Last Friday I got a copy of an email from David Paccioli who is writing an article about Andrew and his research.  Since Andrew was on I-am-off-line-any-questions-please-email-my-assistant status, I looked into the email.  David was hoping to use the story as front cover article, and he was sending a picture of an insect (which he assumed was a mosquito) that he wanted to use on the cover of the magazine.

I looked at the photograph and wondered, “Hmm, is this really a mosquito, and if so, what kind?”  In high school in Venezuela we studied the anopheles because at that time there still was malaria in the country.  I vividly remember the image, and this “thing” didn’t look much like it.  However, I wondered if, due to evolution (it’s been forty years!) maybe nowadays those critters look different.  What do I know?

I printed out the picture (I have to mention in black and white for the benefit of the people I asked) and decided to find out.  The first person to cross my path was Matt Ferrari.  I stopped him and asked, “Matt, what kind of mosquito is this?”  Matt, almost indignantly, replied: “ I work with VIRUSES!!!”  I just laughed and said, “Oh well, excuse ME!”

Off I went to find someone else.  Monica was at her desk.  I showed her the picture and asked, “What kind of mosquito is this?”  She looked at the pic and said, “I have no idea,” and when I turned around and saw Dave she said, “And don’t ask him, he wouldn’t know either.”  Then she reconsidered, grinned and corrected, “Go ask him!”

I went to Dave and asked,  “Dave, what is this?”  He said, “A mosquito?”  I replied, “But what kind?”  Dave admitted, “I have no idea.  All I can tell it is NOT a chicken!”  At that time all of us were laughing.  But I added:  “Listen, guys, I am DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED in all of you.  You are supposed to work on malaria and don’t even know what the transmitting mosquitoes look like!!!”  (OK, Dave works on chickens, but anyway….)

So I thought:  Elsa = Artemisinin = malaria = mosquito.  Maybe she knows?  Answer:  No.  Katey happened to be in the office, and she looked up some pics of malaria transmitting mosquitoes… they didn’t look much like the picture.  Suggestion:  contact the people at the insectary.

That’s what I did.  Lillian replied to my email, “I am 99% sure this is a crane fly…”  Wow! I immediately forwarded that email to Dave who must have been quite happy to get the news.  Shortly thereafter Lillian emailed back confirming her identification and offered to have the photographer over to take some pics of the “real thing.”

I am a non-scientist and as such, I believed that people who research malaria would certainly know what the transmitter looks like.  I never cease to wonder at all that I don’t know and all that I think I know and isn’t correct!  I love working here because I learn so much.  My days here are filled with daily discoveries that, while amazing to me, may be common knowledge to others. It makes my work quite enjoyable.

With the stock market at historic highs, now seems like a good time to bring up a claim that has always bothered me.  Wall Street analysts will often say that the biggest mistake of individual investors is that they tend to buy high and sell low, because they make decisions based on emotion.  The idea is as follows:  People see others making gains in the stock market and become motivated to invest for fear of missing out on easy money.  They buy stocks, but because many others have beaten them to this they end up paying high prices.  If and when the value of the stock drops they panic and sell their holdings, but again others have beaten them to this and they end up selling at low prices.  The end result, they buy high, sell low, and lose money.

But if this pattern were true more often than expected by chance, employing the George Costanza philosophy — if every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right — would allow smart investors to consistently outperform the market average.  Just do the opposite of what your emotions tell you.  Nevertheless, active traders consistently underperform passive investment strategies, and so the only two possible conclusions are 1) individual investors and sophisticated computer algorithms alike are too stupid to employ a “do the opposite” strategy, or 2) the “buy high and sell low” anecdote is a boogie man story that people happen to believe.  I would guess the latter.

Disclaimer: The above blog post is in no way intended as investment advice.

Dave and I are working on something together. Friday we decide the ball is in my court. He says he won’t be working this weekend. Wow. For once I have the edge. I do my bit and send it to him 5.30pm Sunday, feeling so ahead of the game. Two hours later, he has done his next bit. This generates the following dialog:

AR: I thought you weren’t working on the weekend?
DK: I wasn’t, but I finished my weekend early.
AR: How can you finish a weekend early?
DK: I’m very efficient sometimes.

Earlier this summer the Bureau of Labor Statistics published their annual report, known as The American Time Use Survey. The document details what we Americans do with our 24-hours, from the average amount of time we spend sleeping to the time we spend working, lunch breaking, exercising, emailing, being American. So what do we do all day?

We sleep a lot. Sleeping and resting make up a plurality of our day with 8.74 hours, followed by leisure activities which take up 5.26, and working which we seem to only do for about three hours a day. My reaction to three hours a day: where are these people working?

There are other interesting findings when we explore time use and compare different age groups, occupations and genders. Women work less hours, spend less time eating and more time sleeping. Men spend more time watching television and more time on lawn care. We all supposedly spend more time watching T.V. than we do socializing and communicating (2.77 hours compared to 0.72).  Mathematicians take some of the longest and most predictable lunch breaks. Few people work outside of typical 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the most exceptions are employed in the “protective services” sector, i.e. firemen and police officers. Adults older than 75 spend almost double the time of 35-44 year-olds on leisure activities.

Scientists don’t have their own category in the report. Although I think I don’t need the government to give me a report in order to figure out what it is that we do all day, it would be entertaining to see. I was thinking I could start collecting data on my own time use, like Andrew mentioned in response to Eleanor’s post, but then I realized it would be terrifying to know the fraction of life I’m going to spend counting mosquito eggs. I’d prefer to remain blissfully ignorant on that front.