What is Reddit's opinion of
How to Lie with Statistics?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The following content includes affiliate links for which I may make a small commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase.
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
251 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
If every republican read how to lie with statistics -Darrell Huff (1954) Fox viewership would drop. Hell, Democrats or anyone for that matter should read this. It makes trusting a news source a lot harder when you immediately pick out devious tricks to engineer partial truths.
It's not an oxymoron. You can have two sets of true facts about a situation, which depending on which things are emphasized, gives you an entirely separate narrative of how things are going.
One could say, for instance, "Murders in Chicago are up 1200% this year! Highest number of deaths on record!" And that would be one set of facts.
One could also say, "There were 12 murders in Chicago, compared to 1 last year. The 10 year average is about 10 murders per year, so this isn't outside of the expected range of deaths. Also, it's a city of 3 million, so this is in fact a fairly low amount of murders on a per capita basis."
Those are two sets of facts reporting on the same incident, both true but you can tell they paint entirely different narratives about how to feel about the situation.
What this shows is that you cannot simply say, "Well, just report the facts, and everything else will work itself out." There is a meta element to this, where you choose which things to emphasize, and which to de-emphasize, and by this choice of emphasis you inevitably are shaping the way things are understood, because humans understand events not by a bulleted list of facts, but as a narrative, a story.
These things you have to take into consideration when you're talking about media and the spread of information, especially political information.
For more fun like this, check out How to Lie with Statistics.
Here, you obviously need to read this https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_dls_failed
The fact is that masks were made political and there are politically motivated people funding and doing research. u/Kryloxy is correct that there are studies that show masks are somewhat useful and a bunch that show they aren't. I think the best summary of this whole situation comes from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
"The increasing polarised and politicised views on whether to wear masks in public during the current COVID-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions...There is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks...The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly, broadly reach the same conclusions. However, recent reviews using lower quality evidence found masks to be effective...This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence."
> The actual shame here is Newsweek reporting on that tiny slope at the end of the graph.
My business statistics teacher in college was garbage, but the best thing he ever did was mandate that we buy the book, How To Lie With Statistics as one of the textbooks.
It's a short book, written in 1954, and yet it is remarkably applicable to today. It goes through the most common ways advertisers, politicians, salespeople, etc use misleading graphs or charts or cherry-picked statistics to lie. And once you've read it, you notice it EVERYWHERE.
It's a short book that does a good job of showing how people manipulate the presentation of data to achieve their goals. If nothing else, it will raise your awareness of the issue and perhaps make you more skeptical of what you see and read.
> So you have no idea of survival
Your not making any sense at all
>Yes really, CO2 isn’t good for your lungs
Your not making any sense at all
>Except there is, in so many studies you’ll find the big spike where we are now, and in the rest of history you’ll only see such acceleration in extinction events.
Deaths as a result of climate is at an historic low
>You know you don’t randomly become a billionaire because you talk about climate change right?
Worked for Al Gore, with is 15 times the average co2 footprint
>It is you can see it in so many statistics
Here's one of Bill Gates favorite books
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I think it might be time to ask yourself if this issue has become somewhat religious to you?
Getting into the finer details are where it can get tricky. There are entire courses and even degrees about working with statistics, making sure a survey is actually representative, or the ways numbers and surveys can be "abused" to show certain things.
It can come down to things like how questions are phrased, or the answer options that can change survey responses.
A pretty easy book to read is called "How to lie with statistics" and goes over a bunch of fallacies and mistakes that can be done with them.
A summary of the first example that is relevant here is a claim that "The Average income of a Yale Graduate after 25 years is $300,000"
A more thorough breakdown would be "of the people who we could contact, and of those who replied, listed their income as an average of $300,000"
Since it would be easier to get in contact with high earners on things like linkedin or CEO pages, and the people earning a lot are more likely to respond when asked than the graduates who did nothing with their degree and would bring the average down.
So in effect, the previously cited statistic, doesn't actually represent the earning actual earnings very well. In an actual survey/study this is why there are sections explaining the methodology used, and part of what peer review is. So that someone else can look at the study and go "Wait, they only sampled like 100 people from a class of 2,000, and they only got their contact info off company CEO pages... of course the income numbers will be higher so this study is useless."
A good part of the field is working around these issues to be able to actually do studies and surveys that can provide meaningful data.
>Since then I have absolutely no confidence in any poll. It's a crapshoot
They're all bullshit.
I read this book in my first college writing class. It was written in 1954 and every bit of it is as relevant now as it was then. Stats can easily be manipulated and turned into bullshit.
I barely believe anything I see or read or anymore until I can verify it through at least one to two other sources; too much content is made simply for the sake of stirring the pot, making a buck, or both.
You might interested in the book, <em>How to Lie with Statistics</em>
Your honor, I present - How to Lie with Statistics - a tale as old as time.
I’m just going to leave that there. No, statistics do not, and very well should not, effect opinions. And your last statement is not a statistic, it’s an opinion. Zabuza isn’t particularly strong, but he’s a well liked character.
Same thing happens with unemployment in the US. People are reported as unemployed if they report for unemployment insurance but with the pandemic so many people dropped off the rolls back in Sept because the federal government wouldn't extend pandemic insurance.
Stats can be manipulated to lie.
Hmm maybe you've misunderstood, as none of those links bridge the gap between your original comment and my question. You (everyone) should checkout the book How To Lie With Statistics.
There being more students killed than police officers DOES NOT IMPLY conclusively that it is more dangerous to be a student than a cop (though it does raise the question). It is a fallacious argument without normalizing the data.
Again I totally agree with the spirit of your comment, that student death counts being larger than cops is an absurd tragedy. But it doesn't imply which demographic is in more danger without normalizing the data, which I don't see the sources you linked do.
There's a [good book](https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728) on this topic.
From my experience, there are 2 different cases for distrust:
- Objective reasons. You can deal with those by showing how the data is received and processed. Usually that's enough, if a person knows a thing or two about data.
- Subjective reasons. I'm afraid there is no easy fix for someone being just too tired of a cavalcade of consultants whose bright ideas he had to implement without proper knowledge/skills/training (or whatever other reasons he might have). Try making a good contact with someone else around him and proving the idea to him. It's easier to overcome subjective reasons if people you trust approve the data.
well if people think the vax is bad or dangerous, and the government is trying to force people to take it, why trust their numbers, they refuse to accept the VERS #s, despite always doing it before this vax, data can be manuplated. faucci is getting rich from patents he holds for these vaccines, faucci has a flat out EVIL history the is supressed,
the us militray recently released reports and the medical codes used for insurace were scraped and found huge huge increase of #s for all types of things-4 pages of diagonisis, and compared it to each of the last 5 years, the gov removed the data from the site the next day.
or how about the gov want 75 years to release the FDA Phizer vax data?among 1000s of other things, thats why i dont trust them. you shouldt either.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
but above you have people from situations that were "scraped" from news articles, so you can look them up, verify them.. this never has happened before-how do you explain this?
Ironic that I was mistagged in this but I actually enjoyed stats. I think R is the better choice here, I would also recommend How to Lie with Statistics.
Creó que era este libro, te daría el link directo pero conociéndote probablemente lo quieras en papel por qué leerlo en la compu no te gusta. Have fun!! Se aprende cosas todos los días ;)
OK Classtime is over.
Even if you're acting in good faith, your basic inability to read or listen is exhausting, and I'm done trying to help.
​
Good luck! This might be a good book for you to read! https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Its logic dipshit. If I had a source for infinite logic I'd for sure give it away to the needy. vaccinated unvaccinated still spreading it. Any report claim to observe a difference in rate is anecdotal at best. Breakthrough cases are pretty common so it doesn't appear that vaccination rates have an inverse correlation to infection rates. Unfortunately this message was NOT paid for by phizer so you wont believe me.
Read this book. It was on Bill Gates recommended reading list. It should offer you some insight into what's real, what's hyperbolic, and what's propaganda.
Ha hiszel a statisztikanak.
De ha tul van becsulve a Covid hatasa es szonyeg ala van soporve a vakcina okozta hatas akkor mennyi koze is van a statisztikanak a valosaghoz?
Pl, ha jol emlekszem UK-ban hogyha 2 heten belul kozvetkezik be vakcina beadas utan valami negativ hatas megkerdojelezik, hogy lehet e az oltonyag miatt, merthogy annak 2 het kell, hogy kifejtse a hatasat.
Vagy hogy feltalaltak azt a kifejezest hogy"died with covid", ami coviddal halt meg. Nem in covid, hanem with covid, tehat "coviddal" .Remelem azert erzed a szavak hatalmat. Kis kulonbsegek itt-ott es maris borul a nagy matek.
Cool… statistics, I like that book Dr. Gates keeps in the background during interviews for you dummies, what’s it called again?
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
If I told you I have never voted R and with the exception of the last two elections voted D how would process this info as it destroys the prejudices baked into your head by the tv as to what people who disagree with that your told to believe are saying? Maybe you should take your jump-to-conclusions mat and shove it up your ass instead of parroting shit all day.
Oh, sorry my post was long so I wasn’t sure what you were talking about. I worked in city admin, mostly budget stuff, and the numbers are gamed all the time. For example we built a bunch of bike lanes and did a victory lap for how green we were. We’re they built, yes, we didn’t lie, but they were thrown in the inner city, the middle of nowhere and places that would hardly be used. Why? Because if we hit a certain amount of mileage Sacramento made it rain in funding. The hospital system tried to game occupational medical care all the time because they knew city pockets were deep. The Feds are the worst, they buy all their guys new cars and cell phones just to burn through the budget so they maybe get a budget increase.
Anyway I have a healthy suspicion of these large institutions where a buck is to be made, because if the incentive is there they’ll do the best they can to take it.
This is an excellent book on it:
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_896JHAW6JDV2A5TM36V6
No one said the the virus nor the vaccines are fake. But factor all of the misinformation doled out regarding both from so-called people of science.
And then factor in all of the disinformation from the “scientific community” regarding alternate treatments for CV19.
Many of these people of science clearly either have: 1) an agenda 2) an axe to grind 3) monetary incentive.
See Bill Gates. He calls himself a person of science (clearly not a scientist), but has touted a book called How to Lie with Statistics. He states about the book: “One chapter shows you how visuals can be used to exaggerate trends and give distorted comparisons.”
Now, if you don’t think those same tactics are/were being used with regard to the whole CV19 outbreak, by people of science, then you should look a little deeper.
You need to read “How to Lie With Statistics” several times. It’s an ancient game. To impugn intelligent people who don’t buy the statistics being promulgated by the “government” suggests you don’t really understand statistics at all. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_S81QPY7W3W5TWVF53AF8
The proof that the statistics are bullshit are the statistics themselves.
They really should teach statistics as part of the standard curriculum, because it's distressing how easy it is to mislead people with them and if people had a better understanding of them, they'd put less faith in them.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
You should really read that book. Bill Gates did. And look how successful the scams he's been involved in have been.
> +50% blacks
Yes, it's quite easy to have a large percentage growth when the actual number is quite small. This matters not one whit to the fact that the final overall number is still quite small.
The overall effect is simply not that significant. One of the best things my college statistics teacher did was require us to read the book How To Lie With Statistics, which was written in 1954 but is still incredibly relevant today. All it did was go through examples of politicians and the like misleading people with statistics, and this use of percentage changes with small numbers is literally one of the examples in Chapter 3.
You're lying to yourself with statistics.
"Facts" is a funny way to describe misleading and interpretations of statistics. There are many ways that data can be analyzed and that's certainly one way, but it definitely isn't the only way. You're also inferring that it's a natural state, and not something that can be changed. It may even be natural, but that certainly doesn't imply that it's inevitable.
Here's a book you should read to understand a little bit of what I'm talking about:
>I'm actually an ESL teacher.
I don't know what ESL means
> I'm not having trouble understanding you because of your grammar, I'm having trouble understanding you because of your logic.
According to my experience, that's what people deep into cognitive dissonance reacts to things that goes against the dogmas they believe in when they're contested.
So, if you really, unironically, accept a pandemic state enforced by the government under threat of many sanctions including fines, violence and prison, with all the data pointing out falsified premises, not being the actual cause of death in 97% of the cases, with all-around-the-wold abuse of power, reduction of civil rights and threats of use of force on non-compliance, corruption, massive change of hands of capital to corporations and draconian, beyond-borderline tyranny measures from narcisistic little-princes masked as elected public servants, and with all that happening you'd rather comply instead of to resist or to question, I can't see what I could say to change your mind, because according to my experience, you're not able to.
The fun part is, the statistics are actual and precise, alas there is indeed a case to build about they aren't, but that's beside my point. They just lied to you with it.
I find this chart misleading. It should be annualized, or placed with discrete values, not percentages
For example. If I have a dollar and lose 25%, I have 75 cents. If I then gain 25% (same number), I am back up to only less than 94 cents. The chart does not reflect that. Read
Darrell Huff How to Lie with Statistics
- You just quote misleading statistics
- Sealion and ignore when you get facts and studies to counter your bullshit.
- Read links people send you and say they say the opposite.
You are full of shit. The other people were right in citing you following the alt-right digital tactics script.
Vast majority of the country falls for the gimmicks of WhatsApp stories or YouTube thumbnails and most educated people know that. Even on right wing subreddits people make fun of Zee news, India TV and Republic. Even Kangana gets her share of mud thrown at her.
But saying these portals are genuinely fact checking is another level of bullshit. All they do is do some reverse google image search or lie with their stats. You can bring in some biased person and let him say that a particular news is fake.
https://www.amazon.in/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_qIHqFbBWH2H37
Read that book. Even numbers can be faked. Even if you show a live footage of something happening people can twist that to their advantage. If you truly believe alt news people have no agenda I pity you. Sure they might be smarter than people who fall for fake whatsapp news but saying these people are fact checkers is load of bullshit. It's just detective work based on information available on internet.
I don't think you sound trolly. This is sort of a beginner question.
I clarified why I asked the question in the first place under the comment made by /u/scottscheule and I feel like a few of my questions weren't necessarily well thought out, just throwing them out to see what people thought.
I do, however, disagree with you on one point. With any public intellectual, there will always be people that take their word as gospel. To think a group impervious to that would be naive. I agree that Chomsky is an important thinker, but I also think that followers of Chomsky can also fall into the similar traps that opponents of Chomsky fall into (i.e. not reading the material of their opposition, because lets face it, people assume Chomsky's stance all the time and they've never opened a single one of his books)
I will contend that his data points are where he truly succeeds. I also think that people should read books like "How To Lie With Statistics", not because I think Chomsky lies, but because I think Chomsky knows when statistics are being used to lie, and I feel that skill is an important quality, just like reading dissenting opinions.
My point was to ask how people learned to emulate Chomsky's skills, as it's something I really appreciate from him, and I feel should be encouraged.
Thanks for the response. It was actually really helpful. =)
This is a great book that we used back in college nicely illustrates this thread for those interested
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_h8wbBb6Q1A1K7
Edit: the book title is tongue-in-cheek, this is not simply a how-to guide
Bite, this is called "How to lie with statistics"* .. you can always find a metric that will support any argument. She lost. She should have won. It's on her.
* -- great book, timeless, simple but excellent.
That's still bullshit why did you change your tone? If the range is small at about 20 or so percentage points than it makes perfect sense to lower the axis range to show the rapid changes in percentages.. On a side note read How To Lie With Statistics Read in 12th grade AP Statistics, best book I ever read.
But I know the facts.
I have lived them and I have seen others die them.
You have no idea what the facts are. You are using skewed (and may I point out) unlinked "facts" to make an argument about something which you have no first hand experience.
You are dancing in the dark and I am not impressed.
> I said they were about average for the city. Which they are.
Show me. Though I fear we're treading into confirmation bias territory, I would be interested in any city-wide data comparisons you can provide.
> That would be a much better way to tell if they're helping their kids learn than this snapshot.
A series of snapshots is called a motion picture but, still, I agree: oranges to oranges comparisons are always preferable. This school, however, isn't an orange, it's a miniature kumquat, making it hard to draw direct comparisons.
I'm a fan of schools experimenting with ways to color outside the box and I like the premise of mastery based education. The unanswered question isn't whether or not this school is doing anything radically experimental (it isn't) or whether or not what they are doing is radically effective (it isn't.) The question calls up a simple cost-benefit decision: whether or not it's fair to divert resources from the rest of the population to fund a program that is going to see many of any cohort age out before they achieve mastery. Imagine if every school had two teachers in each classroom and a 7:1 ratio.
Sometimes it sucks to be a square peg in a round hole world but that doesn't mean we should be retooling every hole to accommodate the outliers. The job of the public schools isn't to balance the scales to assure equal outcomes, it's to provide equal treatment and opportunity. This school is the proverbial thumb on the scale that inherently means other schools are underserved.
"Your personal anecdotes"
- how assholes dismisses your life, your first hand proof, while convincing no one of anything.
Dude, the world is FULL of people who drink that have no problem. If you had a problem, it's just that: your fucking problem.
Oh, and yes, statistics lie better then anyone. Obviously you don't have much of an education.
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Mark Twain
"How to lie with statistics" https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
You should read this book. It's short, succinct and shows one problem with evidence - your view of the same data set can be skewed through clever manipulation.
A few examples are in order.
There are many instances in advertising where you want to show the average value of something, say the average weight loss for your new diet pill. "Average 20 pounds lost!"
Well, that's quite a trick. What average? They're likely to choose the mean, rather than median, because it is more sensitive to extreme values and would increase the "average" for the same data set. They'll never tell you which average they used.
There's a second trick in the example. 20 pounds lost? In what time span? Without specifying, which advertisers generally don't, it's not even clear if the pill is more effective than a proper diet.
Another common example of how to skew perception: the choice of axes on graphs. Say the GDP falls from 50,000 to 49,000 per capita for a country. If you choose the axis of the plot to range from 48,500 to 50,500 or so, it'll look like a catastrophic drop. If you choose the axis to range from 0 to 100,000, the drop will look insignificant. If you plot on a logarithmic scale, it might be hard to tell there's even a difference!
There are lots more examples. The problem is that data can be manipulated in tricky ways to reach whatever conclusion you want. Peer review in science is a counter-measure to this, which generally doesn't exist in politics.
I never had a statistics class in college, but back in high school I read a fascinating, skinny little book called How To Lie With Statistics. I read it multiple times and always seemed to find some new angle I missed the previous time. It sure opened my young eyes to how easy it is to mislead people by carefully manipulating how data is presented.
Dude, is that really your best ammunition? For fuck's sake, try harder if you're going to pretend you've "got" me.
But, that would require you to have original thoughts instead of regurgitating "facts" because their counter-mainstream nature makes it easier for you to crank it. Have you considered picking up this book? Maybe it'll help you figure out things a bit more before your parents cut you off.
I took a look and a great deal of context is missing from the image. In hindsight, it's obvious that the lower part of the image is only there to bolster the credibility of the upper part. Further, the above conclusion is not supported by the data or the report. Pew research does not assert any conclusions based on the data collected. The image you posted earlier amounts to lying with statistics, it's accurate based on the sample but meaningless with context, this is probably why the report authors did not attempt to draw any conclusion themselves.
As I've said, I don't care about polls because they are super easy to fake. Even if you don't fake them and have 100% genuine answers, you can go to a ghetto where people are predominantly pro or against something and skew data in that way.
I don't care who conducts them because you never know the ownership structure of companies they are representing.
Polls are one of the least reliable sources of information and should never be used to draw conclusions.
Edit: Read How to Lie with Statistics. You'll see what I'm talking about. I've delt with far too many organizations and businesses that talk out of their ass about their numbers and projections that aren't based on anything remotely real. Heck, governments do this shit as well. Most of the times it's wishful thinking combined with ignorance and pursuit of a political agenda aka total rubbish.
A quick and dirty stand in for those who missed the window in college - take a couple of hours to read How to Lie with Statistics (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728). Published in 1954, and documents the weaselly not-quite-lies of advertisers, salesmen (of any gender), and politicians.
I read it 30 years ago, and still think of it often.
This comes to mind when I think about Statistics. I had a College Math teacher once say, "There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."
I say we emphasize the calculus so we can move easily towards those skills that need them and away from the bullshit.
Ahhh okay so this gets into another bit about understanding polling data. When news outlets refer to Trump's polling numbers, or any others for that matter, they are talking about people who have registered as Republican/Democrat/Independent. I want to say somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of American's are "registered Republicans" while 30%+/- are "registered Democrats".
So when they say nearly 40% of Republicans favor Donald Trump, what they are really saying is 8% of Americans favor Trump. The latter is still a pretty terrifying number, but not nearly as much as the former.
Another aspect to this is whether those people are actually going to vote. Since the percentage of Americans who vote in Presidential elections typically hovers near 60%, not every single person pollsters call will actually vote. Most polling companies, to account for this, develop a system of identifying "likely voters". As we get closer to the election, you'll start seeing more polls identifying their stats with this "likely voter" tag instead of "registered republican".
Like I said before, the statistics don't lie. People lie. If you want to read more about that, I suggest How To Lie With Statistics which does a really good job of showing you what to look for not just in polling data, but any graph or stat someone shows you.
Statistical studies are not reliable and should never be believed unless you've actually gone through the report itself and understand what was done in it exactly. Most statistical studies are done to prove something, therefore, it is very common among those who do such studies to manipulate data, which is easy to do in such studies, in order to push out their own preconceived notions, They only do these studies so that they can tell the world, "hey, we've done studies on it so it's accurate." We hear most about statistical studies through the television when they're trying to sell some pill or some equipment. Did you ever wonder why statistical studies so conveniently favor the manufacturer's product? It's because it's loaded with crap and manipulation of data.
I would also recommend reading How to Lie With Statistics, a phenomenal work on this topic. Though it was written in the 50s, it still applies today.
> Statistics don't lie,
How to do exactly that: How To Lie with Statistics.
> admitted to having
A self reporting study. Always the most accurate of the bunch.
> we can safely speculate
No. No you can't. You can't 'speculate' anything. You can make wild guesses.
> And of the people who did have premarital sex, they had much less partners than today.
That's where you assume everyone these days has dozens of partners. I would say the statistics today don't look that much different.
> I'm not even arguing with you about your damn 80's.
Because you have none. The women that started the "sexual revolution" in the 60's would be in their 70s by now. It has nothing to do with Tinder.
I think these guys have read How to Lie with Statistics. A short burst of bullets for 0.0108 seconds is cool and all, but bragging about "1,000,000 rounds/minute" is kind of pointless unless you can sustain that rate of fire. Oh look, my double-barrel shotgun will pump out two rounds in 0.0001 seconds. That means I'm firing 1,200,000 rounds/minute!
But what about top ten teams from any conference on games played in stadiums that vary no less than 12.5 degrees from magnetic north where the opposing defense has a higher efficiency and socks?
Manziel: 200 TDs, 15,000 yards, and rescues an entire animal shelter stranded on the fourth deck of the stadium during a tornado.
Klein: 15 interceptions, ran the ball the wrong way for 5 safeties, and accidentally ran over a box of puppies with a brush hog.
My point is that when you select for multiple variables, you can filter the results to get anything you like. As Mark Twain said, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
May I refer you to this book.
Edit: Oh, and Baylor.
exactly the same here. I looked at it and was like "wow, I should be packing an iPhone!" But it's funny because yeah I like minimalism, so my Android is customized to be minimalist. Oh look at that, I use Gmail, not Yahoo. Interesting. Planet Earth you say? Well I watch that, but that has nothing to do with my phone of choice.
These statistics are so out there and only play on the stereotypes of the users rather than provide legitimate data. They must have read a copy of this before making the infographic.
I've been reading through this book that someone pointed me to last week.
Basically, polls do mean something but for the most part, the polling data can be interpretated in a whole number of ways to achieve an outcome favourable to the poll sponsor.
In 1947 the WWII vets were launching (or re-launching) their careers, many having taken advantage of the GI bill to obtain a college degree. Over the next 30 years or so, their careers progressed, and their incomes rose correspondingly. So I wonder, why the arbitrary break at 1980? Whoever made this chart has obviously read How to Lie with Statistics
<strong>How to Lie with Statistics</strong>, Modinomics 101
> As of March 30, the number of accidents recorded in 2017-18 stood at 73 — 29 per cent fewer than the 104 in 2016-17.
> In 1968-69, the number of railway accidents fell to three digits for the first time — to 908 from the 1,111 in the previous year. Three figures have remained the norm ever since — except in 1980-81
Before saying that last FY recorded the lowest # of accidents, shouldn't the journalist have also shown a line graph of decreasing-trend in the past, with an upward jump only in 2016-17?
And why not include line-graphs of number of injuries and deaths too (which have suddenly gone up in recent years), to give the right perspective on scale of the accident?
Here is a detailed story in 'The Hindu', Nov-2017, with detailed infographics:
Looks like the story itself is some elaborate PR spin, planted right at the end of the FY, with the most good-looking number carefully cherry-picked.
> “We are absolutely keeping our fingers crossed and if you see, there is immense emphasis on safety everywhere,” Chairman Railway Board Ashwani Lohani told The Sunday Express.
If only the ministers cut down on their boot-licking time, and put in more diligence in improving the reality rather than just managing the jhumla optics.
It's like How to Lie with Statistics but only using their own actual charts. That's amazingly quaint.
I had a highschool math teacher who always told us to be warry of statistics and even had a book he shared.
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_mfP4DbK80WD65
Actually they do....
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Also, you have anecdotal evidence, which is not much evidence at all.
Thirdly, this is a repost.
How to Lie with Statistics - Darrell Huff https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_AZEgDb4HMAXFY
One of the best books I ever read was "How to Lie With Statistics". Although the examples are dated, the basics are still very valid.
Possibly the worst set of graphs I've ever seen
​
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
But what is your response to my comments?
Also, who are the "experts" who published the diagram. Finally, go read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff
It's a pretty quick read about how true information can be used in misleading ways.
How can we be sure that the data you're referring to is trustworthy?
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I went looking for the book you recommended, as I will be doing a lot of statistics as a research student starting this fall. I found How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff and Statistics Done Wrong by Alex Reinhardt.
Could you clarify which one you're referring to? I would be interested in reading a copy while we're still in the summer months.
There's literally a book about how to lie with statistics. 😉
>You're not making any sense at all
you have no idea that humans could survive in these times, because it was way hotter, and more greenhouse gasses in the air.
>Your not making any sense at all here either.
CO2 is not good for your lungs,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198404053101402
​
>Deaths as a result of climate is at an historic low
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2012.1890
further research is being recommended.
​
>Worked for Al Gore, with his 15 times the average co2 footprint
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/al-gore-net-worth/
300 million, seems an average US politician
​
>Here's one of Bill Gates favorite books: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
and because you CAN lie with statistics, everyone lies? thats just illogical
>I think it might be time to ask yourself if this issue has become somewhat religious to you?
I can ask the same to you, is denying climate change some kind of mantra to you?
Perhaps you’ve never seen this book before https://www.amazon.ca/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
lol.
Mostly it is just a lack of drive to try and change 1 delusional person. Metrics like above have alot of potential holes and I don't have the time or workspace to dig into all their source data.
Top of my head, they are showing it in %'s and it is vs 'projected'. In a situation like that, I would want to see their hard number estimates, their update/change log and a longer time period than only back to jan 5.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Your view is narrow. What they tell you isn't false. They misrepresent data so they arn't legally liable by lying but infer a truth that isn't there. Fairly common over the last few years.
It is. Contextless stats are meaningless, when being weighed against direct duress free statements themselves.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Knock yourself out.
Reading material for you:
Stats lie all the time.
You may want to read this. It will help you better understand how they are lying in the numbers you keep posting. https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I'm not "your dude." You don't have anything on your side that isn't biased.
Here's a book that you probably should read again: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=asc_df_0393310728/
Be my guest. If you went through my history, you probably quickly realized you were out of your league in this discussion as a layman arguing against someone who has worked with and published papers on statistical analysis techniques.
I suggest the following reading: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
A book everyone should read:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I hate it as well. "How to lie with statistics" should be mandatory reading for anyone who chooses to cite bogus like this:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
You can lie with statistics and lack of context https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/
Lets not do the quote thing, it's passive aggressive. You can write a response without having to quote literally everything I write.
So you're lying with statistics by using raw numbers to make the situation sound scary and dire. You haven't adjusted for per capita. You haven't shown all the numbers in the dataset. You're just cherry picking numbers and divorcing them from relevancy. This is basically Lying With Statistics 101.
Believe it or not, I actually respect intellect and the academic process which created modern society. But hey, I guess I could be like you and Jim Bob hanging outside the corner store who can "think for themselves." But based on your inability to understand what lying with statistics is or fair comparisons. I think I'll go with the experts on this one.
You keep clinging to Brazil, why, I have no idea. Only a delusional person would try to compare a country where 12.8 percent of the population lives on less than $5.50 a day to the US. That statistic doesn't even exist for the US. That's why you don't compare developing countries to developed countries. Again, lying with statistics. Comparing Brazil and the US has no basis in reality.
Do I need to post pictures of "shitty districts" in Brazil and compare them to say Gary Indiana? There is no comparison between the US and Brazil. What planet do you spend the majority of your time on?
I would absolutely love to talk about any developed nation. But I have a feeling you're going to bring up S. Africa, Mexico or maybe even The Sudan next. Why? Probably because if we started talking about other developed nations we'd come to the conclusion that everything from tight gun regulations (Norway, Canada) to no guns (Japan) results in progressively fewer gun deaths. But no, taking guns away is going to turn the US into Brazil...
Now for the link you posted. I'm sorry, but that link doesn't prove your argument. That article doesn't prove any argument. I think the author was hungover and needed to post something for his deadline. Lets go through this article. He posts a small excerpt from the CDC study, great. Then he skips ahead to some personal beef he has with a professor in FL. Then he concludes that we don't know how many defensive gun use occurrences exist, but he thinks there's more than in the 90s (with zero data to back it up, just a hunch). Yowzers, this is why I avoid right wing media sources.
A couple of things. The author wants to know where the data from the 90s was. Hmmm, could it be that congress effectively placed a gag order on CDC research into gun violence in 1996? Dickey Amendment
Now on to the CDC research. See, when you just post a partial quote it doesn't show the whole story. A survey that asks respondents about DGU is going to be by it's very nature a little squishy. Now good researchers being good researchers. They gave the data, but they also gave an analysis.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. <em>https://doi.org/10.17226/18319</em>.
So no, DGU isn't a good argument for keeping guns around. I mean, I could keep a cobra in my foyer and it might kill an intruder. But it's probably going to kill me or my kids first.
“How to Lie With Statistics” is a great book, but if you just want something you can pull up quickly now, there are plenty of articles out there explaining most of the same key points that this book talks about.
Dude youre taking a small sample size poll in a subreddit that's participation isn't representative of the entire community and ignores people who either don't play the game but are willing to give it a chance, OR who have left, but are willing to come back.
And that's ignoring the fact that your polls encourage certain views and/or are worded in different ways than the conclusions you'd draw from them.
Like this, is the poll you use to come to the conclusion that people don't like the direction the game is moving. In what world does that poll say anything other than "people want OW2 to play more like OW1 than games that aren't overwatch."
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_JF6QS3CMQTFASQVJV990
How to Lie with Statistics
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_48RCT70TFA2FBCA1GHSV
Worth a read...
Points I will like to put forth. 1. You were not able to answer why there's no fixed percentage of seats of general.
The story of reserved seats getting converted to general isn't 100% true. A friend of mine waited 2 days in an auditorium for counseling in hope that a seat might get converted but that didn't happen. Rather once a reserved candidate takes a general seat, that seat is converted to reserved. Suppose he/she changes the branch/college that seat will go to a reserved candidate.
General seats are not at 50% currently at least not where I go about. I'm not sure which sector/field you belong to what's the situation there but from POV they are maybe 30-33 % at certain places which further decrease due to point 2.
P.s. I'm not again reservation but there has been issues where certain college/branch had 4-5 seats in total and out of which 0 were general this pisses me off. This means that even AIR 1 cannot apply for those seats.
Now coming to the statistics you shared, my question is why hasn't reservation improved the social structure of the community? Despite a century of reservation system why there's still inequal representation those sectors as that post suggested? Is reservation a failure? Has it failed to do the only thing it's supposed to do?
Here's something to improve your vocabulary for further arguments in this topic.
Here's the best statistics book from the 20th century, hope it helps
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_0R0GDB9T5JXD2X5T1SYM
Polls, surveys, and questionnaires - lovely tools to prove your bias.
Consider checking this out, How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_dls
lmao statistics do not convey power but nice try though.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Okay, glad to hear you will look at it with an open mind. I will then share a little bit .
Bill Gates, among others (he's one of the people behind this, its not just him) - likes 'mocking' people (figures everyone else is 'dumb'), so he had a bunch of pictures of himself with a book called "How to lie with Statistics". While I haven't yet read this particular book, I believe this is the one he references. https://www.amazon.ca/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
A lot of the "numbers" you see are indeed manipulated/outright lies/misleading/etc.
Case & point. Let's say I told you that there was a city with 500,000 people - and in ONE DAY - there was a 400% increase in "cases". Assuming that entire statement was 100% factually true (the fact that cases are fake is an entirely different thing) - can you spot the error in that statement?
400% sounds like a HUGE number, doesn't it? Sounds pretty scary. It would probably (and has) scared a lot of people into taking certain actions. Do you know yet what information is missing that would put that "factually true" statement in an entirely different light?
I didn't tell you how many people were "tested". So if only 1 person was tested, and on Day 2, 4 people were "tested", and each "test" was positive (thus a "400%" increase), I could make the entirely "factually accurate" but totally misleading statement that in a city of 500,000 people, overnight there was a HUGE 400% increase in "cases".
When you start to do a deep dive into the numbers - you'll discover the deaths were totally manipulated/fabricated/misleading, etc - everything from saying something was "associated" with covid (i.e., a "car accident" could be counted as a "covid death" simply because someone MAY have "coughed" before they died), co-morbidities, changing the benchmarks of what counts as a "vaccinated" vs "non-vaccinated" person (did you know initially a "vaccinated" person was one that received a shot - but they changed the definition to say that "well, if it has been LESS than 14 days, they 'technically' aren't 'vaccinated'" according to the new definition - thus - if someone received a shot - then died the same day due to, lets say - blood clots - "they" would say "oh well that person wasn't "vaccinated" by our new definition of vaccinations?" (Again - it's not a "vaccine", its a deathjab/poisonprick, and for those that survive - designed to hook them up to the internet with nanotech that is injected into their bloostream).
Then you also need to look at something called "normalization" of data - to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.
Otherwise - I could say "Oh no! since the USA had 5,000 new cases, and Canada only had 1,000 new cases, the USA is FIVE TIMES as dangerous & scary! oh noes!".
Do you see the fallacy in that statement? The "data" wasn't normalized. The USA has a population that is 8.65 times the size of Canada (329 million vs 38 million). Therefore - 5000/329 mill & 1000/38 mil => 15 'cases' per million vs 26 'cases' per million - and therefore - when normalized - the USA is actually "safer" than Canada. (There are, of course other variables to account for, i.e., how MANY ppl were tested, etc that would then provide even more accurate information) - but this is an example of how the data is manipulated to make people "afraid" & "scared", in order to manipulate them into certain actions.
These are a few examples of how the numbers have been manipulated.
Keep digging & you'll discover what has really been going on.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2013/08/08/6-ways-numbers-can-lie-to-us/
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/05/30/how-numbers-can-lie/
https://www.fastcompany.com/1822354/7-ways-lie-statistics-and-get-away-it.
•Fairly certain this was on Bill Gates favorites.reading list. (Above)
https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/LieStat/
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/stat3.html
But wait, there's more... Just kidding, there's actually far too many links on the googles and yes, numbers do lie and lie quite often when there's humans involved. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of having empirical data and although I would like to rely on the numbers as well, with this one I had to go with my gut on this one.
IT IS RACIST. See my edits.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
<em>How to Lie with Statistics</em> should be required reading in secondary school.
i dont trust organizations that are murder for hire and experiment on humans.
And since you are backing them up, you are very suspicious. especially backing a murder a ex-nazi experimental organization.
​
https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/index.html
​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
​
So your trusting numbers from an organizations that was created by Nazi scientists, that murdered people because they was different. And your trusting numbers and data submissions that can be easily manipulated by any modern computers today. Hell you dont even need a PC, Bill gates was already trained on the subject matter - https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
​
https://www.jigsawacademy.com/blogs/data-science/data-manipulation/
​
https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf
​
You can trust your racists Nazi's organization, I will not trust a murder for hire organization that experiments on the mass public each day.
​
https://www.msf.org/6-things-big-pharma-doesn%E2%80%99t-want-you-know-access-medicines
​
I can provide thousands of links to the subject matter at hand. The data is not accurate. but take your Nazism elsewhere if you trust CDC
Makes sense. I'll check it out. I'm glad we have scientists looking into it. I don't mean to accuse Dr. Nolan of lying - he supplied evidence and the evidence tells a story. But that doesn't mean his report tells the entire story. He only said that the DNA was human, but makes no other statements about its relationship to the UAP phenomenon. It is possible to deceive without lying. I'll explain.
From my perspective, if a person reaches out about the UFO subject, and the first evidence they receive is debunked, I see that weakening the relationship. It's odd to me that he would show continued interest and continue spending time and energy investigating evidence.
The report he produced noted that many genomic variations were novel, and the relationship between these variations and the physical evidence was speculative.
>[...] which likely results from multiple known and novel putative gene mutations affecting bone development and ossification.
>
>[...] This suggested age would represent either a profound new form of dwarfism or a fetus with premature ossification as the root causes for the “advanced bone age” phenotype
While I understand that I'm biased and I must recognize that, I have trouble accepting that the visual similarities between this skeleton and "the grays" can be dismissed as a combination of very rare and novel, but naturally occurring, genetic mutations.
Even if we rely on this evidence to say that the specimen is human, there are still many unanswered questions. If this specimen truly only dates back to the 70's, why is it the only one of its kind in all of human history? And the bones have advanced cartilage AND are fused, both typically occur after birth. Can we simply dismiss these away?
Do we ignore the prevalence of reports by abductees of hybridization or tampering with human reproduction? Though I suppose that's outside of the scope of the published report, I presume these unanswered questions underlie his continued interest in the topic.
How to Lie with Statistics is a great read. Just Saying.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I think that my Dad bought How to Lie With Statistics in the late 1950's.
Tale as old as time...
This dude maths.
I trust no stats except those that feel to be the truth. I have a great sense for the truth unfortunately, it could be a very obscure power of mine. https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Except they're manipulating the data, particularly in the US - for two weeks after the second shot you're still considered unvaccinated (ironically that's when most of the adverse reactions happen, therefore when they're hospitalized they're categorized as "unvaccinated", despite them having had two shots). Maybe this hasn't been implemented yet (and if not it will be soon), but after 3 months from the last dose you will no longer be considered a fully vaccinated person... until you get a booster, of course.
>"Fully Vaccinated Person means a person who 14 days prior received a second dose of a 2 dose series or 14 days prior received one dose of a single dose vaccine. A person is not fully vaccinated until this time period of 14 days from the last date of the required dose has lapsed. Additionally, after 3 months from the last dose, a person is no longer considered to be a Fully Vaccinated Person."
My point is, none of their stats can be trusted because they manipulate all of them, and of course they outright make shit up. So yes, sometimes "the numbers" do lie when people manipulate them to portray a false narrative. Check out the book that Bill Gates recommended, "How To Lie With Statistics".
acho que foi daqui How to lie with statistics 😆
>Correct. But I'm saying 'YOUR' intuition isn't good enough to say 'it seems fishy'. That is your claim and now 'you' are the one that needs to demonstrate why they are wrong. They've already given their reasoning for their claim. You can either accept it or deny it. But if you deny it, it would be best, not a must, but best to refute their claim so as to make sure your beliefs are grounded in reality.
I apologize if I confused you with my response. I didn't make any claims. Saying that something seems fishy isn't really the same thing as making an assertion. I was merely responding to the statement you quoted from the CDC. That statement lacked any data/evidence to support it (at least in this thread). Important note: I'm not saying there ISN'T any data/evidence to support it (there may very well be). But the statement, as it was copy/pasted here, lacked any supporting evidence. Anyone can make a claim (as the CDC did) and then say "we examined the date and concluded such and such." That's not the same thing as providing evidence. So the obligation is still on the issuer of the claim to back it up with data. Had I made some assertion, such as "That statement is not true" then it would have been reasonable to expect me to support it with data. But I made no such claim; I merely said it seemed fishy, which is totally reasonable when the claim isn't presented along with data to support it. You say "They've already given their reasoning for their claim." They have given no such reason (again, see my prior point that just saying "we examined the data and concluded such and such" isn't a reason (at least, it isn't a very good reason without some data to back it up). Further, you say "you can accept it or deny." Actually, I did neither of those things. I took the 3rd option, which was to simply ask for elaboration/additional evidence to support it, which again, is completely reasonable. Expressing skepticism isn't the same as denying a claim.
​
>First, you have to demonstrate the statistics. Right now you're only using your internal bayesian reasoning. Humans just aren't good at that kind of statistics. It's a limitation of our biology.
Second, I told you that experts do investigate those correlations.
Ah, yes, Bayesian statistics. I'm familiar with it! Not really sure what you're trying to point out here. And the point about experts investigating correlations: yes, I totally believe they do. But that also doesn't mean very much without their also presenting the data to support how they reached their conclusions.
In evidence-based research, data doesn't directly answer questions. We know that. It generally only points in a direction, and then additional work is needed to correctly interpret that data. So-called experts are particularly suited for this yes, but having the title "expert" gives no one a free pass. Speak as an expert if you happen to be -- that's a good thing! But still back up your claims with data. This is very important.
There's a wonderful booked called "How to lie with statistics." You can find it on amazon (https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728). I would definitely recommend checking it out. It's very insightful.
​
>Sorry, you think I'm assuming things about you. I'm not. I'd say so if I thought you were or if I thought calling anyone an anti-vaxer would help.
No need to be sorry; I wasn't offended in the least. I point it out only because when you assume someone that you're having a dialogue with already has a particular point of view, you'll likely have a tendency to try to convince him or her to come around to your way of thinking. They key point here (and the only reason I brought it up) was that I don't (yet) *have* any particular way of thinking (I mean, with respect to the covid vaccine debates, specifically). I'm just interested in the discussion and particularly interested to hear both sides of it, unfiltered and unbiased, which seems pretty hard to come by, unfortunately.
​
>And to your point, I agree it's not really available. That's part of why we as laypersons need to rely on experts. This is part of the reason why I've started learning Professor Vincents 'Virology course that I previously linked to you.
Experts are good and I'm thankful we have them to help us. One of the problems though is when anyone who points out a flaw or disagrees with an expert gets silenced or shut down. I don't think misinformation is a good thing. But I think censorship is an even worse thing. I spend a lot of time reading research papers in the evidence-based fitness industry. I really like that industry. There's lot of debate, but very rarely do I see people getting silenced. People that I respect tremendously, like Brad Schoenfeld, Alan Aragon, Mike Istraetel, Eric Helms, and Menno Henselmans, will actually have transparent and open debates with people like Gary Taubes and Jason Fung. These debates are great, b/c no one is silenced and we can listen and decide for ourselves who is presenting stronger evidence.
Speaking of Menno Henselmans, I recently read his book: "The Science of Self Control." It's a wonderful book and I strongly recommend it to everyone. It's not directly related to the topics at hand, but he quotes a good bit of research from another wonderful book: "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. And that book IS relevant to the stuff we're discussing. If you haven't read it, run (don't walk) to the nearest book store and get a copy. It's life-changing in terms of understanding how the mind works and how people think. If you like Steven Pinker's stuff, you should appreciate Kahneman's work.
Alright, I've rambled on long enough. As I said, I do appreciate the dialog, but we've gotten way way way off track from my original intent of this thread. So at this point, I will bow out and won't be checking back in anymore. You're welcome to have the last word though, if you want it.
Thanks for the data links (I've been using them and am still having fun slicing and dicing the data). I watched a few min of the Pinker video, but it's long and I didn't have time to finish. Hopefully another day. Cheers!
After destroying the global economy for over a year with Covid, she might be right if she's Lying With Statistics
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_XR7Z5MAD7QBMBS5NV4CX
How to Lie with Statistics: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I'll just leave this here...
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/
Genuinely great book.
How To Lie with Statistics (first published 1954... old tricks)
https://www.amazon.ca/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
We need someone who has read this book
Fix the scale.
On another note, I recommend reading the book called How to Lie with Statistics. It goes into how people use these types of distortions to manipulate data.
First i recommend the book:
​
The short explanation:
We did nothing! The players too dumb!
​
You can read it everywhere.... steam, official forum, reddit... and so on...and on....and on...
They fxxxed up the game, and now they try to sell it as good-thing for the playerbase....
​
If they keep at this meaning... then everything is said... and i will play until the end of my actual premium acc and then...... see u at e-bay....
> Пак казвам, че няма значение и не знам какво не разбра от предният ми коментар. Но не използвам твоят пример: Когато населението е 100% над 60 годишна възраст, и ти знаеш това като управник и като гражданин, тогава правиш и спазваш мерките, така, че да не се стигне до 10% смъртност, дори да сте по-предразположение от държава с 99% млади. Разбира се, на такава скала стават абсурдни нещата и мерките, но за реалистичният случай на България, определено са абсурдни числата и смъртните случай.
Човек скандален си. Грам не отбираш и си безподобно агресивен в необразоваността си.
Нали цялата идея е да сравниш РАЗЛИЧНИТЕ държави и да кажеш коя е по-добре. Ако в Испания умрат 50% от хората над 60 но при нас умрат 70% много ясно че неи сме се справили по зле. Идеята е да прецениш коя държава личните и мерки как са се справили.
НЯМА статистическо проучване което да не нормализира на база възрастови групи. НЯМА. Набий си го в главата.
>Да, държава като Нигерия, с по-лоша система и мерки, може да мине пандемията с по-малко жертви, заради демографията на населението, но щом така успяват, значи е добре
Ебахти довода. И как ще сравниш тогава Нигерия с другите страни? Идеята е че казваме че Х е по-добре от У. Ти просто казваш ми 'няма случаи. няма мерки. супер сте се справили браво!'
>Хаха напротив, просто принципно се опитваш да го изкараш да изглежда така, но винаги ви базираш мнението за тази тема на твоите емоции и политически възгледи. Вижда се ясно от началото на пандемията досега, било тук или в други събредити, не е като да чета твой коментари за пръв път.
Просот принципно съм прав и ти си нямаш хабер от това което говориш. Самият факт че не ис наясно че статистики се нормализират на база възрастови групи преди да правиш каквото и да е показва че ГРУБО си необразован на темата.
Радвам се че ми четеш коментарите :) може да придобиеш малко знание.
>Не думай. определено не хора като теб, които реват за права веднага когато се наложат мерки.
Ужас. Само не права. Ебаси колко сме долни.
>Ми не е вярно, понеже линкнатият източник точно това казва. Просто ти не си съгласен с нея поради твоите си измислени критерии и искаш да я напаснеш така както ти искаш, включително вкарвайки отделни критерии.
Линкнатия източник показва една единствена статистика. Excess daetsh per capita. Толкова. Не задълбава нищо повече от това.
Ей ти по простичък пример:
Ако в страна Х умриат 100к души годишно при 10М население. Заради ковид умриат 30к отгоре. 30% бонус смъртност за годината.
Но в страна Y умират пак 100к души годишно при 30М население. Заради ковид умират 60к. 60% бонус смъртност за годината.
Кой се е псравил по зле?
Има една вечна книга;
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
препоръчвам ти я. Очевидно нямаш нужда от нея но все пак.
>Разбери, няма значение колко е стар един народ, колко пари има и т.н., той и неговите управляващи трябва да положат максимално големи усилия да намалят както болните, така и починалите от една пандемия. И не сме стигнали въобще близко до там, че българина да е положил всички възможни усилия и вече да няма как повече да се опита да предпази себе си и околните.
ИМАГ ОГРОМНО ЗНАЧЕНИЕ КОГАТО ТОВА КОЕТО ИСКАШ ДА ИЗМЕРИШ Е КОЙ Е ПО-ЗЛЕ СПРАВИЛ СЕ.
Antibody dependent enhancement is why.
>Also, why there weren't any flu infections last winter?
You know why, because any flu cases showed up with similar symptoms as covid, would get tested for covid because that makes sense, get a false positive from overcycled PCR, count as a covid case. Flu didn't go away, it probably did go down somewhat due to more isolation between people but it is clearly nonsense to say it went to zero or near-zero. The flu cases were classified as covid cases.
Why do you think Billy boy reads books like this?
Your numbers include suicides and other misleading info.
Examine the suicide rates of countries and compare the numbers per capita with and without guns.
Then examine homicide rates of different countries.
Now examine violent gun deaths per capita.
Of course a country with more guns is going to have more gun deaths, but does that change the violence homicide rate? Does it change the suicide rate? Are guns the cause of these things? Do your statistics also include government uses of guns to kill people?
You should read How to Lie with Statistics by Darrel Huff.
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to Lie with Statistics | - | - | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
> You really don't understand sampling, do you?
Yes. I do.
> Still have enough people in it so that any noise from a few individuals is small enough to be a reasonable margin for error. When looking at an electorate, we generally say that a thousand people is enough to give a statistical sample within a margin of error of a couple of percent.
So, lets see. We have a single person. That is a representative sample but the confidence limits are 13.7% at a confidence level of 99.9% (population proportions are all 99.9%). The confidence limit of 13.7% is very poor. So we add an extra person and get the confidence limit to 9.88%. This inspires us to keep adding people to our sample, eventually we get to 500,000 and get a confidence limit of 0.02%.
Which demonstrates a simple, brute, fact about statistical reasoning: statistics are never facts.
It also demonstrates that increasing the size of a sample does actually have an effect on the confidence you can place on the reliability of the calculated statistic. It does not tell you a single thing about the selection criteria for inclusion in the sample.
Which is where your "factors to control for" falls foul of reality. If you are, say, interested in "ideal voters" then you really want to control for all factors. Which is a delusion.
As a sample size rises, the number of factors to control for falls. Knowing that you have 47,074,846 people who will be eligible to participate in an election and that turnout is 66.4% then you are only going to deal with a population of 31,257,697 meaning that the confidence limit for the opinions of 500,000 people is 0.02%. If you talk to the Membership then - regardless of all your theoretical considerations about "how to control sample for population" you can actually get a representative sample for reasonably important questions.
Which, magically, is what Political Parties actually do: private polling.
Pretending that the Labour Party Membership is not a representative sample of the voting population is an exercise in disengaging from actually using statistics. What particular statistics you can use that sample population for is very definitely up for discussion, but you seem to think that is absolutely not the case. I could be wrong.
> It is truly impressive how you manage to give Corbyn 100% of the credit for anything good that happened under his watch, and 0% of the blame for anything bad that happened.
In fact I am not. I am asking you to step outside your echo chamber and actually explain why Corbyn's was there when votes for Labour rose. Your best argument is "you need to look at them in the context of who they were running against". That only works if people exclusively vote against the Party they do not wish to be in power.
> It's certainly a great tactic to make yourself look like a complete moron, who can't even spend two minutes looking up election results on Wikipedia.
Great save there. Simply abuse someone because you picked data points and not pattern in a discussion about pattern. You are contending that I have no idea about describing pattern and describing causal factors of pattern and you pick flattering data points. It's as though you need to ~~reread~~ read this and maybe explain why Wikipedia is the best source - because, you know, Wikipedia has its own problems. Problems which directly impact your argument about "making the sample representative".
> Corbyn's 2017 result was flattered by May's absolutely shambolic performance in the campaigning for that election. Just as Boris' current majority is flattered by the fact that he was up against Corbyn, you can't look at the results in isolation, you need to look at them in the context of who they were running against.
This is a lovely description of a single data point but not a description of the slope between the two data points referred to. What did Corbyn do to change the vote upwards. None of the opinions you are expressing have the kind of statistical backing you are demanding from everyone else.
> It is truly impressive how you manage to give Corbyn 100% of the credit for anything good that happened under his watch, and 0% of the blame for anything bad that happened.
I do not care about credit and blame. I care about the brute fact that the Government is killing people as a matter of policy outcomes and I would like to be rid of that Government. So, whatever Corbyn did that caused that upward slope is worth looking at. That's how Science works.
Someone never read How To Lie With Statistics. Get yours in paperback today.
This book absolutely should be required reading. Originally written in 1954 it is even more relevant now than it was back then.
numbers often lie. How To Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_ZCHRV0P1MXF14WPS13N0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
Numbers maybe. Statistics maybe not.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I never once said that, and after this I’m done responding as you seem to have a tendency of creating straw man versions of arguments you’re presented. I said, and I quote “they expect 1% of Bolt to be at risk of the same issue”. I never said 1% of Bolt will catch fire. That is how many Bolt may be affected by this issue. And again, those are only the Bolts that have caught fire SO far in barely 2-3 years of ownership.
You seem to have a difficult time understanding probabilities, so no offense but it’d probably be useful to enroll in a statistics or probability course so you have a better idea of how to interpret data. Applying what happens to a Bolt over only 2-3 years cannot be compared to the odds of something happening over the entire lifetime of the average human. You’re comparing the statistics of something over 2-3 years with one of over 70-80 years. Those aren’t comparable. Compare the odds of “falling off a ladder and dying” in only a 2-3 year period and see how the results change.
Over and over you continue to misinterpret data and present straw man arguments of those who disagree with you. And again these are only the defects we’ve caught so far. Owning a car for fewer than 2-3 years and having these many defects and fires is completely unacceptable. These aren’t decade old, outdated, deteriorating cars that’re spontaneous combusting. These are NEW cars, many barely even a year old at this point. How about this? Chevy Bolts are more than 35 times as likely to catch fire than a 2019 gas vehicle. For NEW CARS.
And again, this isn’t meant to be offensive but you should take a statistics course, or read some books like How to Lie with Statistics that teach you how easily statistics can be misconstrued and misrepresented. And if you still don’t believe me, which you probably don’t, just know there’s literally nothing to be gained in fighting this hard for a company who’s literally screwing those with Bolt fires over. Continue enjoying your car if you want, but there’s nothing admirable about spreading lies and misinformation like this about a company that couldn’t give two shits about its customer base.
I recommend this book.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
That sounds like it is a made up book.
It is not.
> How to Lie with Statistics
How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_VSWB7MZXNN5ANTD1AMPY
The sauce recipe you so desperately crave.
How To Lie With Statistics would like a word
There's a valid reason for the other 52%. See this: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics&qid=1617764558&sr=8-1
Don't. Trust. Statistics. They're the easiest way to manipulate your opinion.
Regarding statistics, the book How To Lie with Statistics may interest you
>biological differences between men and women, bridge building, amygdala, etc... Aren't good enough to explain why women would be less interested in these fields
Can you explain your wacky reasoning here? I provided scientific evidence for a whole host of neurophysiological and functional differences between the male and female brain.. And yet you claim that it can't possibly account for an uneven distribution of men/women in (for example) engineering.. Why the fuck not? So I show you the actual science behind it and you still don't believe it. That's how powerful feelings are. You're like a fucking creationist or a flat earther. So the smoking gun demonstrating how even chimp babies have gender dimorphic behavior is completely meaningless in the context of your little conspiracy theory about "SyStEmIc InJuStIcE.." How is literal hard science not "good enough" to explain why women are less interested in engineering but a completely unquantifiable, emotionally charged, non-specific and illusive concept like "SyStEmIc SeXiSm" is? Do you logic, sir? Is anything in there?
​
>Maybe surveys that would show men and women didn't feel discouraged, or were harassed in the workplace?
Ah, the survey. The pinnacle of scientific validity and the most reliable data source for statisticians everywhere.
​
If you ever manage to escape Plato's cave, here is a good read that might enlighten you some. https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Here's a good read on this exact topic. Nice and short too! How to Lie with Statistics
> My point is, you should wear masks and it's a simple decent thing to do so.
Agreed. It stills bug me why a fake pandemic was the motivation for that, there is too many reasons that everyone should use it already and for instance Japan always did that with no fake pandemic to push it. Regular influenza killed reaps of people since always, specially from the corona risk group, even more than corona will ever do. But now it's fashionable to worry because the virus is new, right?
> Local governments declaring a pandemic state to better control the situation is a good solution
No. It isn't. It is effectively doing more damage than the flu itself, that is a very, very inflated threat. The impact on mental health alone is larger than any toll from this flu. Not to mention theeconomic collapse, the stupid-high corruption cases motivated by ticking every death as corona death, the encrouching of public authorities on your rights of free roamming and free assemble, etc etc.
> But still, wear masks and practice social distancing. It saves lives.
No, it doesn't. Also, it is just a flu, treated very effective with palliative methods like cloriquine. The risk group is literally the sick elderly, and there is a major case to be done that those people are not dying from corona, but being marked as dead from it because of the major finantial incentive from the pandemic state to contain it. The CDC itself said that only 6% of the corona deaths was the only cause mentioned (check commorbities), the rest being tested positive then dying (with very unreliable tests that go positive for anything), effectively dying WITH corona, not FROM corona. Of course, there's a case to be made for corona doing their condition worse; the regular flu does the same but apparently corona killed it and there's no more deaths from influenza almost nowhere for months now.
This is a huge case of how to lie with statistics. Some are true, some are pattently falsified, but the important thing is to push authority force onto the people so some political or finantial elite or another get whatever they want from it. While I agree that you should wear a mask and protect your loved ones that belongs to the risk groups, this being enforced by state authority is a huge slippery slope to push the most atrocious bullshit on people.
I'm not saying there's a big conspiracy to control the populace and transform the society in a V for Vendetta dystopia, but that whomever can or want to gaslight you with these pretexts, they will, from your crazy aunt or neighbor to politicians to corporations. They've been doing that, abusing the slightest pretext to gaslight you, since always. There is no reason to believe it would be any different now. Don't stop using the mask or social distancing, but don't hate on the ones fed up with it because they're enforced to do it under threat, because that certainly will not help.
<em>How to Lie with Statistics</em> is written for general audiences, and comprehensible by middle school. It should be required reading there.
Polls represent a sample of a greater population. The smaller your sample size, the greater your margin of error. Pollster than mathematically weight their results based on different demographic criteria. If your sample was only 5% black and is meant to represent the entire country, which is around 15% black, you weight the opinions expressed by that 5% more heavily.
In 2016, the polls were not wrong. The results were well within the margin of error for the polls conducted, particularly in the handful of states Trump flipped from blue to red (i.e. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), where the race was always very close. One thing pollster did learn from the 2016 election was the importance of weighting by education, as there was significant correlation between voters' education levels and whether they voted for Clinton or Trump.
While many pollsters are or at least claim to be non-partisan, you need to be careful of partison and campaign pollsters, which may present information in misleading ways. Polls conducted and released by Trump's or Biden's campaigns are likely to present a far rosier picture of the political landscape than a poll conducted by a nonpartisan source. FiveThirtyEight has a collection of pollster ratings, which they assign based on how accurate that organizations polls are to the actual results of the election. FiveThirtyEight recommends you not look at any one poll, but rather at an average of many different polls, to help you understand the true nature of the political landscape.
Finally, there is a difference between what polls say and when news organizations like FiveThirtyEight claim that Candidate A has a X% change of winning the election. They do not have crystal balls that tell the future. What they do have is data about how people are thinking/feeling right now and data about how people behave in the past, and they try to figure out if what they know about how people behaved in the past provides any insight as to how people might behave in the future.
In 2016, analysts predicted Trump had around a 30% chance of winning. Humans are generally bad at interpretating mathematical models, so we look at that as if it's a score. 70-30 is a clear Clinton victory. But that's not how that works at all. What that actually means is that every three times they ran their model, it spat out a Trump victory. That's actually a fairly high rate of a possible outcome.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_q9iDFb662BJAM
That's the book by Darryl Huff
Hell it is only 12 dollars..
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
you can see why Bill was reading it.
I don't doubt it's used there, but statistics are surprisingly easy to fuck with if you know what you're doing. This book was particularly enlightening.
> effieokay: "Can anyone explain why the economic stats are so good and so bad at the same time?"
Ai ales ce date ai vrut tu ca sa fortezi o corelatie. Nici macar nu ai inceput de la 0.
To understand the good practices of dataviz, you have to understand graphical design and statistics. Edward Tufte has some great books, like The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, that are great starters. Another great book is How to Lie with Statistics. Finally, an entry level book for statistics would be a nice addition, but only if you're interested in actually learning about statistics.
Pulled straight from "How to Lie with Satistics". https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728 Book for those interested, its a good pretty quick read.
Nu e deloc altceva. Împărțirea pe clase statistice imperfecte e tehnica numărul 1 de manipulare a rezultatelor.
Some required reading https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Reminds me of the fun book, How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff.
At this lovely amazon link!
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
One of my mom's favorite books she read as a math major back in the day:
Where did you read about majority of Islam population trying to institute Sharia law? There are always going to be minority #s of idiots in every group - just like Christians want to make Jesus the official man of America. Those polls are extremely biased. They take certain groups or poll in certain areas of the world. If you're saying that they surveyed all muslims or a certain muslim population and came up with that poll result / conclusion then that shows the ignorance of the entire statement. Not saying you're ignorant but you need to understand that Islam in Bosnia, Islam in Iraq, Islam in East Iraq, Islam in North Iraq, Islam in SA, Islam in Virginia, Islam in Canada, Islam in China, Islam in Russia, Islam in Iran are all very VERY VERY different to the point where they kill each other just like the Christians did years ago for their differences. Please don't use those polls as sources to guide your opinions and view facts. Check out "how to lie using statistics" book and link below to help understand what I'm saying: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/05/30/how-numbers-can-lie/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Lol. Ok. Good luck with that. Might actually work on people who know nothing about stats. Edit: Further reading for you
It is a fuck ton of people.
But here you go:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Mind if I introduce you to a new book?
I recommend Darrell Huff's <em>How to Lie with Statistics</em>. Clearly required reading in the nVidia marketing department.
>All I know is that I have met Pit bulls on the street and twice they have tried to attack my dog and the owners could barely control their dogs. I had to put myself in between. Now if that is a jack russell I have no problem taking the bite on the ankle. Now a dog that is breed to go for the face and is 65 lbs of solid mucsle no thank you.
Given their skyrocketing in popularity since the ban, the next time it will be a presa canario that's twice the size of a pit bull (which, as a breed standard, is a medium-size breed), and it will eat your little dog for breakfast. But hey, at least it won't have been a scary pit bull!
>You maybe able to control your dog but can you make sure that everyone can?
No, I'm not sure that they could, as with the multitude of large-size breeds that are also stronger than a human. Do you think that any person could control a Caucasian Ovcharka that was intent on attacking you? Your obsession with a single breed in this regard has no rational basis whatsoever, which is typical for BSL supporters.
>And the numbers don't lie
Yes, the number do lie, as numbers often do. Especially when the "study" in question consists of some broad whose object is to ban put bulls going through newspaper reports and basing her "data" on what, if any, breed was reported in the attack. When a "scary" breed is responsible for an attack, there's a much higher chance that the breed will be mentioned in the report.
Anyone who uses crap from dogsbite.org immediately loses any and all credibility.
Not directly political, but a prerequisite:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
One of the most important books I've read.
Also a physics PhD. Not that it's at all relevant.
The statistics you've presented are compelling, and also designed to sell nuclear power. I'm not afraid of nuclear power, I just disagree with the claims that it's somehow safer than solar.
So, deaths/power is skewed in favor of nuclear because of the sheer amount of power that nuclear plants generate compared to solar or hydro or wind. Worldwide, solar generates about 1/250 of the power generated by nuclear. It's not a fair comparison. We could normalize to the power generation of solar, and we would find that nuclear causes 22,500 deaths per equal amount of power generation.
Anyway, let's stop discussing how to make the statistics look favorable (which is an easy trick, see the above linked book). Ask yourself what would cause deaths from solar power. Slipping off the roof of a building during installation is the only thing I can think of. Anything to add to that?
Nuclear power, however, has accidents due to meltdowns (which you could argue are due to poor regulations - but human error is always going to be present), but it also has deaths associated with uranium mining.
[How to Lie with Statistics](www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728).
Should be required reading for internet stats quoting.
> All my genetics, biology, evolution, game theory, anthropology, history etc stuff is from extra curricular reading
Suddenly this makes a lot more sense. Was your statistics class calculus or non-calculus based?
Since you're such an avid reader, read How To Lie with Statistics. The full pdf is available online.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Ik kan het niet genoeg aanraden.
Those neanderthals can't be trusted. See also: How to Lie with Statistics.
Forever a skeptic.
This reminds me of one of the supplemental texts we read in my Stats class in college: How to Lie with Statistics
How to Lie with Statistics could be required reading in middle school.
(The updated cleaned version, not the original one)
Any of y'all ever heard of the book, "How to Lie with Statistics". It was written in 1954. Still a gem today: Amazon
This book should be required reading for everyone. http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
great book. i think both sides of this argument have read it.
You do realize the inventor of mRNA technology has more data than you could possible acquire in the next 10 years if it became your full time study.
Also statistics can lie... https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
From Wikipedia:
> Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and, in some cases, the state.[5][6] As such, communism is a specific form of socialism.
That sounds like the opposite of China to me tbh. In China they have the CCP which is staffed/controlled by a small minority of the citizens. Money is used, 99% of citizens hold no ownership of the means of production, and there certainly is a "state" which controls things.
Most of the western world has poverty, and they certainly could do better in combating it, but in terms of providing adequate food and shelter to everyone, the Nordic region probably fares the best. China can claim to have reduced poverty "from 80% to 1.7%" but at the end of the day if 80% of those previously impoverished people are living in apartments the size of my bathroom and have the purchasing power equal to your average homeless US citizen, that's still poverty in my book.
Sure, you can "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and rise out of these conditions, but in China having a 1-bedroom apartment equivalent to a Section 8 housing unit in the US is considered "upper-middle class".
And in terms of international purchasing power it's basically non-existent. They're defining the poverty line as $1/day, so essentially these people are stuck in China. The "middle class Chinese tourists" you see at Disneyland would almost certainly be considered top 1% in China.
Here's the hourly minimum wage in various regions of China:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233886/minimum-wage-per-hour-in-china-by-city-and-province/
Beijing, with the highest minimum wage, clocks in at 24 yuan per hour, or $3.71 USD. This is approx. $148.40 per week. They're living at the bare minimum, and that's assuming they work 40 hours a week. Yet, Wikipedia boasts that they've reduced poverty to less than ~2% because people are making more than $1/day.
Amazon, btw, has a minimum wage of $15/hr, mostly because we are able to outsource the labor for the creation of these products to China.
Looks like they cherry picked data which skews things.
This book is a great read for anyone interested:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_Y8GK3HT789CYJ05EMQGR
They took month on month instead of year to date... Which shows both shootings and murders are up.
>siempre la hacen a un sector de la población tan pequeño que en mi opinión es insignificante para medir lo que piensa la gran mayoria de la gente
El número de personas a quienes se les hace la encuesta no importa tanto siempre y cuando se cumpla el mínimo teoríco que debes tener para tener resultados fiables. Todo eso normalmente se aprende en un curso de estadística.
​
>¿Algúno/a sabe que tan fiable son las encuestas de Mitofsky?
Mitofsky en particular no lo sé. Pero las encuestas (o cualquier ejercicio de medición) se puede truquear de muchísimas maneras y con distintos propósitos. Hay libros que tratan sobre esto, ya en el 2012 Ciro Gomez Leyva se disculpó publicamente en televisión ya que las encuestas que estaba mostrando antes de las elecciones de ese año estaban mal.
Así que haces bien en desconfiar de cualquier encuesta, solo que si quieres hacer críticas serias te recomiendo educarte un poco más en el tema para poder entender si la metodología de las encuestas que se hacen están bien o no para también evitar caer en el fanatismo.
Shh, people don’t want to hear that... it is super, super deadly... that is why we are all in this situation, because it’s deadly...we need to shutdown small business!!! Everyone stay home!! Be afraid!! Trust our government!! We are their #1 priority!! They know what is best for all of us!! Believe the science and statistics they force feed us!! Don’t read books like How to Lie with Statistics. Obey, obey, obey, and don’t question—we all trust that the government has us as their #1 priority.
The only thing jarring is you posting in that tone and thinking that it makes you sound smart lol.
>it’s that the facts are misaligned with the false mainstream narrative that you’ve bought into.
Keep telling yourself that buddy, you're tooooootally smarter than people that study criminology and economics because you've watched some super convincing youtube videos.
> statistics don't lie
thanks, there's tons of info to check on, yea the limited impression & assumption i had made was based on a subset of data, and that may have given me a certain bias, and i should find out what the full picture is one day, tho things would've changed, so would never be able to get an accurate picture of the past. as an aside, everything significant is relevant to me, i just cant state billion of things into one post, and that's interesting, and im sure others would find that interesting also
just to clarify, 'what were the most impactful factors throughout history' is about everything and anything and is not necessarily or exclusively or only about policy-related stuff; in fact the answer may not even mention anything about policy. the example given was just an example and was not meant to bias anyone into one context or another completely different context
to come to good conclusions, we need all the relevant examples and all the relevant cases and all the relevant info, and most especially, we absolutely need the sources, because many sources are biased and flawed in many ways. we need reliable sources that's going to be the most important thing of all
we should always keep in mind (at least when we care about the root/real/main answer) the difference between:
data (flawed or not)
guesses (1-99%) - https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/probability-library
& absolute confirmation & certainty (100%) - physics? https://www.edx.org/course/subject/physics
there's a very very large difference, and that's for anyone in science, or not
> Numbers don't lie. It's all math and logic
That is definitely not true. What is "true" depends on your theories, your models, and your axioms. Even if you have that settled, there's so many ways to cook the books. Even after you account for fraud or mistakes (whether it be malice or zealotry or stupidity), you have to make decisions, and how your results are used depends on your decision calculus. And even if the whole world agrees on the same decision calculus, there's the issue of funding. The fields that are most explored tend to be the ones with the most cash pumped into them. And that allocation of cash is inherently tied into big business and government.
Real world example of a science absolutely INFILTRATED with leftists: Psychology.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Spez: for the people who downvoted me, a quote from Einstein:
>It is the theory that decides what we can observe.
> statistics tell truths
Lies, damned lies and statistics
Book : How to lie with statistics
Statistics absolutely can tell truths, they can also be corrupted and used to tell lies.
> Statistics themselves are not racist. Statistics themselves do not hold a view. Statistics alone present facts that one can infer the results.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
People who actually have internet access and use social media, languages that Facebook supported, the demographic that Alexia reaches. Bah, who cares right.
Correct thought process. For everyone else.
> Sorry, don't see it
Let me help you then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
Also read this book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
> You're referencing "freshman meetups". Let me guess, still with the last guy you dated in college?
I don't date guys. Never have. But none of my girl friends have come from cold approaches.
> Again, this is your personal and subjective opinion.
No, not really. Read some of the responses in /r/PurplePillDebate when it comes up.
> Many women don't want to date people they consider "friends".
If only there was an area in between cold approaching and 'friends'. We could give it a word like "acquaintances" or something. Cold approach: To approach and start a conversation with a total stranger, usually with a romantic intention..
> This is nothing but wallpaper to cover the fact that you only consider the flirter to be a scumbag when you don't find him cute.
No. Not really.
> It shows your contempt for men when you respond with hatred rather than cognizance of the burden that man has borne in making the first move.
Now I have contempt for men. Redditors and their descriptions of me are always so entertaining. I haven't kept a running tab but at this point I'm a: "beta-bux, alpha, SJW, KIAer that has a contempt for men".
> cognizance of the burden that man has borne in making the first move.
I'll go get my popcorn and listen to you explain to me why I have always had to make the first move.
> Ad-hominem and straw-manning.
So how many female friends do you have?
> you and your subjective, self-contradicting opinions
Unlike your subjective or PUA subjective? Heck just look at the google search for cold approach and you can get a context of exactly what it means. Making friends is not cold approaching. No matter how much you want to use 'raw logic' to make it seem like it is.
> but this otherwise bears no resemblance to my personal romantic life.
Which looks like what exactly?
> show thinly-veiled contempt for men
Yeah, I'm a bit ashamed of my gender at times.
No, what I'm saying is, proportionally, there isn't much difference between now and 1976.
There's a fantastic book everyone should read:
"How to Lie With Statistics"
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
One police killing for every half a million citizens is not an epidemic.
Only someone who doesn't have a day of a decent education would take a set of stats and apply causation without an extensive study.
Only an absolute tool would cite raw statistics without a study unless they had a masters in that field, and expect anyone to give a fuck about the conclusions that person draws.
You're saying that's not you, and I'm really willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though. So link peer reviewed studies that back up your point of view and I will read them and have my mind expanded.
Not having gone to university isn't bad at all, but you have to learn some basic things if you want to have these types of discussions. Peer reviewed studies matter. Stats are so much trash without the studies.
http://www.amazon.ca/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
This is great reading if you ever want to use stats and not have people snicker at you. Pretty much every single person with a masters, aka people who write papers and are taken seriously, has read this book, or at the very least understand every concept in it fundamentally.
It's really small, and a good read for this type of stuff.
> Statistics also show that divorce rates are roughly 50%.
How to lie with statistics should be required reading for anyone that is going to use the word "statistics".
If you look at the data, not really.
<em>Divorce Shocker: Most Marriages Do Make It</em>
> "First-time marriages: probably 20 to 25 percent have ended in divorce on average," Feldhahn revealed. "Now, okay, that's still too high, but it's a whole lot better than what people think it is."
> Shaunti and Jeff point out the 50 percent figure came from projections of what researchers thought the divorce rate would become as they watched the divorce numbers rising in the 1970s and early 1980s when states around the nation were passing no-fault divorce laws.
> "But the divorce rate has been dropping," Feldhahn said. "We've never hit those numbers. We've never gotten close."
<em>Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think</em>
> According to the report, for people born in 1955 or later, "the proportion ever divorced had actually declined," compared with those among people born earlier. And, compared with women married before 1975, those married since 1975 had slightly better odds of reaching their 10th and 15th wedding anniversaries with their marriages still intact.
> The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 survey was 41 percent for men who were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same age group.
It also bucks the "TRP" theory that "The higher status of the woman the more likely she is to not need a man". Doesn't fit either:
> As the overall divorce rates shot up from the early 1960's through the late 1970's, Dr. Martin found, the divorce rate for women with college degrees and those without moved in lockstep, with graduates consistently having about one-third to one-fourth the divorce rate of nongraduates.
> But since 1980, the two groups have taken diverging paths. Women without undergraduate degrees have remained at about the same rate, their risk of divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage hovering at around 35 percent. But for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first 10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and 1979.
<em>How We Know the Divorce Rate Is Falling</em>
> But even measuring divorces relative to the population that could plausibly get divorced — the number of people who are married — shows that divorce peaked in 1979, and has fallen by about 24 percent since.
> Rather, divorce has fallen since 1990 in every one of the 44 states that report such data. Given that these data come from 44 independent statistical agencies, it seems unlikely that all of them have seen their statistical systems deteriorate in sync. Indeed, the decline in divorce is also evident in those states that have high-quality systems for collecting divorce data. Likewise, the divorce rate within New York State has trended downward over the past 15 years in 56 of its 62 counties, suggesting that the aggregate decline isn’t being driven by underreporting from any specific county courthouse.
> And indeed, 76 percent of people whose first marriages occurred in the early 1990s went on to celebrate their 10th anniversary, up from 73 percent for those married in the early 1980s, and 74 percent for those married in the early 1970s.
<em>About That 50% Divorce Rate – It Simply Isn’t True. It Never Was</em>
> What she found was that the divorce rate was NEVER 50%. Not even close. That number actually comes from a projection in the 1970s that the divorce rate would likely get that high, after no-fault divorces became the law of the land beginning in California on the first day of 1970. Predictably, divorce rates sky-rocketed after that time, and continued to soar through the 70s. The researchers of the day predicted that, if the trend continued, the divorce rate could reach up to 50%. It was a projection of what COULD happen. But it never did.
> Based upon data from a 2009 study from the Census Bureau, and factoring in widowhood and other factors, Shaunti Feldhahn estimates that between 20 and 25% of first marriages end in divorce. The rate for second marriages is around 30%.
> Another surprising statistic she discovered was that it is also a myth that the majority of marriages are unhappy. The numbers thrown around have said that only about 25 to 30% of marriages were happy. Not so, says Feldhahn. According to her research in Charisma News, it’s closer to about 80%. That is happy, not unhappy. She also says, “The studies show that if they stay married for five years, that almost 80 percent of those will be happy five years later.”
> I am aware that I have privileges.
As a social scientist (of the dismal variety) I am pretty dismayed at the rise of this gibberish, it is entirely wrong based on how we understand race, ethnicity and gender to actually function in the real world and distracts from the real issues that still face various groups of people.
You should reject privilege because its nonsense not because you don't contribute towards it. Regarding the "checklist" most of the items are simply outright wrong or misleading, to pull one example out in the misleading category;
> If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
Work in the last couple of decades on how the justice system in general responds to PoC has focused on distinguishing between overt racism (pulling someone over because they are black) and situational statistical bias (pulling over someone driving a suspect car in a bad neighborhood which has increased police presence, as statistically these neighborhoods have a higher incidence of black people such situations introduce a non-racist bias in to metrics), papers like this have investigated these effects.
Generally discrimination tends to be along socioeconomic lines rather then ethnic or gender lines, people discriminate against those they consider poor rather then those from a different ethnicity and/or gender.
Also the IRS comment is particularly odd as if you were looking at stats it would appear the IRS were targeting White & Asian people, in reality (as with so many other things) its simply that the incidence of audits is higher among the wealthy and racial demographics of the wealthy are more strongly White/Asian then the population as a whole. Its easy to read too much in to statistics as presented, this is required reading for economics students precisely because of how simple and prevalent this problem is.
It's also to distort statistics to fit your world view: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Who sticks around and gives their opinion? The people that complain the loudest.
Seriously? People mistake articles from the Onion for reality. You don't think even more people could be mislead by using graphs like that? No one said it was wrong to make a graph like that, in some cases it even makes sense. However, it can be misleading and is often done that way on purpose so people draw the conclusions the author wants them make. Like misusing statistics (correlation != causation, etc.), using charts like this isn't going to fool everyone, but it works enough that people continue doing it.
Using graphs in this way is covered in How to Lie with Statistics and a rather extensive article on Wikipedia.
LOL - "Food stamp usage is highest in Red States" doesn't mean that "conservatives are using them". And even your "arguments against inevitable arguments" uses insanely broad definitions to obscure the truth.
GJ on the flawed logic. -- Please read "How to Lie with Statistics", it's a great book.
Here's the stats from Pew Research - a largely non-conservative, non-liberal group. -- They got their info BY ASKING INDIVIDUALS, not by hiding their bias in broad definitions.
I know you're brain can't handle this, but gasp I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. I'm actually an Anarcho-Capitalist!! WHOOOAAAAA!!
Please! Insult Republicans more! They are largely idiots! But FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, quit acting like Democrats are the saviors of the universe.
^ This says you can make statistics say anything you want.
>Um... Statistics says that's perfectly reasonable. With a national population of ~310M, that means there's a 99% chance that the true number is within 5%.
Really? Even if those 559 people were all polled at a mommy and me class with toddler and kindergarden age parents?
That statement MIGHT be true if you could guarantee an equal sampling of individuals polled, but you can't.
I am not saying its a coincidence, what I AM saying is that the two facts are not related. Did you know that 90% of CEOs come from a first world country. Did you know that they also got their daily nutritional value when they were growing up. Holy fucking shit, I found out why they tall, ge-fucking-netics. See what I did there, none of that shit is related. However, they are in the same sentence, there by implying a relationship.
I have a book you need to read, called: How to Lie with Statistics.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Trust me, its a good read and it will show you how to say what ever you want, with what ever facts you want, and it will be true.
You made me literally lol. Up vote!!!
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
I have to hand it to you, you're a good troll. Seems like you've been reading this quite a bit:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
A poll of 1580 people, with only 881 being tea party members is hardly proof. This is an oldie but goodie that explains why I dismiss anything that has as it's basis of proof a set of statistical numbers, especially political matters.
I question methodology of modern polls. Knowing someone who works for one of the major pollsters, I can quite confidently say that polls, especially political polls, are massaged according to what outcome the client wants. They have long been used as a means to an end, not an accurate description of data. The book I reference explains this quite well and was written in 1954. It's called How to Lie with Statistics.
>but it's a reduction of 26%
I highly recommend this book
You need to read this: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
SS: Here is a photo of Bill Gates with a stack of books. Assumably, books he has read. The very top book is “How to Lie with Statistics”. Here is the amazon link.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Are you choosing to be obtuse? Cops present their interpretation of the facts as they deem fit.
Try this fun read; https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Popular alternatives to How to Lie with Statistics
