Plot your data.
- SourceAvailable from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Over 12 years, my self-experimentation found new and useful ways to improve sleep, mood, health, and weight. Why did it work so well? First, my position was unusual. I had the subject-matter knowledge of an insider, the freedom of an outsider, and the motivation of a person with the problem. I did not need to publish regularly. I did not want to display status via my research. Second, I used a powerful tool. Self-experimentation about the brain can test ideas much more easily (by a factor of about 500,000) than conventional research about other parts of the body. When you gather data, you sample from a power-law-like distribution of progress. Most data helps a little; a tiny fraction of data helps a lot. My subject-matter knowledge and methodological skills (e.g., in data analysis) improved the distribution from which I sampled (i.e., increased the average amount of progress per sample). Self-experimentation allowed me to sample from it much more often than conventional research. Another reason my self-experimentation was unusually effective is that, unlike professional science, it resembled the exploration of our ancestors, including foragers, hobbyists, and artisans.Medical Hypotheses 12/2010; 75(6):482-9. · 1.15 Impact Factor
Plot your data
Seth Roberts, Ph.D.*
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA; and Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Lesson 3: Plot your data
Writers of statistics textbooks tend to copy other text-
books rather than draw on experience. This leaves a serious
gap: Techniques that are highly useful in practice are not
taught. With this series of columns I am trying to fill that
gap. The first column  pointed out that doing something
(imperfect) is better than doing nothing. The second  was
about the value of transforming your data.
A third neglected lesson about data analysis is plot your
data. More precisely, make all reasonable graphs of your
data. Make a histogram of every measurement (to see its
distribution), plot every measurement against its date, and
plot every measurement against every other measurement.
This is a good way to generate ideas.
To read almost any statistics textbook, even the best
(e.g., Box et al. ), you’d think science was all about
testing ideas. It isn’t. Where do the tested ideas come from?
Idea generation, which these books ignore, is just as im-
portant as idea testing. One of the best ways to generate new
ideas worth testing, I have found, is to make many graphs of
It is like searching for buried treasure. New ideas worth
testing are very valuable but hard to find. Only a tiny
fraction (1%?) of the graphs I’ve made led to new ideas but
some of those ideas had a big effect.
My graphs generated new ideas in two ways. 1) Causal-
ity. The graph suggested a cause–effect relation I hadn’t
thought of. 2) Simplicity. Something turned out to be sim-
pler than expected. Here are examples.
Weight and sleep duration
Hoping to sleep better, I measured my sleep duration .
During a routine analysis of the data, I plotted sleep duration
versus date. The graph showed that my sleep duration had
sharply decreased several months earlier, which I hadn’t
noticed. The sleep change occurred at exactly at the same
time I’d lost weight by changing my diet. The dietary
change was to eat less-processed food, food closer to its
natural state—to eat oranges instead of orange juice, for
example. The upper panel of Figure 1 shows the decrease in
sleep duration; the lower panel of Figure 1 shows the weight
loss. Before seeing these data, I’d never suspected that
weight controls sleep duration, nor had anyone else, as far
as I know. I later found other evidence for this . In a
circuitous way, the graph of sleep duration led to several
more new ideas; the first was that breakfast caused early
Reward expectancy and bar-press duration
Learning research is often done with rats in Skinner boxes,
experimental chambers with a bar that a rat can press and a
pellet dispenser. The rats press the bar to get food pellets.
Figure 2 shows Skinner-box results from rats trained with a
the box was dark and quiet. Now and then a light or white
noise went on. This marked the start of a trial. On most trials,
the rat’s first bar press more than 40 s later was rewarded, and
the signal went off. Earlier bar presses had no effect. For
example, suppose a rat presses the bar 5, 22, 28, 36, and 37 s
after the start of the trial. Nothing happens. Then it presses the
bar 42 s after the start of trial. This bar press causes the pellet
dispenser to dispense a food pellet and turns off the light,
ending the trial. On other trials, however, the signal lasted
much longer than 40 s and no food was given. The upper panel
of Figure 2 shows bar-pressing rate as a function of time since
the start of the signal. Bar-pressing rate varied with time; it
reached a maximum around the time that reward was most
likely. These results were what I expected. In contrast, I was
shocked by a parallel graph that showed bar-press duration
(how long the rats held the bar down) as a function of time
since the start of the signal (lower panel of Fig. 2). The first
time I saw it I thought I’d made a mistake because it looked so
different from the rate function. Eventually its shape made
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ?510-418-7753; fax: ?267-222-4105.
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (S. Roberts).
Nutrition xx (2009) xxx
0899-9007/09/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
sense. The changes in mean bar-press duration reflected
changes in the variability of the form of bar presses. The
distribution of bar-press duration was very skew (asymmetri-
cal); as the distribution became wider (i.e., more variable), its
mean increased. When rats expected food less, the manner in
which they pressed the bar became more variable. Eventually
this graph (lower panel of Fig. 2) led to a new idea about what
controls the variability of behavior and a new way to study it
. My colleagues and I have so far published two studies
based on this idea [5,6].
Another time-discrimination experiment of mine used
the same equipment as the experiment shown in Figure 2. It
rewarded rats for pressing a bar during one signal (light or
sound) and pulling a chain during another signal (sound or
light). During both signals, only the first response (bar press
or chain pull) more than 60 seconds after the start of the
signal was rewarded. At that point, when the reward (a food
pellet) was given, the signal (light or sound) went off and
there was a period of darkness and silence before the next
trial. Figure 3 shows half of the results—the bar-pressing
data. The upper panel shows the time and signal discrimi-
nations that this procedure produced. The rats pressed the
bar more often as the time of reward approached; and they
pressed the bar more often during the bar-press signal than
during the chain-pull signal. One day, just to see what
would happen, I plotted bar-press rates during the bar-press
signal against bar-press rates during the chain-pull signal.
The lower panel of Figure 3 shows the graph I made. Each
point is a different time during the trial. To my surprise,
most of the points fell on a straight line. This indicated that
effects of time and signal combined in a proportional way;
in technical terms, the two factors, time and signal, had
multiplicative effects. Saul Sternberg  had pointed out
that additive factors with reaction time could be explained
Fig. 1. Sleep duration over 5 y (upper panel) and weight loss over 4 mo
(lower panel). Each point in the upper panel is a 10% trimmed mean over
84 d. The error bars are jackknife-derived SEs.
Fig. 2. Bar-press rate (upper panel) and duration (lower panel) as a function
of time since the start of the signal. Points in the duration function are
unequally spaced along the time axis so that each point will represent
roughly the same number of bar presses.
Fig. 3. (Upper panel) Bar-press rate as a function of time during two
signals. During the bar-press signal, bar presses were rewarded. During the
chain-pull signal, bar presses were not rewarded. (Lower panel) Bar-press
rate during signal as a function of bar-press rate during the other signal.
Each point is a mean over six rats.
S. Roberts / Nutrition xx (2009) xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
by assuming that the underlying mechanism could be di-
vided into serially arranged parts. I realized that multipli-
cative factors with rate could be explained the same way. I
started to look for them and found several other examples
. The theoretical conclusions that these examples sug-
gested are supported by other lines of evidence .
Power-law distribution (or close to one)
I made a histogram of the bar-press durations from the
experiment of Figure 2. I was surprised to see that with a
log-transformation of both axes (x, value; y, relative fre-
quency) most of the distribution was linear (Fig. 4). The two
lines in Figure 4 come from different parts of the trial
(before and after the first response after 40 s). The remark-
able feature of the data is the near linearity. Distributions
linear on a log-log scale are often called power-law distri-
butions; the technical name is Pareto distribution. They
occur in a wide range of situations ; what those situa-
tions have in common suggests why the rat’s brain gener-
ates a near power-law distribution in this case .
These examples reflect my research. Graphs can generate
ideas in other ways. A project to ensure the quality of the
joints of a high-speed train track measured the current at the
time they were welded together. A graph of current versus
time of day showed that the current was higher at night. This
surprised the welders, who had assumed that the source of
current (the power grid) was constant . A medical re-
searcher might make a histogram showing that a measure-
ment of disease has a bimodal distribution. This might
suggest that the disease has two different causes.
I have chosen extreme examples, cases where graphs led
to new theories and new research. Those are cases of ideas
with a big impact. But, as Saul Sternberg commented on a
draft of this column, plotting any data is likely to give you
a better mental picture of it. It will show unusual points,
linearity, or bimodality. This could affect how you analyze
your data (what tests you do, what data you include in those
tests). I suspect a power-law distribution: a small fraction of
graphs have a big effect and a large fraction have a small but
I learned to plot my data from John Tukey’s Exploratory
Data Analysis . Under its influence, I started plotting
my data a lot. Then something surprising happened: A few
of my graphs suggested new ideas—not just new ideas
about my data, new ideas about how the world worked.
Tukey’s book had said nothing about this. I eventually
grasped a larger point:
You should analyze your data two ways:
1. To test ideas you already have (mostly by doing
2. To generate new ideas (mostly by making graphs).
Statistics texts, with a few exceptions (e.g., De Veaux
and Velleman ), teach only the first way.
It wasn’t always like this. R. A. Fisher’s Statistical Meth-
ods for Research Workers , published in 1925, had a
chapter about graphs. Graphs are “no substitute for such
critical tests as may be applied to the data,” wrote Fisher,
“but are valuable in suggesting such tests” (p. 27). After
Fisher, interest in graphs disappeared from mainstream sta-
tistics research until Exploratory Data Analysis (1977).
More recently, William Cleveland of Bell Laboratories has
done much to promote and improve exploratory graphics
[15,16], especially by inventing loess, a way to draw a line
through a scatterplot . I use loess often (e.g., lower
panel of Fig. 1).
To almost all statisticians, however, the use of data to
generate ideas is unfamiliar. They don’t talk or write about
it, and statistics texts don’t include it. The result is that
scientists are poorly taught, they analyze their data poorly,
and a lot of buried treasure remains buried. I can think of
three possible reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs. 1)
Separation of statistics professors from the practice of sci-
ence. Maybe they fail to understand the importance of idea
generation. Most scientists realize you can’t test the ideas
you already have forever. Eventually you need new ones.
But I doubt they say this to statistics professors. 2) Difficulty
of finding examples. In my experience, examples of graphs
suggesting ideas with big consequences are rare. And they
often require subject-matter knowledge to understand.
Fisher didn’t give any examples of graphs “suggesting such
tests.” 3) Lack of interest in idea generation among statis-
tics professors. Statistics professors may understand per-
fectly well the importance of idea generation but ignore it
because it doesn’t fit their research needs. Idea generation is
hard to study. It is unpredictable and episodic, with a long
time between episodes (my examples span 25 y). However,
as Nassim Taleb has argued , to equate rare with un-
important is a huge mistake.
I thank Saul Sternberg and Andrew Gelman for helpful
Fig. 4. Distribution of bar-press distributions. Each point is a median over
36 rats. The two functions are before (early in trial) and after (late in trial)
the first bar-press more than 40 s after the start of the trial.
S. Roberts / Nutrition xx (2009) xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
 Roberts S. Something is better than nothing. Nutrition 2007;23:
 Roberts S. Transform your data. Nutrition 2008;24:492–4.
 Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. Statistics for experimenters: an
introduction to design, data analysis, and model building. New York:
 Roberts S. Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas: Ten ex-
amples about sleep, mood, health, and weight. Behav Brain Sci
 Gharib A, Derby S, Roberts S. Timing and the control of variation. J
Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 2001;27:165–78.
 Gharib A, Gade C, Roberts S. Control of variation by reward prob-
ability. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 2004;30:271–82.
 Sternberg S. The discovery of processing stages: extensions of
Donders’ method. Acta Psychol 1969;30:276–315.
 Roberts S. Evidence for distinct serial processes in animals: the
multiplicative-factors method. Anim Learn Behav 1987;15:135–73.
 Sternberg S. Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of
pure and composite measures to reveal them. Acta Psychol 2001;106:
 Buchanan M. Ubiquity. New York: Three Rivers Press; 2001.
 Lu A. Unpublished work of Professor Anli Lu. Beijing: Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Tsinghua University, 2008.
 Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-
 De Veaux RD, Velleman PF. Intro stats. Boston: Addison-Wesley;
 Fisher RA. Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver
& Boyd; 1925.
 Cleveland WS. The elements of graphing data. New York: Chapman
and Hall; 1985.
 Cleveland WS. Visualizing data. Summit, NJ: Hobart Press; 1993.
 Cleveland WS. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing
scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 1979;74:829–36.
 Taleb NN. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. New
York: Random House; 2007.
S. Roberts / Nutrition xx (2009) xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS