Mzumbua kijungu ndiye mpishi.

 

Msemo (aphorism)

Mzumbua kijungu ndiye mpishi.

Literal: The person who brought forth the small cooking pot is the cook.

A person who started the lies implicating somebody is the one who did it in the first place.

For example, in a situation where a group of people had prepared a feast and brought the collectively invested and guarded big cooking pot, but suddenly that big cooking pot got ostensibly lost. The person who starts lying and accusing others and brings out his own small cooking pot as a supposed “solution” is the one who knows how the big cooking pot was stolen and hidden. The small cooking pot is obviously incapable of catering to the entire group. This is analogous to a situation where a group of people are in a state of confoundment and shock after a given event. In such a situation, the person who starts vehemently hurling accusations and trying to implicate others in the group is the one who knows how the whole event was planned.

A character that does this takes advantage of the association of confoundment with bias. For example, the accusations will most likely be directed towards the owner of the house where the big cooking pot was temporarily stored.

Zumbua – 1. subsist, maintain. 2. start.

Kijungu (dimunitive of ‘nyungu’) nyungu - clay pot.

Kijungujiko - subsistence.

Confounding and bias

The importance of confounding is that it suggests an association where none exists or masks a true association.

In research studies, ‘exposure’ refers to so-called independent variables while ‘outcome’ refers to so-called dependent variables. A large proportion of research studies assess the relationship between two variables. Here, the question is whether one variable is associated with or responsible for change in the value of the other variable.

Exposures (independent variables)

Exposure variables can either be naturally determined (like age, sex, time, temperature, pressure, genetics) or socioeconomically determined (like smoking, educational status, political position, drug use). The socioeconomically-determined variables are termed ‘exposure’ if they are a considered variable before the study, and are considered ‘intervention’ if they are introduced to the subjects for the purpose of the study.  For example, if a drug’s use had been started in all the subjects or in some subjects but not in the others, before the study started, this counts as ‘exposure’, and not as intervention – since the drug was not started specifically for the study, and this may be a potential source of confounding in results if not considered. However, if the drug is newly introduced to all the subjects for the purpose of the study, this counts as ‘intervention’.

Intervention is normally done in experimental studies while exposure is normally considered in observational studies. Observational studies are those where the researcher is documenting a naturally occurring relationship between the exposure and the outcome that he/she is studying. The researcher does not do any active intervention in any subject, and the exposure has already been decided naturally or by some other factor out of the researcher’s control. Experimental studies on the other hand are studies where the researcher actively performs an intervention in some or all subjects. This intervention could take many forms – for example, administration of a drug, introduction of a chemical catalyst, introduction of a chemical inhibitor, layering, performance of a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, introduction of an educational tool and so forth.

Outcomes (dependent variables)

The outcome (or predicted or dependent) variable develops as a consequence of the exposure (or intervention). Outcomes are the events or endpoints that are monitored during a study to document the impact that a given intervention or exposure has on the “characteristics of study” of the subject. The purpose of outcomes is to be used as a tool to provide evidence about benefits, risks, and results of exposures and interventions so that individuals can make more informed decisions. Outcomes desired can be economic, clinical (comparative clinical effectiveness), sociopolitical, structural, efficiency (time-related), productivity (energy, longevity) or humanistic (quality-of-life-related), and so forth depending on area of study. For example, one may want an outcome of batteries that store a high amount of energy and release only required amounts over a long period of time while undergoing minimal degradation.

Confoundment

Confounding is a distortion that modifies an association between an exposure and an outcome because a factor is independently associated with the exposure and the outcome. Confounding of variables commonly occurs in observational studies, but can also occur in experimental studies, especially, but not only, if they are poorly designed. For example, if by chance more elderly people are experimented with an active intervention than to placebo, and if age is independently more likely to be associated with a beneficial outcome, the intervention may falsely appear to be beneficial. In this example, the distortion arises from the unbalanced exposure (age) to the outcome (effectiveness) because the probability of bias in results was not reduced through deliberate balancing of the elderly subjects in equal number on the active intervention side and on the placebo side, with a similar balancing for the younger subjects to see the difference. The deliberate balancing of the age exposure variable on both the active intervention and placebo may give more accurate outcomes that diminish confoundment because it will be observed that the intervention is more effective in the elderly sample.

Another way of confoundment is the introduction of an unproven concept that seems logically compelling, to explain an observation. An example is the concept of ‘allelopathy’. This is a concept of a biological phenomenon by which an organism produces one or more biochemicals that influence the germination, growth, survival, and reproduction of other organisms. The supposed biochemicals are termed ‘allelochemicals’. As a result of the introduction of this unproven but logically compelling concept, it can often be difficult in practice to distinguish allelopathy from resource competition. While the former is supposed to be caused by the addition of a harmful chemical agent to the environment, the latter is caused by the removal of essential nutrients (or water). Often, both mechanisms can be deemed to act simultaneously. Moreover, some allelochemicals are said to function by reducing nutrient availability. Further confounding the issue, the production of allelochemicals can itself be affected by environmental factors such as nutrient availability, temperature and pH.

The term allelopathy was first used in 1937 by the Austrian professor Hans Molisch in the book Der Einfluss einer Pflanze auf die andere - Allelopathie (The Effect of Plants on Each Other - Allelopathy) published in German. He used the term to describe “biochemical interactions by means of which a plant inhibits the growth of neighbouring plants”. In 1971, Whittaker and Feeny published a review in the journal Science, which proposed an expanded definition of allelochemical interactions that would incorporate all chemical interactions among organisms. In 1984, Elroy Leon Rice in his monograph on allelopathy enlarged the definition to include all direct positive or negative effects of a plant on another plant or on micro-organisms by the “liberation of biochemicals” into the natural environment. Over the next ten years, the term was used by other researchers to describe broader chemical interactions between organisms, and by 1996 the International Allelopathy Society (IAS) defined allelopathy as "Any process involving secondary metabolites produced by plants, algae, bacteria and fungi that influences the growth and development of agriculture and biological systems". In more recent times, plant researchers have begun to switch back to the original definition of substances that are produced by one plant that inhibit another plant. Confusing the issue more, zoologists have borrowed the term to describe chemical interactions between invertebrates like corals and sponges.

Allelopathy, just like homeopathy, seems to be inspired by the pseudoscientific concept of animal magnetism/mesmerism invented by German doctor Franz Mesmer in the 18th century. It posits the existence of an invisible natural force possessed by all living things, including humans, animals, and vegetables, which could have physical effects, including healing. Unwarranted injection of unproven concepts into observations, is a form of superstition that leads to confoundment.

References

Aronson JK, Bankhead C, Nunan D. Confounding (2018). Catalogue of bias collaboration, In Catalogue Of Biases. www.catalogueofbiases.org/biases/confounding

Mohamed Said Ahmed (1974). Vito Vya Hekima, Simo Na Maneno Ya Mshangao. Nairobi: Longman.

Ranganathan, P., & Aggarwal, R. (2018). Study designs: Part 1 - An overview and classification. Perspectives in clinical research, 9(4), 184–186.

TUKI (2001), Kamusi Ya Kiswahili-Kiingereza; Swahili-English Dictionary. Published by Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili (TUKI), Chuo Kikuu cha Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Willis, Rick J. (2007). The History of Allelopathy. Springer.