You may feel like you're not in the same league as Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin (note: statistically, you are not) but you probably share one thing if you are reading this article; patterns of correspondence.
A new Northwestern University study of human behavior says that people who wrote letters in olden days using pen and paper did so in a pattern similar to the way people use e-mail today. The study in Science seeks to find the similarity of these two seemingly different activities, with the underlying pattern of human activity linking letters and e-mails.
The researchers examined extensive letter correspondence records of 16 (in)famous writers, performers, politicians and scientists, among them Einstein, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Ernest Hemingway, and found that the 16 individuals sent letters randomly but in cycles. The same mathematical model the Northwestern team used in a previous study to explain e-mail behavior was shown to also apply to the letter writers. That refutes the 'rational model', which says that people are driven foremost by responding to others.
No matter what their profession, all the letter writers behaved the same way. They adhered to a circadian cycle; they tended to write a number of letters at one sitting, which is more efficient; and when they wrote had more to do with chance and circumstances than a rational approach of writing the most important letter first.
"We are interested in identifying and understanding patterns of human behavior, in learning how we make choices," said Luís Amaral, professor of chemical and biological engineering in the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science. Amaral led the research. "There are patterns to how we spend our days, and these models of probability, of how people allocate their time to do certain tasks, can be applied to many different areas."
"People are not that rational," added Amaral, who also is an Early Career Scientist with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "If a doctor, for example, better understands how we make decisions, he or she may be able to get better compliance with a treatment if it is tied to something a person does with regularity."
The researchers studied correspondence that dated as far back as 1574 for philosopher Sir Francis Bacon and as recently, in the case of writer Carl Sandburg, as 1966. The letter data for the 16 individuals included a list of letters sent and, for each letter, the name of the sender, the name of the recipient and the date it was written.
Comments
Don't get discouraged by statistics.
90% of Harvard students surveyed believed they would be in the top 50% of their class - so some of them were right but statistically a whole bunch had to be wrong. Likewise just because statistically you are not in a league with Einstein doesn't mean you aren't.
Heck, you may even be Newton!
90% of Harvard students surveyed believed they would be in the top 50% of their class - so some of them were right but statistically a whole bunch had to be wrong. Likewise just because statistically you are not in a league with Einstein doesn't mean you aren't.
Heck, you may even be Newton!
Hank Campbell | 09/26/09 | 11:20 AM
I'm not discouraged by statistics. I'm discouraged by statements assuming that every reader of this article will not be statistically in the same league as Darwin or Einstein. Einstein's and Darwin's estimated IQs are around 160-165, which may seem rare accounting for 1:31,560 people, but there are more than 6 billion people in the world, and many more than that who have lived and died.
Maybe I'm assuming you are using the term league to describe their level of intelligence, but usually that's what people are referring to when they talk about geniuses and how they believe you compare.
Unless you can support that the readers of this article are statistically less likely to be a genius, I'm going to stand by the fact that it's an assumption that shouldn't have been written into this article.
Maybe I'm assuming you are using the term league to describe their level of intelligence, but usually that's what people are referring to when they talk about geniuses and how they believe you compare.
Unless you can support that the readers of this article are statistically less likely to be a genius, I'm going to stand by the fact that it's an assumption that shouldn't have been written into this article.
Cher Stewart | 09/26/09 | 11:43 AM
It's a misuse of statistics to do so. You might also object to a contention that statistically readers of this site are not Chinese jet pilots unless we can prove everyone is not a Chinese jet pilot, but the point of statistics is to have a baseline for analyzing groups, not agonizing over individuals - a single exception does not invalidate the entire group.
Though I think we are all heartened that you believe a million Darwins a month read this site - this falls in line with our belief too, we just can't back that up statistically.
Though I think we are all heartened that you believe a million Darwins a month read this site - this falls in line with our belief too, we just can't back that up statistically.
Hank Campbell | 09/26/09 | 11:49 AM
I didn't say that every reader would be a genius, or even most. However, a genius level IQ (145 Wechsler) occurs in an estimated 1 of every 741 humans, there are quite likely many geniuses browsing this site. Certainly an IQ of 160 is more rare, as I described above, but for your statement to be correct, it would need to suggest that statistically, it is not likely the reader will have an IQ of 160 or higher, instead of just saying that they won't be, based on those same statistics.
I know, for a fact, that if you surveyed the readers, there is at least one whose IQ is greater than 165. So, statistically, you would be incorrect.
Of course, my assumption is that there is more than one reader with an IQ greater than 160, just filtering out the lower IQ's through statistics covering everything from education level to target audience to subject matter.
I'm still not clear on how you came to your conclusion.
I know, for a fact, that if you surveyed the readers, there is at least one whose IQ is greater than 165. So, statistically, you would be incorrect.
Of course, my assumption is that there is more than one reader with an IQ greater than 160, just filtering out the lower IQ's through statistics covering everything from education level to target audience to subject matter.
I'm still not clear on how you came to your conclusion.
Cher Stewart | 09/26/09 | 12:03 PM
It wasn't my conclusion and it is a generalization anyway. You seem to be simultaneously contending that two conflicting ideas are the same: if there is perhaps one reader with the IQ of Einstein then statistically the people reading this article are not and then; contending that unless we can prove all readers are not the same intellect as Einstein it is not logical to say anyone is not.
Saying one exception invalidates a group is in defiance of what statistics is. Statistically, 53% of America voted for Barack Obama but your reasoning is saying if one person voted for McCain then Obama cannot actually be president.
Saying one exception invalidates a group is in defiance of what statistics is. Statistically, 53% of America voted for Barack Obama but your reasoning is saying if one person voted for McCain then Obama cannot actually be president.
Hank Campbell | 09/26/09 | 12:13 PM
Cher should I extend a congrats for the possibility of your possession of a high IQ?
It seems that you have been offended by the wording of introductory paragraph, is this defensiveness combined with measurable ego and IQ?
I wonder if you would have been offended if Rex Stout's name had been used instead.?
It would be hard to ignore Einstein and Darwin being giants of 20ieth century in the sciences. There are others, but who looms as large?
It seems that you have been offended by the wording of introductory paragraph, is this defensiveness combined with measurable ego and IQ?
I wonder if you would have been offended if Rex Stout's name had been used instead.?
It would be hard to ignore Einstein and Darwin being giants of 20ieth century in the sciences. There are others, but who looms as large?
J Q | 09/26/09 | 15:10 PM
On the other hand, I can't help wondering about kinds of correspondence. About the more subtle experiences and contents of correspondence, those which aren't defined by their pattern of occurrence [or might they be?] but that which, e.g., distinguish between a letter by Einstein in which he basically complies with a formality, and one in which he is fully engaged and might spend ten hours thinking through a problem or emoting or writing free verse. It is intriguing to imagine that a love letter --even in reply to another's-- isn't triggered by a response to an external cause but rather by one's own circadian rhythm of correspondence. It's very Spinozan, in a way.
Claire (not verified) | 09/26/09 | 17:39 PM
I like your question and your comment. Regarding critical points and the like for social systems, I don't know this from reading it first hand, but friends who have explored complex systems theory from the perspective of the humanities have often mentioned Niklas Luhmann as a pioneer. Maybe someone else on here has read him (or someone else who has tried to address the interesting questions you raise).
yago (not verified) | 09/26/09 | 18:44 PM













I stopped reading there.