|
|
|
Heroic Knight
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:46 PM
Posts: 171,
Visits: 536
|
|
Matt Pennington (6/25/2008)
One of the things that I find most pernicious about this quote is the idea that ignorant common people are easily misled by statistics. In my experience most people who don't have some kind of formal training in mathematics, science or engineering tend to have an inherent distrust and dislike for statistics and quite simply refuse to believe them at all.I would consider the exception to this rule to be marketing. Even hearking back to "8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskers" to the more modern and maddening of "contains 30% real fruit juice" or "only 2% fat". All of these are designed to persuade Average Joe that X is superior to Y, or that Z is actually healthy (rather than 70% sugar). Now I am not clear as to how effective these strategies are, but certainly marketing people believe they can persuade people in this fashion, and these claims are usually less accountable or easily checkable than political or scientific equivalents. I dislike attempts to manipulate people with statistics, and why I enjoy FactCheck.org during American political races.
-----
Insurrection:"Of course, if I used some extra resources I could raise my chances of success to very poor...."
Riftworld: "This? This is not a problem, its a challenge. Now can someone help me open this jar?"
LT: [Not allowed a speaking (or writing) part.]
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:09 PM
Posts: 60,
Visits: 201
|
|
Actually Matt, I'd disagree there.
You say yourself that transgendered people are more common in larp than elsewhere. This may be true, it is at least true that transgendered people are more *visible* at larp events than in the general public. It may be interesting to consider why this is. Generally greater acceptance of non-standard lifestyles? Simply being in a space where everyone is "dressing-up"?
It also leads on to one motivation people have for playing certain characters - I am $gender, I'd like to attempt to experience being NOT$gender. Given the number of ambigiously gendered races at Maelstrom (almost as many as the conventionally gendered ones) is this a possible draw to some people?
PD- Yellow Cap
|
|
|
|
|
Apprentice
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
Posts: 23,
Visits: 200
|
|
| Wasn't trying to argue that transpeople at maelstrom would be a large enough minority to affect the genderstats necessarily, just that using dismissive language about them when you're talking about the genderstats is counterproductive if what you're trying to do is to increase the number of players at your game, because in extreme cases it's likely to put off an entire minority group, and all their mates. And I agree with Gimby, that was part of what I was trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:23 PM
Posts: 532,
Visits: 1,784
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:30 AM
Posts: 169,
Visits: 961
|
|
I refuse to bite on the prejudice that mathematical people are somehow a bit socially inept.
*gasp* I never said that! I’ve got enough trouble fitting my own words in my mouth thanksJ two maths bods ( I assume maths bods, cripes if I’m wrong no doubt I’ll be told in short order but I’ll risk it for the sake of old goth bands) have rather vehemently told me I’m an ejiot for using a quote in a way I wasn’t as in a literal way rather than the ironic-ish kind of way, maybe ironic isn’t the right word….short hand for meaning that; people abuse stats to ‘prove’ things and therefore stats are party to lies even if they are equally innocent victims of the mis-use. And Yes I mean ’prove’ Ironically. I think it's impossible to tell if they're being ironic or not from the shortness of the quote, but I don't see much irony in the modern usage of the quote, what I see is "Yeah, you've quoted statistics to prove your case and this proves that you are wrong because statistics are worse than lies." I hate the quote because of the way it is used, not because of what the two quoted people meant, which I neither know nor really care.
Well given that one was a leader of a country and the other was a pretty rocking author I’d trust that they were pretty clever and not brutishly literal, if you see what I mean. For myself, meh probably the latter I confess. I find using quotes unless carefully thought about to be lazy, to re-iterate; stats aren’t guns people are, no, er, I mean stats aren’t eville in of themselves but sometimes can be used by the dark side. So be cautious in accepting at face value what is presented in the form of statistical analysis as ‘must be true’ or ‘must mean A B or C’ you might not a lot of people do accept arguments backed up by stat data as ‘true’ just as some people believe what they read in the paper in black and white to be ‘true’. You do know what I mean and are just winding me up aren’t you?
statistics can be used and often abused to prove anything This is the kind of crazy fallacy that the quote always seems to lead to, in fact that phrase always seems to follow the quote in short order. Apologies if you were being ironic saying this, but you really can't use statistics to prove anything unless you falsify your statistics or collect bad data.
That’s why I put ‘prove’ in italics I should have been more explicit, my bad. In some cases where the data is ambiguous you can judiciously select the statistics that you use to lend undue weight to arguments with people who are not well versed in the science of statistics. This often happens in politics. I periodically hear comments from local and national politicians that imply that either they are deeply and profoundly statistically innumerate or else they think they get away with treating the electorate like they are. Sadly I suspect both are true in equal measures
My point, badly made as it was taken literally. and I think this particular quote has it's share of the blame to shoulder for both being true.
Only if you take it literally /head desk.
you want after all numbers are infallible are they not? Yeah numbers are pretty infallible. I have never used numbers and known them fail. Other than in a very narrow mathematical sense in which some extremely complex scientific ideas cannot currently be expressed mathematically. People on the hand are not infallible and ignorance of statistics is often at the root of their failures when collecting or using statistics. Saying numbers are fallible is like saying words are fallible. People often use words to convince people of things, so people who dislike numbers because they are powerful should express a similar disregard for words. In fact I feel I should encourage such people to use neither words nor numbers due to the clear inherent dangers... Didn't Prince try that already?
Which was the point I was trying to make and failing to do so obviously. Possibly. Your explanation has made me more convinced not less convinced of how dangerous the quote is, but I honestly can't tell if you're trying to be ironic and resisting the urge to make a joke about this is killing me. Go for your life, I’m losing the will to live, put me out of my misery! You’ve almost convinced me I hate stats and blindly quote something random from the big book of quotes, now if you could convince me that I should go to the gym more and eat less pie that’d be great thanks..or should that be pi?
[quote]So; yes. If you take it that they literally thought that statistics were the work of the deville and eville and in need of burning at the stake, then yes they would be wrong.Given this,anyone quoting them blindly would indeed be a bit ignorant. I don't think you have to see it in those terms to dislike the quote. But it is the modern usage of it, particularly the context of a disdain for statistics and ultimately basic numeracy that irks me. I’m not sure I agree there is a modern usuage I’m sure people have been lazy and used quotes badly for many years, not just in this modern age. I was not distaining statistics, but the way they are use…oh forget it, yeah you’re right.
But I think they meant what I think they meant, which was that stats can easily be manipulated and because numbers are beyond question to most people who take such things at face value-( which is most people) they are accepted as proofs and clever people can use them to prove all kinds of whack.
One of the things that I find most pernicious about this quote is the idea that ignorant common people are easily misled by statistics. Are you implying most people are ignorant and common? Because I’m not, the quote is a warning about not trusting the people who use statistics, to check things out for yourself. In my experience most people who don't have some kind of formal training in mathematics, science or engineering tend to have an inherent distrust and dislike for statistics and quite simply refuse to believe them at all.
I’ve never had a fight with a number, I’ve never known an equation to nick my purse, its people I have the problem with. As you say politicians, racists, sexists who use maths of several shades to ‘prove’ (ironic use of the word ‘prove’ again) their case that women are thick, black people are animals and gay people are deviant, to name a few. Rather than conveying unusually powerful weight in arguments statistics seem to me to be unreasonably light in ideological weight. "Oh well the statistics may show that X, but you can't trust statistics"
You can’t trust the people who use statistics, or at least not all of them all of the time etc.
I am sorry I didn't clarify this position with regards to the quote, I just didn't think people took Twain to be that ignorant, or the other bloke come to that, but I can see as the quoter I might be perceived (and probably am to a degree) quite ignorant of a more implied, rather than literal meaning. You can have some dubious ideas even if you are very clever. However it's not the quotes themselves that bother me, it's the modern social context, a kind of post-enlightenment disregard for statistics that bothers me. As it should it bothers me too, but that’s not the context I was using the quote in, I use quotes as short hand, because they tend by their nature to say a lot in a few succinct words, but I do strive to know what they mean before I use them.
~'What is Archangel worth? - 'Nothing...everything'~
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Tookey's lovechild.
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:14 PM
Posts: 339,
Visits: 734
|
|
Sikorski (6/25/2008)
As ignorant as I am, Istill hold thatstats are easily manipulated and in of themselves explain very little.
It's fair to say that stats are poorly understood by most people and can be used to confuse... but then again, most sciences are poorly understood and can be used to confuse - think about all those shampoo adverts with "science" in them. What offends statisticians are the dual perceptions that a) stats is a discipline designed to mislead and b) it's a simple enough subject to be understood by people without effort. The quote from Benjamin Disraeli contains the implicit assumption that he, a man with no training, is qualified to pass judgement on the whole discipline (so that's b), and that being so qualified he dismisses it as lies (that's a). Even if he meant what you think he meant, for honesty's sake he should still have put a qualifier on the front ("In politics..." would have done). These days when the phrase gets used it's usually down to someone dismissing an entire discipline for no very good reason.
It would be a good idea to put stats on the syllabus at GCSE stage, so that faced with a quoted number everyone knew the right questions to ask about randomly quoted numbers.
Sikorski (6/25/2008)
I think* Twain was being ironic,
Even if Disraeli was just going for a good line (quite likely) and Twain was being ironic, you are still making the quote look straight. You're also not using it for any good reason. What use is there in implying that both numbers and a scientific discipline based on numbers are useless? Do you really believe that?
Let's look at your original quote:
"Questionnaires? getting the opinions of a few people who post on threads like this surely can't tell you much? Hand out questionnaires asking people why the chose the skills they do might give the stats a meaning. Quoting stats/ratios and asking for anecdotal comment immediately takes stats into the 'lies and damned lies' category as they are indicative only of themselves and not what motivates the choices being made."
Once you start asking people why they selected various skills, you're gathering anecdotal evidence. The answers might be useful afterwards, but they don't have any bearing on the statistics part.
When you've got the raw skill selection numbers in front of you you've got data that isn't subject to personal interpretation or perception. You can start looking for gender-based differences, and if you see any you can then start applying statistical tests to see if the differences are large enough to be unlikely if there were no gender bias. You can then start make careful statements about the existence (or not) of gender bias, backed by actual science. It won't tell you why females are more likely to want to craft jewellery (if they are), but it is possible to check whether an observed disparity in proportions is unlikely enough assuming a non-biased skill selection function to indicate a probable bias.
Unless I missed something important, that hasn't been done yet. Right now we're at the "looking at numbers and guessing" stage.
Proper application of statistical tests to the raw numbers could tell us which skills and races the genders are more likely to pick. Sure it won't tell us why they do, because that's not quantifiable. That doesn't make it a lie, or the numbers a lie, or the numbers useless in and of themselves. It makes it properly scientific - knowing and admitting the limits of your understanding. Precisely the opposite of what the problem the quote refers to, in fact.
Your position from the quote seems to be that we should chuck the numbers. That would leave us discussing gender bias without any indication that there is one. To me that sounds like a waste of time.
I'm going to go and do something useful. When I have more spare time I'll see if I've got the tools to test the data for gender bias.
------------------------------
Eos: Diego Gatito - the worst ninja in the world.
Insurrection: Marcus de Selene - the worst price negotiator in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:30 AM
Posts: 169,
Visits: 961
|
|
*sigh* I'm really not sure if you're baiting me because it's funny (and I accept it is funny) or whether I'm really just not explaining this at all well. So I'll give it one last try and then shut up. No I wasn't aiming to bait you, if the humour, slight though it is, offends that wasn't my intention, just to soften the edges of cold hard text that turns a bottle of wine (or cup of coffee) debate into a slagging match, I am fonder of one more than the other.
As human beings we all experience desires and dislikes for different things. We find things some enjoyable and some things distasteful. So for instance, I like LRP, I dislike football. We might hypothesize that I have developed these choices because I am essentially a bookish nerd who was useless at sports at school. Possibly it's because I am genetically predisposed to enjoy LRP but not football, my father hates football, my mother adores it, maybe I have his genes. Am I conscious of these reasons? No - when I am LRPing I don't think "Yay this is fun, I can feel it in the genes I got from my father" or "This feels pleasurable because it replays enjoyable sensations ingrained in my brain from my earliest experiences". you've mixed silly examples up with plausible ones, I'm not alexander, this knot is beyond my time and patience and skillz. But I will say that I think you can sometimes, not all of the time be aware of why and how you do what you do, right down to which string is working which finger. Which synapse is a wee bit beyond most people I'll grant.
Of course these explanations are just crazy, but my point is that I'm hard pressed to say why I like LRP at all, unless I explain the enjoyment in totally circular ways in terms of other things I enjoy. I like LRP because it's sociable, imaginative, cerebral and I like these things because.... because... I just like them. Or I can define it in circular ways that redefine the word "enjoy" - I enjoy LRP because it brings me a sense of accomplishment and excitement, I get adrenalin rushes at the big moments and a buzz out of it. Neither of these explain fundamentally why it is that I find the activity of LRP pleasurable. At no point in this process am I conscious of why I enjoy LRP, I can't *consciously* relate it to any factor about myself, I'm not aware of the basis for my enjoyment. Well thats you, I'm still analysing why I do larp, but I do, analyse it. Different factors, social, biological, emotional all that malarky.
Some times we are able to "step outside ourselves" or work with other people to try to objectively analyse the sources or reasons for our enjoyment of activities. Sex, which is the example I've used twice now is the clearest example I can think of, of this phenomena. I am attracted to women but I have no sense of the reason why this is. I am most emphatically not conscious of it being because I am male in anyway. And yet statistically if we analyse men as a category we find that the overwhelming majority of them are sexually attracted to women. Not all, maybe 10% aren't but enough to be almost certain that this is statistically significant and that there is a direct link between being male and being attracted to women. Enough to suppose that the reason that I am attracted to women is purely because I am a bloke. Urgh this is conflating self knowledge and statistics its too messy for mi poor ape brain to fathom.
I have no conception of why I like these things, until I discuss them with other people and only by collating and comparing our experiences can I build a common picture with them of what causes me and people like me to enjoy or not enjoy LRP. You seem to be scoffing at this, so maybe I'm explaining it very badly, maybe it appears so patronizing that I can't get past the implied insult that we "the group" can have a greater insight into an individuals personality than the individual does I'm neither scoffing or trying to be insulting, I generally use bad words if I am trying to be insulting ask anyone I'm a right potty mouth. but I honestly cannot comprehend any way in which I could begin to experience the reasons for my enjoying or not enjoying things. The whole notion seems as a | | | |