Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Popular Ignorance of Statistics
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Whenever there is a discussion about electric cars, turf cutting, cyclists, climate change, NAMA/the banks etc etc etc on boards, you'll see the same old usernames trotting out the same old errors you point out in this post.Maybe I've been on Boards too long, but I wish people would understand some basic things about Statistics. In many threads here, and in the media, you can see a lack of understanding every day. People who don't get what Statistics can and can't do could at least start with the following:
- Statistics works with probabilities, not certainties.
- Statistics works with populations, not individuals.
- Statistics describe reality without judgement.
For example: the average adult male height in Ireland is 177.5 cm*. What do we learn from that?
- "are all Irish men that tall?" No, obviously.
- "Is there an "average man" who is that height?" The media seems to like this one, but it's irrelevant.
- If you are much shorter than that, is there something wrong with you? Possibly, but irrelevant, The statistics just describe how things are, not how they should be. No judgment.
Now go to the Netherlands, where the average adult male height is 183.8 cm*, among the tallest in the world at the moment.
- "are all Dutch men taller than all Irish men?" No.
- "are Dutch men taller on average?" Yes.
- "Only 6cm? Have you seen their football team?" The football team isn't a representative sample: they've been selected for fitness factors which may include height.
- "but ... but ... I know a Dutch man, and I'm taller!" Doesn't matter. The statistics describe the population, not individuals.
- "but that contradicts the statistics!" No, it doesn't. Both populations naturally include people who are much taller and shorter than the average.
This is something I see here a lot. Posters thinking that, because they've found something that doesn't match the statistics, the statistics are wrong. Nope. Sure, statistics can be wrong, and they definitely can be misused, but the existence of "exceptions" doesn't invalidate them at all. The population of Ireland includes some very tall men, and they are included in the statistics, but you're still shorter than Dutch men on average.
* source: Wikipedia
(This was originally for the "Trivial Things That Annoy You" thread, but then I realised it's not Trivial. If I put this in the Maths forum, they'd be going "well, duh".
)0 -
-
-
Down, or up - it depends. I think Statistics is like Quantum Theory: anyone who says s/he understands it ... almost certainly doesn't understand it. I know I sure as heck don't, I just learned a bit at university and by reading. Some of the posters in this thread have me at a disadvantage ... some.So.. the point is the average Dutch man can look down on the average Irish man, but anyone who understand statistics can look down on everyone?
You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.
―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't have a problem with analysing data that's already happened, but it's this that I despised the most in statistics, this BS attempt to predict the future, which is redundant and impossible. It'll happen when it happens.
At times it was like listening to a glorified fortune teller in lecturers. Complete waste of my time.
In fairness to myself, I may have been drunk when posting that last night but it's probably not to far off what I believe. Or exactly what I think! 0 -
Advertisement
-
In fairness to myself, I may have been drunk when posting that last night but it's probably not to far off what I believe. Or exactly what I think!
I still don't think statisticians are of no use, but man do you love to talk up the most pointless, meaningless stuff ever. I remember talking to other lectures casually and them rolling their eyes saying they make up 90% extra just to keep themselves busy when it's only the 10% that is of any practical use to anybody.
I'd have endured stats a lot more easily had they focused on what's actually useful, instead of mountains of theoretical stuff, like predicting the future... and those stupid coin tossing notes!0 -
-
-
-
Maybe I should have said "when done properly". The old "garbage in => garbage out" rule applies. If your raw data is real, accurate, representative data, then I stand by what I said.All good, OP made a good and very readable post BUT when he said "statistics describe reality" I had to disagree with that.
My opinion only.;)
Numbers also matter - the more, the better. If you take an average of 10 house prices, that's pretty much a waste of time and doesn't tell you anything useful. Average 100 house prices in an area, and you have ... the average house price. What use is that? Not much on its own, but it might be useful when compared to other similar statistics e.g. a neghbouring area, or the same area the year before. It really helps to have a clear idea of what you're doing, and why, and what the limitations are.
Note also that I mean the statistics themselves, with methodology, excluding any "spin" that might be applied to them. You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.
―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray
0 -
Maybe I should have said "when done properly". The old "garbage in => garbage out" rule applies. If your raw data is real, accurate, representative data, then I stand by what I said.
Numbers also matter - the more, the better. If you take an average of 10 house prices, that's pretty much a waste of time and doesn't tell you anything useful. Average 100 house prices in an area, and you have ... the average house price. What use is that? Not much on its own, but it might be useful when compared to other similar statistics e.g. a neghbouring area, or the same area the year before. It really helps to have a clear idea of what you're doing, and why, and what the limitations are.
Note also that I mean the statistics themselves, with methodology, excluding any "spin" that might be applied to them.
Ever see anyone with a .4 child?:eek:
Nah, only messing, I get where you're coming from.
Very good OP, man. Cheers.:)0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement