There is a segment of you whose instant response to this piece will be something about my having too much time on my hands. Let me assure you, I have nowhere near enough to wreak that which I would have wrought (yes, I somehow found time to use the dictionary there. Spiffy, no?)
Symantec, makers of fine computer security products, I assume, has come out with a list of the top ten riskiest US cities for Cybercrime. Cybercrime is a form of terrorism to some (as are unpaid parking tickets if it serves the right agenda to say to, but I digress,) so I immediately sprang to action, for I am spry, and set out to ensure that nobody would be able to link cybercrime to veganism. After all, if you’re vegan and reading this, then you use computers, therefore you too could be a cybercriminal. Such damage to the movement cannot be tolerated! To action!
Using data from HappyCow, I opted to see if there was a relationship between the number of vegetarian restaurants and cybercrime rankings. It’s hard to hide a vegan diner, after all, though I fantasize about one day being invited to a soyeasy for some illicit mung beans.
Without further ado (and as you can tell, I’m in an ado-ing mood,) here are the results. The less-than-helpful headings in columns 3 through 5 refer to the types of restaurants that can be found:
Isn’t that a relief? I have no idea where NYC is in the crime list; that’s just for comparison.
But wait! Could it be that vegan cybercriminals have infiltrated HappyCow to hide their presence? Hmmmm…
Also of note: the FBI’s ten most wanted list of fugitives, as of this writing, doesn’t contain anyone with obvious ties to veganism OR cybercrime. Of course, this too is on the internet.
Still, for now I’m going to go with what I hope would be the obvious conclusion: veganism and cybercrime are unrelated. And while you may think this is tongue in cheek at best, that’s just because you haven’t spent 9 years reading the stuff that spews out of animal agriculture PR agencies. Some day I fear this post will be more relevant than it appears today.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Your story seemed fishy because it didn’t report correlations or statistical significance. So I ran some correlations and multiple regression analyzes to figure out whether some kind of vegan = cybercrime cover-up was underway here. Your story checks out. With this data, veg*n seems to be unrelated to cybercrime.
However, it may only be due to the small (n = 10) sample size of your study. For instance, cybercrime ranking was NEGATIVELY correlated with vegetarian restaurants (r = -.36, p = .30), which would be a practically meaningful, and statistically significant, correlation if your sample had a bigger sample size. If significant, this would suggest that cybercrime is LESS likely to occur in towns with plentiful vegetarian restaurant options, but you just simply don’t have the power to make that conclusion. Data on more cities is needed. Also, correlation does not equal causation. We need to create an experimental design in which we manipulate the presence or absence of veg*n places of business in various cities (how about Ohio? plz?!) in order to determine causality. I hope this is next in your line of business.
It’s been a while since stats class, so just a quick confirmation: r stands for rhubarb and p of course stands for pie, right?
But seriously folks, I think you nailed it: we just don’t have the power to make these conclusions yet.
Ergo: we need more power.
How many vegan restaurants do we need to put in one place to invoke a singularity that will solve, if not the world’s, at least our statistical energy needs?
Hilarious. I felt the urge to run some stats as well, but was worried I would come across as too “geeky”. Looks like we’re all welcome, here
Thanks for the space.
{ 1 trackback }