Let's Take A Closer Look

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

A new study shows that people who go to museums, art galleries, the theater, and concerts live longer than those who don’t. The researchers, professors of psychology and epidemiology, described in detail their study’s methods, sample, and most importantly, its limitations. The A-Number-One Requirement of all legitimate scientific investigations is conveying exactly what the research can and CAN NOT do. These researchers made it unmistakably clear that causality cannot be inferred or assumed. 

Over the past several days I read dozens of articles written by those who saw this study on the wire services

Most disregarded the explicit warning label that says it provides no evidence that exposure to the arts results in longer lifespans. Below are three of many headlines ignoring those warnings and falsely claiming that involving oneself with the arts causes longer lives. Their conclusions may be accidental (poor comprehension and sloppy analysis) or deliberate (they grab the reader’s eye and make for a better story). Either way, they’re wrong.

• Study Shows People Who Go to Museums Live Longer
• Want to Live Longer? Visit an Art Gallery, Study Says
• Study Says Going to Concerts Will Help You Live Longer

You saw they all say the study shows and the study says

But the study did not show or say those things. “Survey Says” is an old one straight out of the Hoodwinkers’ Trick Book – adding gravitas by implying their conclusions are scientifically indisputable. The study did not examine what kinds of art, music, or theater their 6,700 participants were self-reporting, nor was any analysis performed at the specific activity level.

Would it surprise you to hear the top brass almost never ask to see the ingredients label?

Those few who have learned how to read a specifications list know with certainty when they’re being sold snake oil, bilge water, and hooey. And because few executives have learned to ask the critical who, what, when, where, why, and how questions and evaluate the answers they get, gatekeepers continue to get away with shamelessly peddling their pet theories.

This is not to say that patronizing the arts is entirely unrelated to good health

Many studies have shown how engaging in the arts can reduce loneliness, promote empathy, stimulate emotional intelligence, and keep people from becoming sedentary — all elements that factor in longer lives. In this sense, being active with the arts may contribute to a longer life but does not cause it.What none of the dozens of articles I read mentioned was how when you have two or more possible explanations for something, the best one is more often than not the simplest and most straightforward. The term for this is familiar to many: Occam’s Razor. Aristotle was a believer, as were Isaac Newton (three laws of motion) and Albert Einstein, who said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Occam’s Razor

Instead of unquestioningly accepting the rather unlikely premise that attendance at cultural events is the cause of longer lives, think about asking these simple questions:

• What kinds of people are most and least likely to attend cultural events?
• Are people who are ill more likely or less likely to go to museums, galleries, theaters, and concert halls than those who are in good health?
• Are physically inactive people more likely or less likely than active folks to attend cultural events?

I would expect to see very few ill and inactive people out and about at museums, art galleries, the theater, and concerts, wouldn’t you? 

People with higher levels of education and income are likelier to attend cultural events than those with lower levels of education and income

They’re also likelier to be healthier, too. Higher levels of education and income correlate closely with higher levels of physical and mental health. Analysts conclude the possibility of a link because active involvement with art and culture promotes emotional intelligence, creativity, and imagination–attributes positively associated with psychological and physical well-being.

Let’s Take Occam’s Razor to that

People with higher levels of emotional intelligence, creativity, and imagination are more drawn to the arts, especially the fine arts and to cultural events, especially highbrow culture. This explanation would posit that folks who are healthier in every way (and likelier to live longer) are those who are actively involved with the arts. Not the other way around.

Does anyone really think that moving to Plano, Texas (America’s happiest city) will make them happier ?

How many readers think that they can reduce the likelihood of divorce by moving to Provo, Utah or have healthier teeth by moving to Bridgeport, Connecticut or become wealthier by moving to Pearland, Texas or be better-educated simply by moving to Ann Arbor, Michigan? Please say none.

Providing a clear discussion of study limitations is one hallmark of professional ethics

We must procede cautiously, though, but even when we don’t see caveats, asterisks, and fine print, it doesn’t mean they’re not there. Usually, it means quite the opposite. When we don’t see disclaimers prominently displayed, when there is no ingredients label, it means someone is deliberately hiding something and hoping you won’t notice.

This is the point where the scoffers say “So what?” and call it nitpicking

I agree when this sort of wrongheaded and sensationalist interpretation occurs in a news item that is soon forgotten. I know it matters a great deal when business leaders are making important decisions based on what they are told is rock-solid research. Executives who haven’t yet learned how to evaluate research for themselves are easy marks for hogwash hucksters.

When your gatekeepers conclude things that don’t follow from the research, there can be only two reasons:

It was an accident (scientific illiteracy, sloppy analysis) or deliberate (pandering to the boss). Neither one is what you should be paying for.