My Opinions

[Troll Control]

"There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."  

I always felt that this is a pretty thought provoking quote...

[Deborah]

:lol: That was good.

When an organization states that their efficacy is 2-6%, I think that is significant and deserves consideration. Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but 2-6%.

The few people I know that 'it worked for' are dependent on it in the same way my mom is dependent on going to church to avoid burning in hell.

I love and appreciate my 'AA' friends and my mom, regardless of their beliefs. AA doesn't work for me, and apparently doesn't work for the majority of people. Fortunately, there are many options, provided that people can find them if/when they are desiring 'help'.

[Anonymous]

It is possible a lot of people end up in AA who are heavy drinkers but not necessarily alcoholics. they could be bi-polar, depressed or whatever and alcohol was the first thing to hang on to, in which case AA might be helpful but not the answer. There are too many unanswered questions about alcoholism. I think the definition of alcoholic got way too broad and it's gotten harder to sort out the heavy drinkers from the alcoholics==personally I believe there is a difference.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-27 10:43:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:

""There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."  



I always felt that this is a pretty thought provoking quote..."

People can only "lie" with statistics to people who don't understand statistics.

It's *not* an attack to say someone obviously doesn't understand the math.

If you don't believe in statistics, you don't understand statistics.  Period.

Not believing in statistics is like not believing in gravity or the speed of light or lightning bolts.

You can "not believe in" gravity all you want, but if you jump off a foot bridge that runs above a creek, you're going to get wet.

Probability is fact.  Empirical data is fact.  The combination of probability and data is fact.

Just like gravity or lightning or the speed of light (which is not the same thing as saying it's exactly precisely constant, because mathematically there's no such thing in the Real World, but that's a whole 'nother story).

If you've ever run into a situation where that statistics were "wrong" then the problem was not that they were wrong, but that you didn't understand them properly.  Or that you didn't properly check where the data came from and what kind of data it was and what inferences were statistically legitimate to draw from that kind of data.

If you've ever run into a situation where statistics were quoted to "prove" something that wasn't so, and it looked to you like they *did* prove that, that's not a reason to "not believe in" statistics---that's a situation where someone took advantage of your lack of knowledge of statistics to imply something false, where if you understood statistics well enough, you'd know the person was trying to pull a fast one and doing something mathematically illegitimate with the numbers.  Or their attempt to be perceptually misleading simply wouldn't work on you.

There is no shame in not knowing or not understanding advanced math.

There is significant shame in "not believing in" advanced math.

The difference is that you can always find someone honest who *does* understand and *does* understand data collection and what it's legitimate to do with the different kinds of data to use the advanced math to check the facts *for* you.

If you just "don't believe in" advanced math, you condemn yourself and everyone you lead after you to ignorance.

That's not an attack.  On anyone.  That's just the  plain facts.

We can't all be nuclear physicists.  So what?  That doesn't make us bad people, and it doesn't make us fools.  The only thing that can make someone a fool is to get so defensive about the areas where they don't have knowledge that they tell the people who *do* have solid knowledge in a particular area that *they* don't know either, or that they don't know any better than you---in their area of expertise---when they *do*.

That's not an attack.  I sure as hell don't know everything, and I am not going to kick myself because I'm medically challenged and don't have the skills and knowledge and understanding of heart surgeon.

Neither am I going to go out and say that I can't do heart surgery and I don't believe he can, either.  I'm not going to go out and say that I don't believe in heart surgery just because I can't do it.

Statistics, done correctly, are *facts*.

They're as unavoidable and inevitable as gravity or the weather.

If someone feels attacked or feels someone else is being attacked over my saying reality is reality, then I just can't help you.

Do my social skills suck?  Probably.

But reality is reality, not a personal attack.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

I apologize when I'm wrong.  When I say reality is reality, I'm not wrong.

I don't understand the theoretical physics that would explain gravity.  To a large extent, the best physicists in the world don't, either.  That's no excuse for not believing in gravity.

*I* sure as hell do not remember how to calculate even least-squares-method statistics.  I do not remember how to do a binomial.  I barely remember how to do a factorial, and I sure don't remember all it's used for, or even the most common things it's used for.  I don't remember how to calculate confidence levels, or how to calculate statistical significance.  I barely remember what a regression equation *is* and what it's used for---hell if I remember how to build one.  I remember what a standard deviation is enough for rule of thumb understanding, but not the nitty gritty details of it.  I *do* remember the basics of why the term "average" is so tricky mathematically.

I *used* to know how to do those things, and that former knowledge would make it easier to relearn them if I decided I needed to go check the facts on an issue that was of particular concern to me.

But unless your friend is a professional statistician, I'm fairly darned safe in saying she *doesn't* understand the math.

Yeah, well, she doesn't know how to do heart surgery, either.  So?

The only thing wrong with not understanding the math is when you make the incredibly misguided leap from "I don't understand that" to "that doesn't mean anything."

I have *never* met *anyone* who understood the math of statistics who "didn't believe in them"---guessing your friend is *not* a professional statistician, or a college student who passed her second or third hard-core statistics class recently, or a math major, or a math grad student, or training in a *good* school to do research in one of the sciences----well, that's not a lot of a stretch.  *Most* people are not any of those things.

Your friend is not being foolish by not understanding some very challenging math.  Your friend is being foolish by pretending to herself that that math, combined with properly-acquired data, doesn't work.

And if saying that makes me a bitch, well, then, I  guess I'm a bitch.

For an encore, I think I'll say that water is wet. :sad:

Timoclea

[Troll Control]

I guess that was a thought-provoking quote.  Wow.

Anyway, I'm not arguing the validity of anyone's statistics here.  I'm not familiar with what you all are discussing, although I do know that AA is, at least statistically, a failure.

That being said, let me pull you up on your logic.  Statistics are, in fact, NOT FACTS.  Statistical data relies upon the empirical gathering of evidence and the statistics are the mathematical derivation of that empirically gathered body of evidence.  

Where we reach a sticking point is that statistics, in and of themselves, can be made to lean in whatever direction the author wishes them to lean.  Simply stated, you need to investigate exactly from what premises the statistics are derived.  If the premises are faulty, so are the statistics.

Maybe rather than pontificating on the absoluteness of mathematics and the  righteousness of statistical analysis, you ought to hit the ol' philosophy books to understand that conclusions are only as true as their premises...

[Anonymous]

Oh, and for the record, as far as I'm concerned 98% of the human race, at least, is "math challenged."

Some of that could be remedied by placing greater emphasis on math so that people learned more and kept  using it to keep the knowledge fresh and kept advancing their knowledge instead of hitting teen-something or twenty-something and just stopping learning.

Most of it will probably take the equivalent of an evolutionary leap.

People think, "Oh, I'm never going to use that," and maybe they're right---maybe they won't.  But that doesn't mean they *shouldn't* use that.  A whole lot of people's lives would be a whole lot better if they understood statistics well enough to make use of that better understanding in their daily lives.  They'd avoid a lot of stupid mistakes, and avoid a lot of lost opportunities from being scared of something fun and not doing it, when the chances of a bad outcome are really low.

If fifty percent of people understood statistics instead of less than two percent, we wouldn't have a "war on drugs."  In the first place, people voting for politicians wouldn't vote for insanely escalated legal consequences over and above the natural ones.  In the second place, people thinking about using various drugs would understand the personal risk *to them*, given their other medical issues, of drug use and the people *most* prone to a bad outcome from using certain drugs wouldn't use them in the first place.

And don't get me started on other public policy issues.

Not understanding math, particularly not understanding probability, hurts most people all the time in their daily lives.  It's a real hardship to almost everyone.  It's just one that those people usually don't recognize to understand  *how much* them and the majority of others understanding higher maths would improve their lives.

But most people *can* get a lot of those benefits secondhand by listening to the people that do understand that math.  And what they don't know does hurt them.  But since they don't see that either---it's like trying to convince a cat that a candle will singe its little whiskers off.  You can explain all day......

So yeah, my social skills are a handicap.  Understanding math is an advantage.  I guess it pretty much balances out.

Now if your friend *is* a statistician and has valid reasons for thinking a particular statistical conclusion is being misapplied in a particular case, that would be a different kettle of fish.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-27 12:41:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:

"I guess that was a thought-provoking quote.  Wow.



Anyway, I'm not arguing the validity of anyone's statistics here.  I'm not familiar with what you all are discussing, although I do know that AA is, at least statistically, a failure.



That being said, let me pull you up on your logic.  Statistics are, in fact, NOT FACTS.  Statistical data relies upon the empirical gathering of evidence and the statistics are the mathematical derivation of that empirically gathered body of evidence.  



Where we reach a sticking point is that statistics, in and of themselves, can be made to lean in whatever direction the author wishes them to lean.  Simply stated, you need to investigate exactly from what premises the statistics are derived.  If the premises are faulty, so are the statistics.



Maybe rather than pontificating on the absoluteness of mathematics and the  righteousness of statistical analysis, you ought to hit the ol' philosophy books to understand that conclusions are only as true as their premises..."

I do not buy the philosophical bullshit about empiricism not being a valid way of acquiring real information about reality.  I've read quite a bit of it, and as far as I'm concerned, it's crap.

You *can't* make statistics lean whatever way you want unless you're breaking the rules of applying them, and you can only get away with that with someone who doesn't know better.

Actually, statistics are a statement about the portion of knowledge we have acquired about a particular thing.  If we live in a deterministic universe, the probability of anything would be 100% if we knew everything about it.  Quantum physics says some funny things about the limited possibilities as to what the fundamental nature of reality is that I do not understand, and even the people who do understand it think in terms of the math, not verbal philosophical translations of same.

But the portion of statistical knowledge we have about particular things *are* facts.  Put another way, all of what we call statements of fact are statistics of one sort or another, when you get right down to it.

If your data is right, and the math you apply is correct and is applied "legally" for that kind of data, then what you've got out the other end is a fact with a confidence interval.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

Tim
I have a question for you.
Say that there is a statistic that "proves" that 30% of teenage dinking deaths are from drunk driving. It isnt a real statistic or anything but hypothetically lets say that. Now say teenagers are educated about this statistic. They understand it. Do you think that the statistic would stop a teenager from drinking and driving?
The reasoni ask is because you say they would avoid alot of stupid mistakes if they just understood the statistics. Now anyone who is or was a teenager knwo that it is a difficult stage. Not just the physical level but on the emotional level too. i know alot of teenagers are not very rational and dont really think things trough logically. thats not to say all of them, but you cant discount the fact that horomone levels make you crazy and irrational somethimes. I really dont think that just because they know a statistic exsists that they will choose not to do something. i knew in high school that doing drugs on school grounds would send me to jail. i did it anyway though. ive heard tons of statistics about many things. Take smoking. I smoke. i know the chances of me getting cancer are higher for me because of my family history. i know the percentages of people that die every yrear from smoking. i know the percentages of people who have health problems because of smoking. but i do it anyway. It is an addiction. An irrational thing. People dont generally think when they are at a bar drinking that they have a so and so percentage of getting into a drunk driving accident if they drove drunk. I think soem actually might, but I doubt that would stop them. Most people are afraid of the helath risks or going to jail or both.

[Antigen]

I know you're talking to Tim, but I'd like to take a shot at this one too.

On 2005-03-27 15:01:00, Anonymous wrote:

i knew in high school that doing drugs on school grounds would send me to jail.

This is an issue that I've discussed often w/ various ppl and about which I've tried to educate myself.

You're absolutely right that teenagers are at least half as crazy as pregnant women, menopausal women or men at almost any stage in life  :razz: Part of our job as adults is to provide good guidance and a level head to help you avoid crisis and to have the broad shoulders when you land up in crisis anyway. I think the people involved in the troubled parent industry are doing a miserable job of it, making life much harder on the rest of us and, alarmingly, taking more and more control of public policy and funding.

If you're like most kids, what you knew in high school was not that doing drugs would send you to jail. In fact, you did drugs and you didn't get sent to jail. So did somewhere around (usually over) half of your fellow students. How many of them went to jail? I'm guessing very few. So what you actually knew about drugs and legal liability was probably that the adults were 1) full of shit and 2) dangerous people to talk to on the topic. Whatever other useful information they might have been able to tell you was not very credible and certainly not worth the risks.

So where else do kids get their information in that case? Usually from other kids or from "cool" adults, who may or may not have your best interests at heart.

That's part of the problem w/ spouting hysterical propaganda (about drugs or anything else) that is not based on reason and facts.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
--Anonymous

[Perrigaud]

Deborah,
 Don't call me sweetie. That in and of itself is condescending. I never said you told her not to attend AA. You can't "wrap her mind around the assumptions"? What, you think she's too dense to understand? Please. Dependent on church or AA? No, how about that is something they want to do. Did the church brainwash your mother to attending and becoming dependant on them? Out of curiousity do you have any sort of weaknesses? Is there anything that you feel you are dependant upon at all? Do you feel that you are strong because you aren't dependant on something (should that be the case)?
Perception is key. Those who go to AA (not all of them) go because it helps them. They are not dependant on the meetings. They feel it's easier to talk to others who struggle with the same problem. People go to church to be amongst others who believe the same thing. A preacher motivates and guides them.
Humans like to be amongst others who think like them. Humans love familiarity. Hence cliques, political groups, churches, AA, Overeaters Anonymous, Al-Anon, Choir, Speech teams, Theatre, etc. etc. Are these people dependant on these groups? Not all, some are.
What did work for you as far as haulting your alcohol abuse?
**********************************************************************
Timoclea,
  NOT BELIEVING IN STATISTICS DOESN'T MAKE SOMEONE MATH RETARDED!!! Just because I don't believe in drug abuse doesn't mean that I don't undertand it. Yes you are attacking someone. You are attacking their intelligence. If you really new her you would know that she knows and understands more about stats than you think she does. She has a member in her family that actually works with stats as a job. He's explained them to her thoroughly. She chooses to not believe in them. Again that is her choice. Here's another one of your shitty quotes: "If you just 'don't believe in' advanced math, you condemn yourself and everyone you lead after you to ignorance." What? That's rediculous. That's about as bad as me saying that if you go around using your bi-polar disease as an excuse for all your screw ups then your children will turn out to be excuse making losers. Horrible. Advanced math...please. I happen to be very good at math. I'm not a genius but math is one of my favorites and I don't believe in stats either. I have concrete proof I understand math. No I'm not talking just geometry or even normal college classes. In the end a statistic isn't gonna mean anything to an alcoholic or drug user.
Reality is reality. AA has saved and helped people. It may not have a 100% rating but for those it doesn't work for it doesn't work for. They in turn should find there own solution. If it means that they find it through god then good for them. What's the stat on that? Tell me, what is the most effective way to stay off of alcohol? AA has 2-6%. What has the highest percent?

"Neither am I going to go out and say that I don't believe in heart surgery just because I can't do it." Really based on what you said about stats you don't believe in it. That argument is total crap. Nice contradiction. If stats are in fact only understood by those who have mastered math where do you claim to know that they are the end all? Who are you to say that someone doesn't understand them? Do you? Not everyone thinks like you. I understand religion however I do not believe in it. Does that mean that I truly must not understand it? Your all or nothing attitude pertaining to stats is in fact, false. "There is significant shame in 'not believing in' advanced math" is another quote of yours that shows your true colors. What if I said that if you don't believe in religion then there is something morally and ethically wrong with you. That's not an attack its just fact. No that's crap. If you don't believe in religion then that's your choice. That does not mean that you are a bad person or that you have no morals. It's too easy for you to blame any outburst on your bi-polar disorder. It's too easy to accept the fact that your social skills need help. But if you're ok with it then I'm ok with it. That's your choice. I could blame a lot on my ADHD, ADD, and clinical depression. However, I don't. I admit to my faults and learn from them. I never use the excuse my ADHD and clinical depression. Those are two things I worked through. I don't suffer from them nor do I even blame anything on them. Depression (clinical) is supposedly a chemial imbalance in my brain. Yeah? Well I have that under control. I don't believe in those diagnosis.

[Troll Control]

Ahhh...  The vigor of youth.  I remember back when I was in college when everything was new and shiny and every class I took became like a religion.

I can remember taking my first Social Sciences classes and being absolutely convinced that Democratic Socialism was, and must be, the future.  That Skinner, or Freud or Maslow (whoever I happened to be studying at the time) was really spot-on with their work.

Then something happened.  I began to develop the ability to think critically.  Once that happened I was able to distill my learning into valid opinions of my own that derived from source information, but did not DEPEND on it.

At some point in your collegiate career you will realize the futility of absolutism and will begin to understand things in a more well-rounded way based on more ecclectic knowledge.

Until then, you are going to exhibit truncated reasoning skills...

[Perrigaud]

Maybe...then again maybe not. I see the world as an opportunity to learn so much. I am not only a scholar of college but also a scholar of life. I don't depend on anyone or anything but myself. As I go through this forum (apply this to life as well) I take what I think is valid and leave what is not. Absolutism. I see the many sides of any given situation. There is so much more for me to learn and apply.
It is my will that has kept me alive throughout the years. By alive I don't mean physical life. I mean inner freedom and inner peace. I have my problems for I am not perfect. No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. If anything the world is perfect in its imperfections.
As I go on through life and encounter different people I learn. Be it directly or indirectly. Absolutism? You are under the impression that I think things are not able to be different. That ethics are the same for everyone and everything. Au contraire mon amie. In fact, I love that life is full of different things. That what method works for me doesn't work for others. I invite and applaud individuality.
I must admit I do enjoy your posts though I've only read 2. You seem very interesting.

[Troll Control]

Very nice, even-keeled response.  Sounds like a healthy outlook.

Remember always not to be afraid of an intellectual paradigm shift.  Change is healthy and invigorating!

Thank you for the compliment.

[Troll Control]

that was me, dys. j., btw.  forgot to login...