Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Self Defense Against Rogue Statistics

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Here is a very nice piece about how stats are used and abused. Along with some sensible advice about how to be smarter about being pro-gun/rights.

    I like the notion of being an "honest partisan." Over the long haul, it's more effective. Of course, it's harder to do, so the extremists and dullardsnever like it.

    I think a big part of the reason is that most people simply have not taken stats classes in their education. I blame the educational system for that. It has failed us. Most, by far most, people are actually frightened of stats classes. Pity, as it can make for some powerful arguments and much of the major decision-making in our country is heavily based on inferential statistics.




    Self Defense Against Rogue Statistics
    Posted on Monday, May 14 @ 00:10:00 EDT by cbaus

    by Dean Rieck

    Mark Twain is often quoted as saying, “There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.” That’s another way of saying that while statistics are useful, they can be slippery. Much of the problem with statistics is ignorance about how they are created and what they mean. However, many people, including some anti-gun zealots, purposely misuse statistics, especially polls and surveys, to deceive the public.

    Unfortunately, people in the media are equally ignorant about numbers, so they are just as easily deceived and become accomplices in the deception. It works like this: An anti-gun group runs across a statistic that appears to support their cause. They don’t check the veracity of the statistic. They just write a quick news release and rush it to their media contacts.

    A busy editor receives the news release, decides to run with it, and hands it to a staff reporter to write up a story. The reporter, who is overworked and underpaid and is likely to be at least a little sympathetic to gun control, doesn’t question the statistic because it just seems to make sense. Plus, since the anti-gun group has a name such as “Americans for Gun Safety” or “American Hunters and Shooters Association,” the reporter doesn’t question their motives because it appears that the group is genuinely concerned about safety, as opposed to the NRA or Buckeye Firearms Association who are openly (and honestly) partisan.

    So the statistic gets reported. The public gets deceived. And the truth gets buried under one more shovel full of anti-gun B.S.

    So what can you do? The best form of self-defense against deception is knowledge. We’ve discussed how the anti-gun groups funnel their slippery statistics to the media. Now let’s look at how the statistics get mangled in the first place.

    Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.



    You don’t have to be a mathematician to understand these things, you just have to learn to recognize a few of the ways numbers are misused and misreported.

    The Phony Trend
    Reporters have a variety of standard templates they use to frame a story. One of their favorites is the “trend” article. News is about things changing, so anytime there seems to be a statistic showing a trend, it’s breathlessly reported as big news. The problem is, reporters aren’t very picky about what qualifies as a trend.

    For example, a Gallup Poll from October 2006 indicated that 56 percent of adults nationwide felt that laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict. In 2002, the same poll indicated the number was 51 percent. That means there was a 5 point increase in the number of people who wanted stricter laws.

    What a great trend to report! More and more Americans are wanting stricter gun control laws. Right? Not quite. The trend is phony. This poll has been going on since at least 1990. At that time, 78 percent said they wanted stricter laws for the sale of firearms. So while the numbers wiggle up and down each year for a variety of reasons, the actual trend for gun control has been downward over the 17-year life of the poll, from the high 70s to the mid to low 50s.

    The Cherry Picked Numbers
    Cherry picking is selecting one fact and ignoring another. A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in April 2007 asked adults nationwide, "What do you think is more important -- to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?" Of those surveyed, 60 percent said that controlling gun ownership was more important, while 32 percent said that the right to own guns was more important.

    That would appear to be a damning statistic, until you look at another question in the very same survey which asked, "Would you favor or oppose a law that banned the sale of handguns?" Of those surveyed, only 37 percent favored such a law while 55 percent opposed it. So while most ordinary people don’t necessarily support idealistic pro-gun positions, that doesn’t mean they back gun bans.

    Experienced and honest researchers know that people have complex opinions about issues. What questions are asked and how they are phrased will dramatically affect the answers. It is impossible to understand how people feel about an issue by asking just one question.

    The Unreported Facts
    If you must testify before a court, you are not just asked to swear to tell the truth, you are also asked to swear to tell the “whole” truth. The reason is that telling some truth isn’t good enough. A little truth can lead to a big lie when you don’t consider all the facts.

    Every time there is a tragedy involving firearms, for example, journalists trot out another favorite template: Why did this tragedy happen and what can we do about it? Inevitably this leads to police and concerned citizens wringing their hands about where the bad guy got the gun and creating the impression that everyone thinks access to guns is the culprit.

    But an ABC News Poll from April 2007 asked people what they think is the primary cause of gun violence in America. Only 18 percent said “availability of guns.” The two biggest reasons cited by those surveyed were the “way parents raise kids” at 35 percent and “popular culture” at 40 percent. But you’re not likely to hear that in the coverage of any shooting. It just doesn’t fit the story template.

    The Illusion of Certainty
    Polls and surveys are seldom as accurate as you may think. They may seem that way because numbers have an almost magical credibility. But every poll has what is called a “margin of error.” That means that, even if you assume the poll was conducted correctly, the actual numbers could lie anywhere within a range of numbers because of potential error built into the polling process.

    For example, let’s look at another question from that 2007 ABC News Poll. People were asked “Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?” In 2000, 67 percent said “yes.” In 2007, the number was 61 percent. But the margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, meaning that either of those previous figures could be 3.5 points higher or lower. So in 2000 the number might be anywhere from 70.5 percent to 63.5 percent, while the number from 2007 might be anywhere from 64.5 percent to 57.5 percent.

    What is the actual number? Who knows? All this tells you is that it’s somewhere north of half the people surveyed.

    A Final Word about Truth
    You may wonder why I cited that last statistic, since it’s not exactly pro-gun. The reason is simple: pro-gun activists can play a little loose with the numbers too. And a statistic like this is likely to be ignored or twisted for political reasons. I want to show that I’m not afraid of the numbers no matter what they show, pro or con. That’s because I want to know the truth. And so should you.

    Never try to hide or twist a particular statistic just because you don’t like it. The overall truth is on our side even if certain individual statistics may appear to be otherwise. The easiest way to win any argument is to be credible and right on the facts. So be accurate and honest about your statistics. Always. Anti-gun activists are afraid of the truth. You shouldn’t be.

    I’ve given you a few ways that statistics are misused and poorly reported. There are many more ways to use statistics to deceive, but I hope this gets you to start asking questions about the numbers you see. Specifically, I recommend that you always look at the actual poll, survey, or study being cited. Almost always you will find that the truth is not what it appears to be in a news report.

    One thing I know for a fact. The more educated people are about guns, hunting, shooting sports, personal protection, and crime, the less anti-gun they are. The idea that Americans are anti-gun or that crime is a gun problem is a not just a lie, it’s a damned lie.

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3734.html




  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    And your statement is a great example of how logic and assumptions are also used and abused. To wit:

    HankT wrote:
    ...I like the notion of being an "honest partisan." Over the long haul, it's more effective. Of course, it's harder to do, so the extremists and dullardsnever like it. ...
    Over the long haul it's more effective? Based on what empirical evidence? I'd be interested in seeing those data points. You do realize, I hope, that its effectiveness may very well be only relative to you and your particular point of view.

    In your statement, you making the following assumptions:

    -Being a Honest Partisan is more effective over the long haul.
    -Being a Honest Partisan is harder.
    -Extremists and Dullards never like doing anything hard.
    -Therefore Extremists and Dullards don't like "honest partisanship".

    You imply that since you like the idea of Honest Partisanship, anyone that dislikes the ideadoes sobecause it's harder and therefore an extremist and dullard, and implying thatyou are neither which is not necessarily true.

    I could take your statement and use it this way:

    I like the notion of being a "fast driver." Over the long haul, it's more effective. Of course, it's harder to do, so theslowpokes and cowardsnever like it.

    Since I can drive my car quite easily and safely at 126 mph (damn limiter), anyone that can't chooses not to do so onlybecause it's harder and therefore they are a slowpoke and a coward and because I drive fast, I amneither. And that is equally a completely false statement.

    The only true statement in the entire argument is that you like the notion of being an "honest partisan". Not that you necessarily are, just that you like the notion.



    That was a good article, thanks for finding it and posting it.





  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Bob, I notice you didn't say anything about the stats classes comments I made. Just curious. How many stats/quant classes have you taken?





    BobCav wrote:
    That was a good article, thanks for finding it and posting it.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No statistic is 'rogue,' though its abuser may be.

    The best defense is skepticism - believe nothing you read or hear unless you validate it yourself or it fits your pre-existing world view.

    Even our language is similarly and ignorantly abused. 'I'll give you up to a Million dollars' is satisfied, made true, when I give you nothing.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    believe nothing you read or hear unless ...it fits your pre-existing world view.
    Very popular strategy.

    Actually, a constraint.

    And always a contributor to demise.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Bob, I notice you didn't say anything about the stats classes comments I made. Just curious. How many stats/quant classes have you taken?





    BobCav wrote:
    That was a good article, thanks for finding it and posting it.
    Nope Hank, I never tooka singlestat/quant class, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.

    I never went to college.I joined the Navy at 19 and did my 20 before retiring at 39. I spentmy youth and young adulthood at sea for over 10 of those 20 years of service. But I did get to see places that most people only dream about. Two of those years were spentin Navy Schools and got me a nice $250K Gas Turbine/Power Generation/IC&E/Leadership edumacation. I did take a few history classes, figuring that was more important. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history..." and all that silly stuff.

    I'm kinda hurt that you didn't make a single comment or dispute to my post, either agreeing or disagreeing.

    Your turn. How about you? How many stat quant classes have you taken? Accredited schools? Distance e-Learning? Just curious.



  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    believe nothing you read or hear unless you validate it yourself or it fits your pre-existing world view.
    [ ...]
    And always a contributor to demise.
    I don't understand your comment, "And always a contributor to demise." Is paraphrasing your comment as 'Always adding to death' accurate?

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Bob, I notice you didn't say anything about the stats classes comments I made. Just curious. How many stats/quant classes have you taken?





    BobCav wrote:
    That was a good article, thanks for finding it and posting it.
    I'm kinda hurt that you didn't make a single comment or dispute to my post, either agreeing or disagreeing.

    Your turn. How about you? How many stat quant classes have you taken?
    Good question. I don't reacall, but tons, 15 to 20, maybe slightly more. Yeah, all at accredited institutions.

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    believe nothing you read or hear unless ...it fits your pre-existing world view.
    [ ...]
    And always a contributor to demise.
    I don't understand your comment, "And always a contributor to demise." Is paraphrasing your comment as 'Always adding to death' accurate?
    I chose the term "demise" to include death, yes, but it also includes verydiminishedoperatingexistence and viability states. Essentially,what I'm saying is that if your paradigm gets locked in real good, you will NOT be prosperous and growing over the long term. You will die or atrophy will set in. Theenvironment is changing to much to stay static. Companies like Xerox, Polaroid, DEC, Netscape, AT&T have learned that lesson the hard way. Companies like Intel, GE, Wal-Mart, and Southwest learned the path to excellence and prosperity, avoiding the trip to demise.

    And, yes, of course, the construction of your words I selected to refer to was a portion of your total sentence, a portion which I felt could stand by itself, reasonably read. The portion that I did not comment on, I basically agreed with.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    And, yes, of course, the construction of your words I selected to refer to was a portion of your total sentence, a portion which I felt could stand by itself, reasonably read. The portion that I did not comment on, I basically agreed with.
    Ahh! 'Cherry picking' phrases is kind'a like cherry picking numbers. As to your personal comments, I am long (10+ years) successfully retired - see my 'location'.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •