The Science of Wordle

 By Raymond K. Nakamura

Do you play Wordle? If you haven’t heard, it’s a popular online word game. It has become a pandemic diversion and also reminds me of DOING science. It’s not a perfect analogy, of course. As far as I know, nature was not BUILT by an engineer and has not yet been bought up by the New York TIMES.

Starting

I FIRST saw a New Yorker cartoon by Canadian cartoonist and picture book MAKER Zoe Si, of a sleeping person dreaming of a SHEEP jumping over a FENCE made of yellow and GREEN squares. It was CLEAR that the squares must be significant, but at the time, I had no idea why. Then I saw people on my social MEDIA posting images of yellow and GREEN squares on GRIDS of different SIZES. At last, I noticed in someone’s comments that this was a game called Wordle.

A similar combination of curiosity, comraderie, and coincidence led to my main scientific projects. For example, when I was in Japan looking for a research subject, I went to the SHORE with another grad student, to collect edibles for a PARTY. I found out that the species of gooseneck barnacle in Japan had not been well studied, so I decided to take that up. 

 

Problem

The goal of Wordle is to guess the unknown five-letter word (which is why I made the five-letter WORDS in this post in caps — see if I missed any). This is like the challenge of finding a suitable scientific problem that can be solved within grad school. Some graduate students get handed problems to SOLVE, but I THINK half the fun of DOING science is finding a suitable problem.

Wordle has one particular answer on any given day (although apparently some differences have AFTER the switchover to the New York TIMES site). In science, only nature really “KNOWS” the WHOLE answer to your particular problem. This is BASED on an assumption that you are looking at some question that deals with some unchanging aspect of reality, WHICH does EXIST. A variation on Wordle, called Absurdle apparently changes the possible target word according to your guesses. MAYBE this is more like studying psychology or sociology. Another aspect of suitability is finding a challenge that matches your ability, to provide an opportunity for “flow,” the STATE WHERE you are so immersed in your activity that you lose TRACK of time.

Hypothesis

In Wordle, you type in your FIRST five-letter word. Your choice can be quite important to your subsequent success, WHICH is also true of supervisors. It seems reasonable to pick a word with as many vowels as possible. Vowels seem pretty essential, since you know that you’ll need at least one.

In science, your idea should be testable and consistent with KNOWN physical laws. Sometimes, scientists START with more of a survey, perhaps especially in ecology, when you don’t know what is GOING on. But if you look at a WHOLE BUNCH of variables, some MIGHT correlate just by chance. I have only recently realized that I may have done this by mistake in a published PAPER many YEARS ago, WHICH not many people read. Nowadays, some people pre-register THEIR hypothesis before DOING THEIR experiments to PROVE they were testing what they said they were.  

Data

After you have ENTER your GUESS in Wordle, you MIGHT see a yellow square, WHICH SHOWS that the letter is correct but in the WRONG PLACE. Or the tile MIGHT be GREEN, in WHICH case, the letter is both correct and in the RIGHT PLACE.

In science, you might have the sort of result that either supports or does not support your hypothesis. In ecology though, the results COULD be just MESSY. This is WHERE statistics COMES in. I had to figure out a mathematical MODEL to approximate the growth CURVE of barnacles to make it look like something had happened.

Next STEPS

Unless you see all GREEN TILES, you must now consider a next guess, BASED on your results and your vocabulary. Some people insist on reusing the known letters, which some people call the hard RULES. WHILE others see that as a WASTE of information, and try out WHOLE OTHER combinations. Sometimes it is hard to THINK of a word that fits. And sometimes you can THINK of too many WORDS that COULD fit.

In science, if you are working in a field where others have already done some things, then you MIGHT be incorporating THEIR results to make SENSE of the conclusion. As I mentioned before, FANCY statistics MIGHT come into play to reveal some MAJOR patterns. I tested an explanation about the hydrodynamics of sand dollars that I’d seen in a marine biology colouring book.

Success

In Wordle, eventually, you come up with the all GREEN, correct answer. Then you can post an IMAGE of the yellow and GREEN squares that got you THERE. If you get it on the first shot, it just MEANS you are LUCKY or cheated, which is not really that interesting. 

In science and really in most things, luck always COMES into success, but people are not always so AWARE of how much they owe to good fortune. You MIGHT be fortunate to find a lab you are interested in happens to have room for you. Or not. When I went to Japan, I applied to many places and eventually something worked out. It was luck, but also playing the odds.

Communication

It is one THING to talk ABOUT Wordle and another to play it. Sort of like the Zen STORY ABOUT the difference between talking ABOUT WATER versus drinking it. AFTER finishing the puzzle, I have a friend who MAKES a WITTY comment ABOUT that day’s puzzle using the answer. Another friend MAKES a HAIKU USING the word of the day. She posts it late in the day to AVOID ruining it for others.

I am a lapsed scientist but I do ENJOY learning and talking ABOUT science, without having to do it. I FOUND I didn’t like getting up in the middle of the NIGHT to measure barnacles at low tide. Or APPLY to post-doctoral positions. I am more interested in finding out the results and MAYBE hearing an interesting STORY of process. I don’t feel the need to find the data myself.

Do you play Wordle? Do you do science? How does Wordle compare to your SENSE of science?

Science is the Practice of Constructive Ignorance

I have a theory* that there are three kinds of ignorance.

The first kind is what I'd call neutral ignorance. The gentle, perfectly understandable kind that arises due to a simple lack of knowledge:

Ignorance: lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (Merriam Webster)

There is no shame in not knowing something, and there's no shame in not having access to the education or experience that would provide that knowledge. This kind of ignorance is much closer to innocence, and doesn't bother me a bit.

In contrast, deliberate ignorance makes me absolutely crazy.

This is the kind that persists in spite of access to knowledge. If you've turned on the news or accessed the internet in the last twenty years, you'll have ample experience with it. It afflicts people of all ages and political inclinations, and causes people to say, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence that conflicts with irrational, deeply-held beliefs, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

*sound of Lindsey's head exploding*

Scientists** on the other hand practice the third kind of ignorance - constructive ignorance. In fact, all science begins from a position of ignorance:

"Why do wolves howl?"

"How do bumblebees fly?"

"What is matter actually made of?"

"Why do kids look like their parents?"

"Is there life on other planets?"

This is where science starts - with the recognition that we don't know something. Most of us would stop there, but not scientists. Scientists put on their trusty lab coats and go find out.

After all, that's what the scientific method is for - to give us the tools to banish ignorance, to produce knowledge about ourselves and our world that we never had before. Scientific ignorance is constructive ignorance - it creates, rather than destroys. It discovers solutions and solves mysteries and shines light into the darkest depths of the unknown.

And that's how ignorance, instead of being something to deplore, becomes something to celebrate.

---

*Not a scientific theory, which is supported by so much evidence that the actual word for it is fact. What I have is more properly termed a notion.

**And all the other people who go in search of answers to their questions.

Of Truth and Lies and Getting It Right

By Claire Eamer

In June 2016, a Scottish Facebook site posted a couple of photographs of the gory remains of some strange animal sprawled on a beach. The post text read: "A dog walker out on the shores of Loch Ness has just stumbled across this. Has Nessy been found? Or someone playing a fascinating prank?"

That original post was shared 1,468 times, spreading it far across the Internet. A thousand or more comments piled up below the post. Some people thought it was proof that the Loch Ness monster existed, some spent time and energy pointing out why it wasn't the Loch Ness monster, some got into arguments about the photographs, and lots of people came away from the discussion frustrated and even angry. Some doubtless still believe that the corpse of a mythical monster washed up on that Scottish beach.

A model of Nessie, the Loch Ness monster, gets a scrub.
This Nessie floats in a pond beside a Loch Ness hotel.
Claire Eamer photo

It didn't. The tireless fact checkers at Snopes.com (a great place for hoax-busting) investigated and reported that the monster on the beach was created for a television program. In fact, the original poster admitted as much in the comment thread, but too late. Bad information - essentially, a lie - had already been spread.

The Nessy-on-the-beach post wasn't made maliciously - but this kind of misinformation has consequences. People who want to believe in Nessy won't be deterred by the Snopes explanation or the decades of scientific research that have failed to find any evidence of monsters in Loch Ness. In fact, they're likely to think the photos and text are reasons not to trust science.

And most of those people were almost certainly adults. Plenty of grown-ups have trouble separating fact from fancy, so imagine how hard it is for kids. They don't have years of experience and accumulated knowledge to help them sort it out.

We at Sci/Why are very aware of how important it is to tell kids the truth, to give them facts, to provide information as accurate and understandable as we can make it. That's the information that will help them figure out, now and in the future, what is true and what is not.

We not only think about getting it right. We write about it too - especially now, when the news is full of people debating issues of truth and lies. Here are links to some of our thoughts.

Lindsey Carmichael, Sci/Why's favourite fox-fancier, is both a scientist and a science writer. Recently, on her own blog, she wrote a post - Where Do Facts Come From? - describing the lengthy process scientists go through to discover new information and tell the world about it. Several years earlier, Lindsey wrote another post - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Does Not Apply to Research - this time on how science writers (rather than scientists) tackle getting the information right.

Our resident fungus-enthusiast, award-winning author Jan Thornhill wrote a post about how easy it is to absorb wrong information and how you can go about finding the truth - The Truth, the Internet, and the Number of Bacteria on Your Body.

That bit of wrong information almost made it into my own book on the human microbiome - Inside Your Insides: A Guide to the Microbes That Call You Home. Fortunately, the article Jan refers to was published just as my book reached the final design stage, and I was able to sneak in a correction. Publishers don't like making changes that late in the process, but Kids Can Press didn't even quibble. Children's publishers care just as much as we do about getting it right for the kids.

Finally, the alarmingly prolific Helaine Becker wrote a post - On Books - and "Real Books" - about how the "facts" you know might not be facts at all. And what to do about it.

If you want to know whether a fact is truly a fact, just follow Helaine's example. And Lindsey's. And Jan's. Then we can all get it right, for the kids and for ourselves.

Book Review: It's About Time, by Pascale Estellon

Title: It's About Time: Untangling Everything You Need to Know About Time
Author: Pascale Estellon
Publisher: Owl Kids
ISBN: 9781771470063

Book Source: review copy from publisher

I've published 10 science books for kids since 2012. Nine were "fact" books, dealing with straightforward, concrete information. The tenth is on the scientific method - a way of thinking - and my experience on that project showed me how much harder it is to write effectively about something so insubstantial and abstract.

Is there anything more abstract than time, the subject of Pascale Estellon's latest book?

Starting with one second and working up to one century, Estellon's done a marvellous job of taking the insubstantial and making it concrete. She relates each measure of time to a specific activity young children have already experienced, giving them a solid frame of reference. One second, for example, is the amount of time it takes to turn the page of the book; one hour is how long it takes to mix and bake a pound cake. The recipe for the cake is included, encouraging kids to tackle time in an interactive, hands-on way.

The book also includes questions, activities, and a clock kids can make and use while learning how to tell time. The design is extremely visual - Estellon's illustrations don't just add colour and life to the page, they are used to explain and help kids picture difficult concepts.

The only concept in the book I felt wasn't clearly explained is the Monday's Child rhyme included in the days of the week section - the heading asks kids "What day of the week are you?" without explaining that the rhyme relates to birth day. Unless kids are reading with an adult who's familiar with this rhyme and can explain, they may find this a bit confusing.

Altogether, however, It's About Time is cheerful, appealing, and very effective, and I heartily recommend it.

---

Review by L. E. Carmichael