The way I read the article, the researchers took an original approach when they organized the data into networks. Patterns were more clearly revealed by so doing, and some very interesting correlations appeared. As we all know, correlation is not the same as causation.

In “The Tipping Point,” Malcolm Gladwell used a model from epidemiology as a metaphor to shed light on how fashions, fads, and ideas spread. “Contagion” was a useful metaphor to carry through his book. Because that idea was so understandable, many more writers now use the contagion metaphor. It certainly gets people riled up! I don’t think Malcolm Gladwell intended that we should look for a biological agent of transmission for social behaviors, or “contagion” in the literal sense. LIkewise, in the WIRED article, I did not take the idea of obesity being “catching” or spreading through a social circle in a literal sense, as you seem to have done.

What is much more interesting to me is recent research in neuroscience regarding mirror neurons. Apparently, if I am in a good mood, my brain is making certain chemicals and the neurons begin to organize in a particular way. If you are within a certain physical radius of me (I think it’s about 2 meters), your brain will begin to make the same chemicals and your neurons will organize in the same way. We begin to “mirror” each other. This might be another factor involved in the universal observation that “Birds of a feather flock together.”

The WIRED article was careful to portray the study as showing likelihood, or probability, which exists along a spectrum. When I understand that such patterns and tendencies exist, I can make more intelligent choices regarding my own behaviors and attitudes.

My hopeful interpretation: We have almost unlimited ability to change in whatever way we want — either inspired by, or in spite of, the people who surround us.

I am the thinner sister and finally see 185 on the scale for the very first time since I was like 12 or 13.

But we both have different daddies, is that factored in as well?

we have a way of referring to this kind of thing back home:

Horseshit. :)

Absolutely! We have no idea. How about this interpretation of the data: fat people are more likely to admit to having fat friends, while thin people snub, ignore, or block out the overweight people in their social networks? We could also, potentially, read the ‘results’ of this ‘study’ as showing the tremendous stigma inflicted on overweight people in the population in question.

Imagine you’re playing one of those logic games from Gifted and Talented elementary school class and look at the scenario again, is it possible that we can interpret it as I’ve suggested?

“If Tom put down Harry as a friend on his contact sheet and Harry gained weight, Tom also had a higher risk of gaining weight. If they both put down each other, their risk was even higher. But if Harry put down Tom and Tom did not reciprocate, Tom had no increased risk of weight gain. In other words, if you admire a fat person you are in trouble. If a fat person admires you, you are safe from a cellulite attack.”

The most misleading part of these “studies” and their reporting is the idea of ‘risk.’ That is, they report correlation as ‘risk,’ which is then read as causation. Of course, the fact of the matter is that this kind of study cannot prove causation. It can only prove that the set of people who admitted being friends with people who gaimed weight contained more people who gained weight themselves in the study period.

The fact that sickle-cell anemia is more common in people with curly hair (e.g., people of African descent) than in people with straight hair does not mean that curly hair causes sickle-cell amemia.

Please everyone, say it again, CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
I’m worried about stereotyping and defamation, sure, but I am more worried about a complete lack of any kind of ability to interpret data. Especially when it seems to have been tolerated by a respected peer-reviewed journal. For shame, American education system. For shame, NEJM.

Yes, Kate, but Campos’s book (there’s only one, “The Obesity/Diet Myth”) is not peer reviewed. The paper you cite was his attempt to counter this common objection against his book, that his ideas and interpretations were not critiqued by experts in the fields (nor even passed by the authors of the papers he cites in most cases).

As the response papers in that issue of the journal and following issues demonstrated, when a few of his ideas and interpretations were floated onto the radar of experts, they were made short work of.

In your case also, I would ask that you pick up the phone and pass your interpretation by the original authors of papers you dissect. These people are easy to find on university web sites and usually willing to talk to people asking about their research. If you’re shy, try e-mail, but from personal experience, you get a lot more done quickly by phone. If you’re poor, look into Skype.