PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

‘Did I Say That I Loathe You?!’


My resolution of late was to ‘try to see the good in people’ (Goodman et al 1972). Well, it’s not as palpable as it may sound, because there is very little good left in people. And I say this after careful research and analysis.

The relative value of ‘Good’ was measured in a sample population of 500 people (between the age of 7 and 77) over the course of 21 years (1985 – 2006). Values were expressed as percent minimum (standardized over 1985).
The plot of relative good versus years after 1985 shows that good exhibits a growth phase until 1989, plateaus at 1990, and starts declining at 1995 (figure 1). Good decreased by 50% from 2005 to 2006 (11% decrease in reference to 1985).


Figure 1. relative change in Goodness versus time.

The rate of change in relative good was calculated from the slope of the change in good versus time: (Good n+1 – Good n) / (Year n+1 – Year n). This analysis demonstrates that the rate of decrease in good from year to year since 2000, is 1.3 ± 0.51 %/yr every year each year since 2000.
Since I am the only person assessing the decline in good, two major concerns are raised in this study: a) the homogeneity in the sample population in which good is measured, b) the possibility that good values remain stable and that my ability of good detection is declining.
Regarding the sampling process, the studied individuals are chosen from 3 different cities: Beirut, NY and Boston. The problem however is that no complete data set is gathered for individuals in the same city. This increases the heterogeneity of the population, hence increases the sampling capacity. The ability to follow the same individual over the complete time course, however, is compromised. This decreases the potential sampling capacity over time.
Concerning the second issue, several factors actually affect the assessment capability of the researcher. First, the personal change in the character of the researcher over the period of the study: this includes added factors such as cynicism, sarcasm, and general negativism. A constant factor was calculated to account for these changes. Since these changes are dramatically affected by the environment in which the researcher is placed, the constant factor was calculated in the three different locations (cities) in which the study is conducted. The three different constants are as follow: Beirut 3.2; NY 7.2; Boston 5.1. Note that the constant value for Boston is still under study and might be changed subsequently based on the expected changes in the weather (personal communication with Ra et al stated that Spring is expected in the upcoming months).

In Sum, this study shows that the relative value of good is decreasing at a rate of 1.3 % / yr ± 0.51. This proves that the expectation of people from each other should be altered accordingly, which would relieve personal strain in several real life situations such as courtship, friendship, and several workplace related interactions.

Acknowledgement: This work has been supported by funding from the NIH (grant#666). Rumor has it though that the current administration will be disconnecting all funding to research centered on ‘good’ topics. We plead the masses to support us however, and send money directly to our institution, Department of Mental Hygiene at Harvard Med.


References.
Goodman J., Zen X., and L. Hypomanopulus. 1972. Interaction between psychological cues and positive reinforcement in science postdoctoral fellows. The Journal of Optimistic Souls. 13:257-9.


PS: Dept of Mental Hygiene is the actual name of a dept associated to Dept of Health in NY (1984ish, no?).