Featured Statistics Don't (and Can't) Lie

OK I jumped to the end of the thread after reading a few posts.

Statistics don't lie but people do.

I took a statistics course in college and it was surprisingly one of the most difficult I had ever taken.

At on point I had taken both integral and differential calculus, analytical geometry and Vector Analysis and needed a higher math course to assure a general engineering math core so I figured Statistics should be a breeze. NOT!

Long story short, professor walked in on the first day of the course made an opening lecture in which he said (well one of the things) that you can make statistics prove almost anything.

e.g. If a study includes averages you MUST know WHAT METHOD of averaging is being calculated : mean, median or mode and you must also know the range. Are you being told these entities in the study?
No. Then you are a candidate for being snookered.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

Also:
There are also several higher math formulas used in statistics for coming to different final results (lets use polling studies) with the same data depending on related variables which are not usually given in any of the Orwellian press releases fed to we the sheeple depending on which side of the aisle is behind the funding (not always available either).

e.g Weight - one variable in demographics is the percentage of the population in terms of preferential weights.
Does the study (lets say a poll) tell you what the percentage of the general population of those being polled is? (for instance) - 60% Republican, 30% Democrat, 5% Libertarian, 5% other?
Also, what is the random selection algorithm within the range?
Not divulged? Then you are probably being deceived.

And many other statistical math manipulations which we are NEVER (well usually never) told.

Don't get me started on GRAPHS!

HankD

 

Well, I did look at the data - briefly, but I did and went back to look again just now.
While it looks relatively clean, I have a basic distrust of statistics but if you feel that the data is clean and handled with care then that's good enough for me SW.

HankD

 

Have you tried taking the plank out yet?
And why do you post statistics, then, if they are lies?

 

No, you can conclude a lot from statistical sampling. And if you want to sample for300,000,000-- the approximate population of the USA-- you need a sample of 1849 to make a conclusion at the 99% confidence level.

No, not about the entire black population; but yes, about the probability of a particular police incident or criminal incident being done by blacks, by whites, by hispanics, and so on.

 

RE:Your reported statistics Sapper Woody.

Yes after further checking I can say that your reported statistics are credible.

My apology for casting doubt on your research.

HankD

 

We're not talking about a statistical sample. We're talking about the closed set of people who shot police officers.

Wrong again just like yall were months ago. That probability is still 50/50. The only thing you can say about the future of what we're talking about based on a closed set is that this is what happened in the past.

 

Haha - was that mean, median or mode method and what were the range and weight variables?

HankD

 

And about what that says about the likelihood by race of any particular incident chosen at random.

P = 0.5 of what?

And that says a lot. If you really think a study of where particular crimes occurred, by whom based many differing factors, at what times of day, week, month year, and against whom... you're sillier than I thought.

 

That's the point. It says NOTHING about the population at large. It only speaks to the group of white and black folks who decided to shoot police officers.

You can't use that statistic and say that the Black population in general has got it out for police officers.

Of what you mentioned. Either it will be done by someone or it will not be. Two options. 50/50.

And you're dumber than I thought if you think you can deduce what the general public will do based upon what a group not indicative of the public has already done.

 

Obama is an expert at:



Does it daily.

 

Yes, expand the time range to eternity.

HankD

 

"General public"..."not indicative of the public?" So what public are they a part of?