Pace of Life - Richard Wiseman experiment

[tkingdoll]

This is all over the media today, newspapers radio and TV alike (in fact it's going to be on the 6 o'clock news tonight if anyone's watching online or at home).

Big article in today's Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1733967.ece

But the basic gist is that we're all speeding up.


The pace of life is speeding up: scientists have discovered that pedestrians all over the world are walking faster than a decade ago.

An experiment conducted in 32 cities has revealed that average walking speeds have increased by about 10 per cent since 1994. Psychologists said the findings reflected the way that technology such as the internet and mobile phones had made people more impatient, leading them to cram more and more activities into a day.

Anyhoo, it's rather fun because there's a test you can do to measure your own pace of life here: www.paceoflife.co.uk

I thought I'd share it - for the record my pace of life is 45.

[Admin]

I scored 2 ???

They don't call me 'Action Jackson' for nothing you know. ;D

No, I got 27 - I'm just a laid-back dude. 8)

Even then I think it was an artificially high score because of the questions. I mean, I avoid queues but that's not because I'm impatient; it's 'cause I'd rather go for a lie down or something.

I wonder if it'll be on Newsnight. I'll put it on in the background and wait for it.

[tkingdoll]

This story is flipping everywhere! It even got a full page in today's Daily Star (complete with a Girl Aloud).

Nice coverage on the beeb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6614637.stm

[Admin]

Have you seen some of the readers' comments on the BBC page? ::)

Many of them are taking the research to mean that walking quickly is bad for you.

It's about how living a more frantic lifestyle is bad for you and measuring walking speed is a good indicator of how frantic we've become.

It all fits in with the instant gratification culture we seem to have adopted in the UK.

[Allo Allo]

It all fits in with the instant gratification culture we seem to have adopted in the UK.

How? ? ? ???

M

[vbloke]

I scored 40.
Although I completed the test in 4.37 seconds ;D

[Gaspode]

I got 23. But I do walk really fast.

[ReverendNick]

51

Is that good or bad? Do I go to Area 51 now?

[Allo Allo]

I scored 32 - and I live in the country - and I'm old!

M

[Admin]

It all fits in with the instant gratification culture we seem to have adopted in the UK.


How? ? ? ???

We all seem to want everything now. As consumers we want something and expect to have it instantly (usually by paying on credit) and this leads to businesses etc. having to cater to this desire for instant gratification. The result is a more frantic business life and and as a result a more frantic home life which in turn means we want services etc. to be faster...

Obviously that's a big generalisation but I think it's valid.

Of course, measuring people's speed of walking in city centres probably reflects what I'm talking about. A measure of people in country villages may not show up such an increase in the pace of life.

As for me, I'm not saying I'm laid back or anything, but if Richard Wiseman wants to film me in action, I'd suggest time-lapse photography. ;D

[Allo Allo]

I live in the most idyllic place – people who live here choose it on purpose to escape all that stuff you are talking about. It also draws “healers” and “therapists” who complain there’s no business! Well what can you expect?!

I scored higher marks than I thought I would (32) on “The Pace of Life” – I have no patience in queues, traffic, or shops because I am not used to them anymore – if I stand in a queue it’s with people I know – so it just feels like a “get together” and we chat. If I’m stuck behind a tractor on a road - well that’s the country! In a city I’m a wreck! I can’t stand the crowds on the street, in shops, banks or parking areas. I suffer terrible frustration and stress and it’s really bad for my health! I turn into a bad tempered, aggressive monster.

On the other hand, one is still affected by the speed of life in the country if you have anything to do with computers! My computers are not quick enough for me even with broadband, wireless, and everything to “speed up”!

Personally my husband and I are consumer nightmares – and many people I know here are too – we mend things! We are mean with our money. We wear charity shop clothes, we have the same cars till it is sensible to renew them, we give things and get things off “Freecycle” and buy from church bazaars and farmers markets. I couldn’t give a fig for fashion – or the latest kitchen ware, gimmick, gadgets or gizmos EXCEPT if it has anything to do with computers! I really dislike shopping! My husband does the grocery shopping ( lots of BOGOF) after work in the nearest town supermarket – so I seldom have to go there myself – suits me just fine! And not many of the businesses around here cater for instant gratification much – people will and do wait! In exchange you may or may not get an invoice!!!

In another post John, you spoke about debt free living which I think you got "spot on" – well, the above lifestyle is one of the ways to achieve this. Mentally one must be immune to any advertising (critical thinking skills imperative) and immune to peer pressure. One needs to become “the great British eccentric” so that people admire you for your unusualness rather than sneer at you.

I think that a “care less, careful” debt free way of life might still be possible in a city. But, to me, the main stressor in city life where everyone suffers is that most businesses are pushing to get more work out of fewer workers for the least money - no wonder people are walking faster!

M

[Nicky]

55

[Dr B]

I am deeply unconvinced by this. What is 'pace of life'? Why would our walking pace be any metric of it at all? A fallacy of equivocation perhaps? ::)

I think its a leap and play on words for me. There seems to be a metaphorical fudging of the term 'pace' going on. I think its a not to well thought out idea that may make intuitive sense at first glance but falters with anything more than that. :-\

Pop psychology or bubble-gum for the brain perhaps.....8)

You know, speaking more generally, not all projects like this help science in the public domain - if that 'science' itself has no or little substance. There is an argument than one could be generating confusion. ???

[Araneus]

I agree, the value seems limited. I walk fast because I don't like public places, not because I have a "high-paced" lifestyle, and most people are going to get impatient if they have to stand in a queue for longer than necessary.

I am also deeply skeptical of the value of having a scale going up to 70 using only 7 questions with 3 options each, this suggests that a single (c) option gives you an extra 10 points.

[tkingdoll]

Yeah, it's just awful when a psychology story gets all over the media worldwide.

Araneus, all the c options are worth 10 points. The quiz is just a fun way of engaging people, it's not related to the actual study, funded by The British Council, which timed walking paces around the world. But if you want the science I will get you more info. Just because a story has been interpreted so the media find it interesting and the public want to know more, that doesn't mean there isn't serious science behind it. The general gist is that the cities with the highest walking pace also have the highest rate of heart disease.

[Admin]

Well I don't know how seriously the study was meant to be taken but I think that it's just an illustration of the fact that, at least in a city working environment, we're more pushed for time than ever. Which may not be a good thing.

Of course the result depends on just how reliably speed of walking is a measure of 'pace of life' and even if it is, how far can we safely extrapolate the finding to everyday life.

One danger that I find with these types of reports however, is that they are very 'headline driven'. People seem to be very much swayed by what the headline says even if the story contradicts the headline (this occurs a lot in 'homeopathy found to work' type headlines).

This is shown by the readers' replies on the BBC article - many of them thought that the research shows that walking (fast) is bad for you.

[tkingdoll]

For anyone who missed it, a brief description of the study can be found on the www.paceoflife.co.uk homepage:


The experiment was conducted by British Council researchers who secretly timed thousands of pedestrians’ speed of walking in city centres across the globe, including London, Madrid, Singapore, and New York.

A study carried out in the early 1990s demonstrated that pedestrians’ speed of walking provides a reliable measure of the pace of life in a city, and that people in fast-moving cities are less likely to help others and have higher rates of coronary heart disease. Using identical methods to those employed in the previous work, the present day research teams discovered that the pace of life is now 10% faster than in the early 1990s. The biggest changes were found in the Far East, with the pace of life in Guangzhou (China) increasing by over 20%, and Singapore showing a 30% increase, resulting in it becoming the fastest moving city in the study.

Prof. Richard Wiseman said: `This simple measurement provides a significant insight into the physical and social health of a city. The pace of life in our major cities is now much quicker than before. This increase in speed will affect more people than ever, because for the first time in history the majority of the world’s population are now living in urban centres.’

[Dr B]

Yeah, it's just awful when a psychology story gets all over the media worldwide.


It is if its pop-science generating some confusion just because it 'feels' catchy. However, if this is not the case - then the more exposure the better O0 Some of the stupidest ideas I have ever encountered get worldwide coverage - so that, on its own, is no measure.


Just because a story has been interpreted so the media find it interesting and the public want to know more, that doesn't mean there isn't serious science behind it.

Very true - but i still cant see where the serious science could come from. The report indicates what the dependent variable was, it also outlines roughly what the conclusion was. While I accept that the devil will be in the detail, I have not seen anyone arguing that the report was false or unfair. So my hunch is my original reservations will still be warranted even with the detail.



The general gist is that the cities with the highest walking pace also have the highest rate of heart disease.

What about pirate attacks? ;D (beware of correlational studies - they should come with a health warning). Again I fail to understand what the varying notions of 'pace' have to do with each other - but I look forward to learning more. O0

[tkingdoll]

It is if its pop-science generating some confusion just because it 'feels' catchy. However, if this is not the case - then the more exposure the better O0 Some of the stupidest ideas I have ever encountered get worldwide coverage - so that, on its own, is no measure.



The ones that really annoy me are the corporate-sponsored 'formula' stories like the recent bacon sandwich thing. It's not so bad when the article clearly states that the research was sponsored by XYZ inc, but in the case of the BBC's reporting of the bacon sandwich story, they failed to mention that it was funded by Danish Bacon (whose product just so happened to come out top in the trials, ho hum).

[Cuddles]

The thing is, I walk quickly because that's the way I walk, not because I want to get anywhere. I eat quickly because that's how I eat, not because I have anything else to do. I talk quickly because my brain works to fast for my mouth to keep up, not because I'm in any kind of hurry. According to this I probably should have had several heart attacks already, yet I'm pretty much the most chilled person I know. It's possible that I'm just an outlier and all statisticians hate me, but I think it seems quite likely that this study has simply found a correlation and not causation. I notice that even the real science, as opposed to the media frenzy, is based entirely on one study with no mention of any replication or follow up, and the new study just assumes that this old study is correct. Maybe there is something, but it sounds far from solid science to me.

[Dr B]

Indeed.

Pop-psychology from what I can tell. Not sure how this is supposed to help the publics perception of science when the science itself appears to be highly questionnable.

[Allo Allo]

I notice that even the real science, as opposed to the media frenzy, is based entirely on one study with no mention of any replication or follow up, and the new study just assumes that this old study is correct.

I find this THE most worrying thing about "science". It makes some aspects of some scientific opinion "shaky" to me - but it's all about money really. Where do you get a grant to fund investigation into something that's already been "tested"?
M

[Dr B]

Few things have been examined so exhaustively that future studies seem redundant. There is always a need to use a new method, or ask different questions, generate new ways of knowing etc.

This is all scientific. Speaking generally, questionable science can lead to grants that propose to do things properly (or at least more appropriately) - but it would be up to the scientist to make the argument.

[bindeweede]

I scored 40.
Although I completed the test in 4.37 seconds ;D

I scored 37. One thing that does rattle my xylophone - if I'm going to part with money, I'm not waiting in a queue to do it.

[tkingdoll]

The thing is, I walk quickly because that's the way I walk, not because I want to get anywhere. I eat quickly because that's how I eat, not because I have anything else to do. I talk quickly because my brain works to fast for my mouth to keep up, not because I'm in any kind of hurry. According to this I probably should have had several heart attacks already, yet I'm pretty much the most chilled person I know. It's possible that I'm just an outlier and all statisticians hate me, but I think it seems quite likely that this study has simply found a correlation and not causation. I notice that even the real science, as opposed to the media frenzy, is based entirely on one study with no mention of any replication or follow up, and the new study just assumes that this old study is correct. Maybe there is something, but it sounds far from solid science to me.

? How would you test the walking speed of people in cities around the world then? That's all this is showing. Yes, there's a correlation between the faster walking speeds and heart disease, but no-one is claiming it's anything but a correlation. However, there's certainly good evidence to show that high-stress lifestyles have an impact on health, so it's exactly a stretch of imagination to advise people that if they are rushing around and living life at a million miles an hour, they might suffer in the long run.

How can the old study, or this one, not be correct? It's just measuring the walking speeds of people in cities around the world and comparing them.

[Cuddles]

? How would you test the walking speed of people in cities around the world then? That's all this is showing. Yes, there's a correlation between the faster walking speeds and heart disease, but no-one is claiming it's anything but a correlation.

The newspaper articles certainly do claim it is more. Or at least they imply it is without bothering to tell readers the difference between causation and correlation, which is effectively the same thing given the general public's understanding of science.


However, there's certainly good evidence to show that high-stress lifestyles have an impact on health, so it's exactly a stretch of imagination to advise people that if they are rushing around and living life at a million miles an hour, they might suffer in the long run.

I think it is quite a stretch of the imagination. Where is the evidence that people who walk fast are more stressed? Some people just walk faster than others. Is there anything more than just one 10 year old study?


How can the old study, or this one, not be correct? It's just measuring the walking speeds of people in cities around the world and comparing them.

Oh come on. How can a study be wrong? Please tell me you're joking.

[tkingdoll]

The newspaper articles certainly do claim it is more. Or at least they imply it is without bothering to tell readers the difference between causation and correlation, which is effectively the same thing given the general public's understanding of science.



Yah, that's newspapers. Doesn't meant that's all there is to it.




I think it is quite a stretch of the imagination. Where is the evidence that people who walk fast are more stressed? Some people just walk faster than others. Is there anything more than just one 10 year old study?

It doesn't claim that people who walk fast are more stressed. It claims that the cities in which the population has a faster average walking speed also have higher rates of heart disease. You dispute that?




Oh come on. How can a study be wrong? Please tell me you're joking

I asked you to tell me how THIS study, or the one preceding it, is wrong. Do you have a problem with the methodology employed to measure the walking speeds? The type of timers used? The cities they measured? What, exactly, is the problem with the study?

[Cuddles]

Yah, that's newspapers. Doesn't meant that's all there is to it.

[quote]but no-one is claiming it's anything but a correlation.

So someone is in fact claiming it's more than just a correlation.


It doesn't claim that people who walk fast are more stressed. It claims that the cities in which the population has a faster average walking speed also have higher rates of heart disease. You dispute that?


so it's [not?] exactly a stretch of imagination to advise people that if they are rushing around and living life at a million miles an hour, they might suffer in the long run.

As I said, I think it is a stretch of the imagination.


I asked you to tell me how THIS study, or the one preceding it, is wrong. Do you have a problem with the methodology employed to measure the walking speeds? The type of timers used? The cities they measured? What, exactly, is the problem with the study?

My problem is that there's only one of it. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is the only study in the entire history of science that has absolutely no possibility of being wrong? Don't be ridiculous.

[tkingdoll]

My problem is that there's only one of it. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is the only study in the entire history of science that has absolutely no possibility of being wrong? Don't be ridiculous.


Huh? How on earth did you get that from what I said? I'm not claiming it has no possibility of being wrong, you've just invented that.

I'm claiming that based on the information we have, I can't see any problems in the method involved in measuring the average walking speed in the cities involved. You seem to think it's very flawed. I would like to know what flaws you think there are, and how YOU would go about measuring walking speeds in cities that's different to the method employed in these two studies.

Who is claiming it's more than a correlation? I see plenty of hypotheses, but I don't see any claims of causation; in fact that's not the point of the research at all as far as I can see. Walking speed is just being used as an indicator.

You do understand that just because the findings of a study have not been replicated, it doesn't mean the original study is flawed?

How do you want this replicated anyway? You want a different team to go out a week later and re-measure using different stopwatches?