective on Gun Control and Violence (Part 1)

The tragedy in Newtown has ignited a national debate about gun control, with calls to ban assault weapons making their way back into the headlines, and the NRAs proposal to put armed guards in schools getting widely ridiculed. Like most Americans, especially those with young children, those events of ten days ago have weighed on me heavily and prompted me to seriously think about the issues at hand. I deliberated about writing this blog entry at all (so as not to agitate my three readers) but I am tentatively doing so because I think a critical thinker’s perspective might be valuable in this emotion-filled discussion.

As background, I grew up in a rural area where hunting was popular and gun ownership was commonplace. I’ve fired guns and hunted myself a few times (although it’s been years), and I have many friends and acquaintances who own guns of all types, and who use them for sport shooting and hunting. I support citizens’ rights to own guns, and like many people I believe the gun control debate boils down to where we as a society want to draw the line between the types of arms that are reasonable for citizens to “keep and bear,” and the types of arms that are not. At one extreme are small caliber guns that hold just a few rounds and take some time to reload, and at the other extreme are weapons clearly designed for the battlefield. I actually tend to draw my line closer to the later because I think the second amendment is rooted in our Founding Father's belief that this right was needed as a check against tyranny; not as a means of ensuring people could always hunt and skeet shoot. Our British rulers attempted to disarm the colonists through various means, and these acts were viewed as an attempt to enslave the people. Although the very concept of US citizens rising up to overthrow a tyrannical government may sound absurd today, it is only because of the place and time we live in. This great American experiment is a mere 236 years old... a nanosecond in the history of humanity. Our short lives, memories, and experiences offer no help in predicting how things will be in 100 or 200 years, and history has numerous examples of democracies that have gone bad.

Now that I've made myself sound like a member of the Colorado militia, I will add that I do not own a gun and never intend to. I have not taught my two children to shoot, and I probably never will. One of my neighbors has a carry permit and holsters a handgun every waking moment, even when doing yard work, and this makes me uncomfortable. I wonder what's going on his head that makes him want to constantly protect himself in our crime-free neighborhood, and what would happen if my kids somehow crossed him when he was in bad mood? Although I think the NRA's missions of defending the second amendment and providing gun-safety training and education are reasonable, I'm annoyed by what I perceive as their overly simplistic interpretation of the constitution and black and white positions. Our right to bear arms, as with all of our other rights, is not absolute… it ends when it endangers the rights of others. I think the mantra "guns don't kill people; people kill people" is ridiculous and couldn't be retired soon enough. By this logic automobiles and opioids don't kill people either, so there is no need for speed limits or controlled substances. I'm also very troubled by the cold reality that a gun brought into a home for self-defense is twenty times more likely to be used in a suicide, accidental death, or intentional murder; almost always by a young male.

So it should be pretty clear that I'm actually quite conflicted on the subjects of gun violence and gun control, and the massacre in Connecticut initially pushed me more toward the left. Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines seem like common sense. It just feels right. Right? Well, to a critical thinker, “common sense” is a code word for “opinion.” We all have different versions of common sense. Therefore I decided to uncover as many facts on the subject as possible, and to make as informed of a decision as possible based on the evidence. What I discovered is that this subject is as complex as they come, with endless dimensions to analyze and hard data available that can support or refute any side of any position. Some of my own opinions were supported, while others were dismantled. I’ll attempt to analyze this data and draw some conclusions in Part 2.

Newspapers Can Rethink Their Business and Survive (A Product Managers View)

An insightful feature in this week's Christian Science Monitor about the ongoing struggles of the newspaper business made wonder if many people in this business understand the discipline of product management. If they did, the substance of these stories might be a little different.

We all know that the printed newspaper industry is in peril. Revenue has been drastically declining because classified and help-wanted ads have moved to the internet. Subscriptions continue to decline as more people get their news from free, online sources. According to many in the industry, this is the decline of modern civilization as we are losing sources of original reporting. There may be a kernel of truth to this, but in my opinion we are not losing too much.

The reality is that most people who subscribed to newspapers didn't actually read most of the newspaper anyway. They scanned the headlines, checked sports scores, and maybe read the Dave Barry column and letters to the editor, along with a comic or two. This type of short attention span news consumption was no different than what's happening online now, without the wood pulp. My 3 pound Sunday paper contained 2.5 pounds of mattress ads and 1/2 pound of fluffy special interest stories. And not just this year or last year, but for as long as I can remember! That's why I stopped subscribing; not because my attention span has gotten shorter.

So what's the kernel of truth in the dire prediction? Borrowing a quote from the referenced feature, it's that newspapers have historically provided "local journalism that holds leaders accountable and knits communities together," and they can continue to do so. The subset of people that were interested in this stuff still are; and they're still willing to pay for it. This is where the product management-thinking comes in. Good product managers know how to successfully match the needs of the market with their company's distinctive competencies. The market still wants news, but it has lots of ways to get most of it now... except at the local level. Newspapers have journalists, reporters, and delivery mechanisms that can provide that news, but they remain mostly focused on the wrong things... compiling content from around the world that is available from a thousand other sources.

What if newspapers focused 100% of their decreasing people, resources, revenue, and time on local news and journalism, and delivered it in an electronic-only format? That subset of readers who really care about the journalism would still be willing to pay for this, and although circulation would decline, so would costs. Over time, circulation might actually increase as the "Voice of Springfield" refocused itself on walking the walk, instead of being the voice of the world with 1 page about Springfield. In other words, newspaper companies need to stop thinking about how to prop up their historical business, and start doing what they're good at for the people that are willing to pay for it. If they do that, maybe they have a chance.

Has the Great American Beer Festival Gotten Too Big?

The coming of autumn means cooler temperatures, turning of the leaves, and for craft beer enthusiasts, it means the Great American Beer Festival (GABF). Those of us who live in Denver have the added bonus of the festival being held here every year since its inception in the late eighties. (Technically, I think the first couple were held in Boulder, but I'm splitting hairs.)

GABF is produced by the Brewer's Association (BA). According to BA, the primary purpose of GABF "is to educate the consumer about the quality and diversity in beer-styles and breweries that exist across the United States." Impressively, more than 500 of BA's 1,400 brewery members were in attendance this year, so thumbs up for diversity of beers! On the other hand, with 49,000 attendees opportunities to "educate" the consumer were limited at best.

Tickets to this year's GABF sold out in minutes. Even those of us eligible for the BA members-only  presale were in disbelief how quickly tickets were swiped up, and I was only able to score tickets for the Friday night session... happy hour. Most of the festival floor was shoulder-to-shoulder, and although the organizers did an amazing job of ushering so many people through so quickly, the crowd was just overwhelming.

For serious home brewers, intimacy and the ability to interact with professional brewers has been one of the GABF hallmarks. Because of the crowds, that intimacy and ability was gone this year.  It's nearly impossible to have a conversation with a brewer about aroma-hopping with Simcoe instead of Citra when there are twenty people lined up behind you waiting for a sample of beer. Most breweries are just rushing people through, and that's understandable.

My suggestions for improving GABF in the future are:

1. Hold more BA and AHA members-only events. BA and AHA members are some of the biggest proponents of craft beer. We tell everybody we know about great new beers, beer-styles, hops, and breweries. I think there would be a positive trickle down affect from giving us a little more access without the crowds.

2. Establish an education track in which serious home brewers and craft beer enthusiasts can learn more about brewing, ingredients, and the business of brewing. Sessions could be limited in size and taught by professional brewers or other respected people in the craft beer industry. We would be willing to pay more for such an opportunity.

The size of GABF this year is simply a reflection of the growing popularity of craft beer, and that's good. But in terms of educating the consumer via intimacy and direct interaction with brewers, I think the GABF has gotten too big. Until some new ideas are implemented, like the ones I've suggested above, I'll be skipping next year's GABF and instead going to the smaller and more intimate events and tastings that happen around town in the weeks leading up to the festival.

AirTrain in Vain: Good and Bad Visual Design

BART Light Rail Map: An example of good visual design.

On a recent trip to San Francisco I was confronted with side-by-side examples of excellent and awful visual design.  I needed to get from the airport to downtown San Francisco via the light rail, or BART system. After finding my way to the BART station, the light rail map was exactly what I expected. Like almost all subway and light rail maps today, it's based on the style of Harry Beck's London Underground Tube map. This style is a classic example of elegant and effective visual design. One of the few criticisms is that these maps are not always geographically accurate, but this flaw is typically far outweighed by the fact that such maps are so easy to understand.

However, getting to the BART station was another matter entirely. The signs in the airport terminal directed me to the AirTrain, where I was confronted with a dreadful map. The first thing you notice on this map is all the white space, roads, and terminal buildings. Although the geographical accuracy may be useful to some, it probably does not need to be to scale, as less empty white space would make the stuff of interest much bigger and higher in resolution. The orange and green fill on the buildings serves no purpose whatsoever, except to distract the viewer. It is pure visual noise. Is there a train on this map somewhere? Since I am on a train and would like to know where get off, that would be fitting. Eliminate the colored fill, and place the emphasis on the AirTrain route itself.

AirTrain Map: is there a train in here somewhere?

After I finally figured out that I could access the BART station from the AirTrain, the next problem revealed itself. The train line leaving the BART station is shown in a reddish/ magenta color. Anybody who's done a little research in advance knows they are looking for the yellow line, but there is no yellow line on the map. Must I get on the red line instead? It turns out that the colors on the AirTrain map have nothing to do with the lines on the BART system. I guess somebody just thought red or magenta would like nice with the orange and green terminal buildings.

I confirmed this suspicion with a passerby and had about 10 minutes to kill before the next yellow line train arrived, so I decided to wander around the station and stretch my legs. That's when I came across another AirTrain map even more bewildering than the first one. Note the Zaxxon-style isometric projection of the AirTrain and terminals. Confused? Then just drop your eyes a little to the detailed top views and side view, where you can count the number of steps on each escalator and find the location of the nearest trash can. What is the purpose of this map? My theory is that it was drawn by a first year drafting or architectural student and placed in the station as a prize for getting the highest grade on the project.

Anybody up for a game of Zaxxon?

The entire purpose of visual display of information is to improve understanding beyond what can be conveyed with words. In these examples the BART light rail map does exactly that, while the AirTrain maps fall way short. They may actually create confusion and decrease understanding, which is the antithesis of good visual design. Map making is one of the oldest forms of graphical design, and great examples of professional maps surround us. It's perplexing how the maps for a key transportation link in a major metropolitan area could have missed this.

Product Managers Can Learn From Babies and Toddlers

A recent, wonderful article at fastcompany.com about Fisher-Price made me ask myself, "From a product manager's perspective, are babies and toddlers the ultimate user?" Let me explain. Fisher-Price is an 83 year old company that started out selling painted, wooden blocks for kids to play with. They have managed to stay successful and relevant through a delicate balance of adopting new trends and technology, and sticking to their roots. Among other things, the article describes Fisher-Price’s PlayLab proving ground for new products, where employees simply observe the way babies and parents play.

As product managers we are charged with being the voice of the market and being in tune with what users need and are willing to pay for. To know what potential customers want and will buy, we can simply ask them, but experienced product managers know this only gets you so far. People answer the questions you ask them; not the ones you don't ask them. They often tell you what they think you want to hear. Occasionally they lie. A good facilitator can sometimes break through these barriers and extract the truth, but it gets harder as the products, features, and solutions become more disruptive. This is particularly true for technology products. Potential customers will reliably tell you they prefer the white BMW over the green one, but try asking them about BMW's iDrive system when they've only used old, analog, discrete controls and it's a whole different scenario. Good luck with that.

To outwit our users, we product managers take a different tact. We don't ask them what they want; we watch them. We experience their worlds, understand what frustrates them, and try to gain insight into product gaps that force them to a work-around, substitute, or completely different product. As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot just by watching." Armed with these observations, our development teams will come up with clever ways to address the problems.

This takes us back to Fisher-Price. When the users are babies and toddlers, there is no choice other than simply observing them. No questions to ask, and no answers to lead them to. You're forced to see what makes them tick and what frustrates them in a pure, unfiltered way. Does this make them the ultimate end-user? Perhaps.

Next time you visit a customer for a day-in-the-life-of visit, take a page from Fisher-Price's book: imagine your user in diapers, bring along some Goldfish crackers, and keep your mouth closed.

Presenting Data and Information: A Day with Edward Tufte

Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending Edward Tufte's lecture entitled "Presenting Data and Information" in downtown Denver.  Tufte is a professor at Yale where he teaches courses on statistical evidence and information design.  He's been called the DaVinci of data and graphical information, and one of his books (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information) is widely considered one of the greatest non-fiction works of the 20th century.  For many data geeks like myself, it is a go-to treatise referred to routinely.

Speaking of those books, all four were included in the $380 cost of the lecture, which made the price tag more palatable since they retail for $40 to $50 each.  And they are gorgeous!  Self-published by Tufte, he practices what he preaches and has produced what are truly heirloom quality collectibles.  Everything about these volumes is beautiful: the paper, type-faces, use of color, and printing quality.

So what about the lecture?  For those already familiar with Tufte's work and presentation philosophy, there was nothing new or earth-shattering offered.  The lecture could have been called "the world according to ET in six hours."  His disdain for Powerpoint is well-known, and he did not disappoint in reinforcing this.  Having said that, I truly enjoyed seeing his well-rehearsed and choreographed lecture, and it was nice to hear what he considered the most important take-aways from his four volumes.

My summary of those take-aways is as follows:

1. All problems worth talking about are multi-dimensional.  They shouldn't be presented serially or one-dimensionally, which is what Powerpoint forces us to do.
2. Start the presentation by giving a thorough data-dump on a high-resolution display (i.e. a printed document), and spend the first 15 minutes of the meeting telling people to read it.  For comparison's sake, printed documents have 6 to 7 times the resolution of most computer screens, and still twice the resolution as the latest retina displays.  Your audience isn't stupid.  They routinely read and understand charts and tables with 200 numbers or more in the newspaper, magazines, and internet.
3. Follow that with a summary of the items you wish to highlight and discuss, and open it up for their questions and discussion.  The whole purpose of visually presenting data is to improve understanding, so that's what the focus of the meeting should be.
4. You don't need to be a designer.  Find some good non-fiction reporting sources that you like, and model your documents after those.  Just copy the fonts, color-schemes, spacing, etc.  Sources that Tufte repeatedly referred to were the journal of Nature, espn.com, plos.org, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
5. Show your sources, and make your data available to anybody who wants it.

Would I pay $380 to see Tufte again?  Probably not.  But this is one of those things that I'm glad I did once.  (For more info, check out Tufte's website.)