Close
today i learned (til)

“When” to Do Things by Daniel H. Pink

April 24, 2024

Nowadays, I “read” books mostly by listening to them. When you have to read textbooks and research papers all day, it’s easier on the eyes and the brain to just have someone do all the reading for you. One of the first books I listened to after realizing this is When, the pop science/self-help book by Daniel H. Pink.

Now, hear me out. I’m usually a hater when it comes to self-help books: I don’t like their overconfident, salesman-like tone, and I don’t like the insinuation that you can change your life with a “few, simple tricks”. I despise buzzwords about “hacking your brain” or “maximizing productivity”. I’m not trying to make my body a more efficient machine–I’m just trying to get by and be happy.

This book doesn’t overpromise on how it will “change your life”. Its tagline, “the scientific secrets of perfect timing”, is a little clickbait-y, but it really does cite scientific literature. Rather than telling you what you should or shouldn’t be doing, Pink tells different stories: anecdotes of folks who run marathons at the end of a decade (19 years old, 29, 39, 49, and so on), research about night owls versus early birds, scheduling customs around the world, etc. And it definitely makes the message sink in more than if he delivered it like a TED talk.

This tone really stuck with me as a highlight of this book. For as long as I’ve been aware of time, I’ve been anxious about it. I’ve worried about running out of it, I’m terrified of wasting it, and I am constantly checking to see if I am using it right. I procrastinate and waffle around and scroll Twitter for too long and suddenly it’s bedtime. If I might be allowed to generalize my neuroses to everyone, I would say that humans just can’t really conceptualize time (see my article on Existential Physics if you want more about time). So, it scares us.

This book sat me down and said, “don’t worry so much”. Like this TikTok comment I saw floating around the internet says, “the time will pass anyways”. Apparently that’s a Earl Nightingale quote?

The time will pass anyways : r/Wiseposting

 

Take the example of the post lunch slump. I have always noticed that I really get things done from 11-12pm, 3-6 pm, or 9pm-12am (I’m currently writing this article at 10pm!). For the longest time, that stressed me out. If I couldn’t get work done during the typical 9-5, how would I ever be able to keep a job? What would I do? From this book, I learned that my biological clock is just tuned a little bit differently. Instead of trying to fight it, I should make the most of it. During the dead zone around 1-2pm, I don’t even try to do computer work. I’ll walk around, chat with a coworker, or deal with a task that makes me move. Then, when my energy hits a peak again, I tackle those mentally draining activities.

This book didn’t change my life, but funnily enough, it came into my world at just the right time. When you’re a college student juggling work, research, classes, chores, a social life, and your own physical and mental health, it’s really easy to feel overwhelmed. Up to this point, our time has been highly budgeted by parents, teachers, and other authority figures. And then, suddenly you’re just expected to be able to do it all yourself. This book was a small step in learning how to be at peace with time, and be a little more kind to myself in the process. If that sounds like something you’d like, do check out this book. It’s well worth your–nevermind.

0Likes
About Author

I'm a 3rd year neuroscience major interested in the intersection of science and art! I also like to share my experiences as someone studying an uncommon major.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Hidden Vegetables & Essential Vitamins
DIY, today i learned (til)
The Primary Colors are What?!
today i learned (til)
The Science behind ‘Frenemies’
today i learned (til)
One Piece of the Pie

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.