Brickman Consulting

Wood Flooring Solutions.

  • Bio
  • Consulting
  • Training
  • Contact
  • Blog

Powered by Genesis

The Peril of Using Averages

August 9, 2011 by Howard Leave a Comment

Cross posted from Howard Brickman's article on Hardwood Floors Magazine: Inspector Blog.
 
I’m going to start by answering the question Wayne Lee asked in his latest blog post: Wayne, the short answer on this job is NO. The 18% moisture content of the subfloor is the deal breaker. This is a complicated scenario when you toss the crawl space into the mix. You mentioned that the average MC is 18%, and I would like to take this opportunity to share some thoughts about using averages with moisture content. Averaging is a statistical method for making erratic data more uniform in appearance. But averaging also takes accurate data with a great deal variation and mathematically makes it a single number. With variable accurate data this is often quite misleading in that it can hide some very important information. It is much more informative to use the following format to describe accurate data. The minimum is ___. Maximum is ____. The majority of the measurements are in the range from MIN to MAX (which are adjusted to remove the outliers-extremely low or high data).  Let’s look at an example from our friends on Wall Street.

The advertising literature from Amalgamated Super Rich Guy Growth, Income, and Value Fund trumpets an “average” annual rate return of 9% for the past four years 2007-10. But as usual the devil is in the details. In 2007, the ASRGGIV Fund lost 90% of it value, but had returns of 42% in 2008, 2009, and 2010. (-90% + 42% + 42% + 42% = +36% / 4 years = 9%/year). Let’s look at $1,000 invested in January 1, 2007.

$1000 + (-90%) or -$900) = $100 balance on Dec. 31, 2007
$100 + (42%) or $42 = $142 balance on Dec. 31, 2008
$142 + (42%) or $59.64 = $201.64 balance on Dec. 31, 2009
$201.64 + (42%) or $84.69 = $286.33 balance on Dec. 31, 2010

The normal assumption with a 9% average would be that at the end of the four-year term $1,000 would be worth at least $1,360. That “average” IS hiding some very important information. Our original $1,000 is now worth $286.33, for a net loss of $713.67. So you call the fund manager, Kineon Goodhue Beelzebub and demand an explanation to which he replies, “But dude, the average annual return is 9%”. NOTE: Please don’t post any comments that I didn’t compute the annual return in accordance with SEC regulations. Dude, this is wood floor blog, and I am trying to make a point about how averaging may not always be a useful data analysis tool.

Now back to Oak Street from Wall Street. Flooring contractor Harry Picoides takes 30 moisture content readings of the plywood subfloor at a 1,500-foot job. If Harry is using a meter that gives accurate readings, he should evaluate each individual MC reading. For instance, the reading by the slider in the family room is 19% and all of the other readings are between 11% and 12%. This tells Harry that there is a water intrusion by the slider but the remainder of the job is good to go. So he asks the GC to fix the leak and dry out the subfloor. If Harry had averaged the 29 readings of 11% to 12% with one reading of 19% there would be no alert about the high MC location and Harry would be back at the job within the first year doing an uncompensated major repair and refinish.

But we didn’t discuss the issue of the crawlspace and the temperature and RH readings… yet. Wayne, thanks for presenting this scenario which will keep me thinking and writing for the remainder of the summer. Some quick thoughts about temperature, relative humidity and crawlspaces: While we should know and understand how these things work, HVAC contractors and general contractors are responsible for this piece of the puzzle. That being said, we own that subfloor once we install a wood floor over it and ignore high subfloor MC at our own peril and bank account.

Filed Under: Blog, Hardwood Floors Magazine: Inspector Blog Tagged With: Amalgamated, Crawl Space, Data, Hardwood Floors Magazine, Measurements, Moisture Content, Statistical Method, Subfloor, Variation

Is Believing the Same as Knowing?

July 24, 2011 by Howard Leave a Comment

Cross posted from Howard Brickman's article on Hardwood Floors Magazine: Inspector Blog.

Is believing that something is true or correct the same as knowing that a fact is true or correct because of rigorous objective examination? Said another way, “Don’t believe everything you think.” (Bill O’Hanlon.) Does this mean that we should stop thinking? Of course not. But it means that we should develop the ability to think critically and carefully evaluate the information that is presented to us. We all know individuals who can never really make a decision as they agonize over every minute detail of a proposition, so-called “analysis paralysis.” On the other hand, we also know people who will believe anything that they read or hear. This is called being gullible. There is a sweet spot somewhere east of gullible and west of analysis paralysis that thoughtful people search for.

Consensus is an extremely important tool for facilitating agreement. How do we decide which house to buy? Or what to have for dinner? Or how do we manage our private and public institutions? But this whole consensus decision-making process is not the most effective tool for determining actual facts or scientific truth. That’s right! Just because almost everyone “agrees” on something does not necessarily make it correct. We are bombarded continuously with polling data and statistical “studies” that are surrogates for consensus. This constant repetition can be very convincing even when it is not accurate or factual. How do we sift through this avalanche of information and figure out what is true?

Be skeptical! “If you can’t make something happen, you don’t know what caused it.” (Howard Brickman.) The greatest opponents of a good experiment are unknown, uncontrolled or irrelevant variables. It is analogous with trying to pick out the important remark whispered by an individual who is part of a very noisy gathering. If you are not looking directly at them you won’t even see their lips moving. And if you are not within several inches you might not be able to distinguish the words being spoken. Even if you do hear the remark you may not realize how important it is. Scientists often refer to all of this extraneous data as “noise” that drowns out the really important stuff. Once the correct data is recognized and introduced into the collective consciousness, we forget how much effort it took to figure it out.

Don’t believe everything you hear or read on the Internet! As individuals we greatly enhance our ability to recognize good information by developing our fundamental understanding of the physical world around us. But in our wood floor business, we have the added necessity of learning about wood and psychrometrics. Develop the habit of reading and rereading “quality” source materials. That way when someone takes cow manure, forms it to the shape of an apple and paints it red, we will have enough sense to figure out what it really is before we try to make an apple pie with a bag full of bull $#!+.

Filed Under: Hardwood Floors Magazine: Inspector Blog Tagged With: Analysis Paralysis, Data, Decision Making Process, Hardwood Floors Magazine, Objective Examination, Public Institutions, Repetition, Statistical Studies, Tools Of The Trade

Recent Posts

  • Board Cuts, Moisture Changes and Cupping
  • What Causes Cupping? Experiment 1 Explained
  • What Causes Cupping in Wood Floors?
  • Calculating Shrink/Swell and Why It Matters
  • Do You Need An Alibi?

Archive