People Provided 28 Fascinating Examples Of Popular Statistics That Are Misunderstood The Most
Interview With ExpertStatistics is an interesting branch of science that has often got a bad rap. It teaches us a lot about the world and helps us quantify things really well. Statistics also helps with planning, forecasting, and understanding different facts.
Although it provides many unique insights, people tend to spout numbers without truly understanding the context behind them. These misinterpreted stats can put you on the wrong path completely and change the narrative of a story. Which is exactly what you’ll find in the examples shared in this list.
More info: Reddit
This post may include affiliate links.
That the average lifespan a few hundred years ago was close to 40. That's heavily skewed by child mortality, and if you made it to 10, you were probably going to make it at least to 60.
"The days of our lives are threescore years and ten", right? Would everyone have bought into that if most folks were really shuffling off in their 30s?
Presumably they saw it as a maximum, not a promise. But I'm just guessing.
Load More Replies...I've had grad level training in Statistics. Not a bad example to start with. A) the statement was not written by a statistician, but someone with an ax to grind. B) "lifespan" - can be defined in at least 4 ways I know of- and probably more I don't. C) A statistic that would be valuable here is "Average age of death". I don't see it here. My guess, though for this "few hundred years ago" would be "probably" "around" 43 (opinion!). If you're serious about UNDERSTANDING the numbers; first learn the difference between "average", "mean", and "mode". They're not the same, and tell different stories.
After 60 people died quickly. Lack of even basic universally accessible healthcare meant people were killed by common things preventable or treatable today: smallpox, infected wounds, appendices, rabies, syphilis, outbreaks of cholera and typhoid, etc. Female life expectancy was even lower because of giving birth were very dangerous. Without contraceptives an average woman could get pregnant a dozen times. Lifelong backbreaking physical labor left the poor crippled by the age of 60. It was significant burden for their families to feed somebody who barely contributes. If they hit hard times, they were the first to go. Frequent wars, civil unrests, banditry and the merciless justice system also took heavy toll. I heard a guy in his seventies complaining in a few hundred years old European building:"Why are these steps so high? It makes it painful to climb with old my knees." "Because when it was built, there were no people with such old knees around."
Unless you were a woman, then every pregnancy and especially childbirth were extra risk.
We have lots of old graveyards in New England and many people made it well into their 70s.
No. In the 17th century England, 20 to 30 percent of the people had their 50th birthday, the others died earlier.
You have a good point, but "heart disease, cancer, mental illness" are modern problems. They existed for a long-long time but affected much smaller portion of the population. They became epidemic only after most of the people didn't die earlier of the lack of medicine and sanitation or the wars raging in practically in every country.
Load More Replies...
You're most likely to get in an accident near your home.
Well, obviously that's where statistically most likely to be in terms of frequency. I wonder what the stats would be after adjusting for that.
This is like the sharks attacking in 3 ft of water one. That's where most swimmers are.
sharks are always out hunting at dawn and dusk.
Load More Replies...Most accidents occur within a half mile of home and at under 40mph. That's why when I'm within a half mile of home, I always drive more than 40mph. Makes pulling into the garage a little tricky, but it has openings in the front and the back. (Didn't used to.)
Exactly WHAT do you want adjusted? Basically saying "I'd rather the statistics said something else - with nothing actually to add to it.
A more useful statistic would be the number of accidents per mile travelled. Of course people will have more accidents closer to home, because a large proportion of car journeys are short ones.
Load More Replies...I was 2 streets away from getting home after work when a drunk dude ran a red light and plowed into the side of my car at around 100km/h.
I thought it was more of a complacency thing. Almost home, drive a little too casually, bam!
I have literally always thought this!! My dad quoted these types of stats all the time, but I always wondered if it would statistically align if you adjusted for time/frequency spent in further locations!
Election maps where 90% of the state is colored by one party to include vast areas of wilderness and unpopulated regions to skew the perception that their party is much more popular than the other, while conveniently ignoring the fact that most people live in densely populated areas.
These maps are accurate because we elect with an electoral college, not a popular vote. You win by 1 vote in a state, you get the whole block.
Technically, this is right, but how then are you supposed to show a map of states with the final results which doesn't reflect population density? Shades of blue or red to show there are more people here and less there? I for one see the problem but people with basic knowledge know what areas of the USA are more populated. No map on TV news can correct individual ignorance.
I know exactly which website this picture was taken from. It's called.electoral-vote . com . I read it daily.
the electoral college is often cursed, but it protects us from the dictatorship of the majority. I for one do not want to live under the rules imposed by Los Angeles, for example.
A popular saying is that numbers don’t lie. But apparently, people do. It might seem like statistics is a branch of science that should not be argued with. But as it turns out, it is possible for people to exaggerate or misuse certain facts. According to Datapine, “Misleading statistics refers to the misuse of numerical data either intentionally or by error. The results provide deceiving information that creates false narratives around a topic. Misuse of statistics often happens in advertisements, politics, news, media, and others.”
Not only do regular people tell half-truths with stats, but it’s also professionals who sometimes muddy the waters. A shocking survey of scientists found that 33.7% of them had engaged in questionable research practices like changing the results of studies to improve outcomes, subjectively interpreting data, and holding back on certain analytical details.
I've heard a "certain segment" of people who like to cite crime statistics say "there are more black men in prison than in college."
You're comparing approximately a range of 4 to 5 years (college) to a life time (prison).
Also that’s mostly because the justice system is anything but
Something like 40% of prisoners in California came out of the foster care system, where you “age out” at 18 and somehow you’re expected to thrive whilst homeless etc. Our country is a mess.
Load More Replies...Which doesn't change the fact that so many black men in prison is PROOF that SOMETHING in the US is hugely WRONG. Now argue about what, and what to do about it - but FIX that, it's horribly broken.
According to FBI statistics [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43], Whites (including Hispanic) commit 69,4% of crimes. Black 26.6%, Natives 2.4%, Asians 1.3% and Hawaiians 0.3%. But we have to consider that the population is 60.1% white, 18.5% hispanic, 18.5% black and 5.6% Asian. This means that the black population pro-capita crime rate is about twice as high as the white/hispanic one and seven times higher than the Asian's.
Not in UK. Black people commit less crime per capita, and that's under a higher burden of poverty and discrimination. Which even surprised some of my colleagues, who were in a position to know better. (That was 2005 figures, I have no idea if it's changed)
Load More Replies...I read once that most recidivists (repeat criminals) surveyed in a number of prisons had surnames beginning with M. The journalist had framed this as, if your surname begins with an M you might end up in prison. Turns out the survey had been taken in Scotland! The fact that most people in Scotland have surnames beginning with M had apparently escaped the writer and whoever decided it was a useful statistic.
Maybe if the system gave them free college, they'd be less likely to be stuck doing things that land them in free prison.
Unless the prison sentence is for less than a lifetime, which it usually is
My favorite quoted statistic was "49% of felons in prison are illiterate!". Meaning your odds are better NOT knowing how to read
That means only you don't understand statistics... The US literacy rate is 79% (I know, it's insane). Your statistic -that I have no interest to double check so I take at face value- means that 21% of the population produce 49% of felons, thus the odds of being a jail inmate for an illiterate person is 4 times higher.
Load More Replies...this is like the joke "Why is a white guy in prison scarier than a black guy in prison?" "The white guy actually did it."
The number of “border encounters”. It gets touted by the media all the time and people treat it like a measure of illegal border crossings but it’s not.
For one thing, if you drop enforcement to zero, border encounters go to zero too while crossings go up. Similarly, if you have more effective enforcement, the number of encounters goes up.
For another, researchers found that about half of all border encounters were with people who had attempted to cross before and were sent back. So it’s reflective of the number of tries more than the number of people.
Then there’s the fact that it counts asylum seekers, who are crossing entirely legally. In fact, the recent spike in border crossings is largely due to a spike in asylum seekers.
But people treat it like the number itself means something, especially the change in it, but it’s a measure of a combination of things and you can’t draw conclusions about any one of them from that number alone.
This is good. A good start. 1st you HAVE to ask "Who - says this." then - "What do they WANT the outcome to be" - because chances are they DO "want" it to turn out a certain way. then....
This is just the opposite spin. Come on down to a border state like CA or TX witness it firsthand
Seeking asylum is a completely legal and reasonable thing to do. The right to seek asylum has been ratified and must be observed in civilised countries.
Load More Replies...
Population density. 99% of "OMG LOOK AT THIS MAP AND LOOK WHERE ALL THE BAD THINGS ARE HAPPENING" hot takes are just maps of "Where most people live.".
Well, the point of those maps is also to highlight were high number of "bad things" happening does NOT correlate with "where most people live". This method is an extremely good tracker for large-scale health hazards. If the rate of cancer-related illness is higher in Bumfuck, Alabama than in New York, it's very likely that there is something going on there, such as illegal dumps of dangerous chemicals or harmful industrial activities.
Although this concept was abused in years back when researchers began scanning health statistics looking for clusters of disease. Failing to understand that random distribution will mean more in some places than others can lead to absurd conclusions.
Load More Replies...And people always act surprised when more murders happen in New York City than the middle of Wyoming
Bored Panda interviewed Professor Jennifer Visser-Rogers, the Vice President for Statistical Research and Consultancy, PHASTAR, to understand a bit more about statistics and why people misuse them. Here’s what she shared: “A statistic on its own is just a number. It’s the context that tells the story, but unfortunately, this can result in a misleading story if the context is inaccurate.”
People also tend to fall prey to the issue of sample sizes. For example, let’s say there’s a survey wherein 60% of the respondents preferred Version A over Version B. Obviously, you’d imagine that Version A was the superior option. If the number of people surveyed were 10,000, that would be a pretty significant sample size to back up the research. But if you found out that the number of people surveyed was only 20, then it would mean that just 12 people preferred Version A. That’s why the context behind the statistic matters.
As a statistician (*pushes glasses up nose*) 89% of statistical facts are thrown around without sufficient context (Me, 2024). Even in academics/literature. Statistics are used all the time to confirm a specific view point/hypothesis with complete disregard for how the information was collected, what it means, and how it relates to the real world.
Phone surveys only include people who answer their phone when unknown numbers call. Mail surveys are only responded to by people conscientious enough to fill out the survey. Most surveys get such low response rates that calling it "representative of the population" is absolutely laughable. Self report surveys are usually skewed by people giving answers they think the org giving the survey wants to hear.
Show me your calculations. Mine are more nuanced - depending on the arena; in politics it's 92%, in business it's 84%, and in academia it's only 31%. I've got data!
Load More Replies...I wrote articles for a hair transplant company. The statistic that 60% of all hair transplants was made up by a colleague, I few years before we started working together. I cited that many times. Turned out that he had made that up around the time that Turkey became famous for cheap hair transplants and he was still one of the only people writing articles about it. And people, myself included, still don't check the actual figure.
I generally ignore statistics that do not control for race, gender, income, age, geography, and quantity of respondents. Anything fewer than 1000 participants is probably hogwash. Especially if it is a mostly white young adult university population that you threw your survey instrument at because they had to pass your course in stats.
I love the *pushes glasses up nose* bit, like a nerdy character about to do some "well, actually..."
Or, as they say: Most people use statistics like drunkards use lampposts, for support, not for enlightenment.
If you add a decimal, your made-up statistics will be 42.6% more believable.
I believe it was 1948, and an extensive telephone survey predicted Dewey as defeating Truman. Turns out, the more prosperous (and Republican) people had phones.
That women almost always get the kids in divorce
This is true, but that’s because 90% of child custody cases are settled on outside of court, meaning the fathers aren’t actually fighting for custody of the kids. When they do they usually do get joint custody so long as the father is a fit parent.
Thing is, up until the middle of the 20th century, it was the other way around. Men automatically got custody of their children in a divorce, absolutely no contest, and had the power to dictate whether or not their ex-wives could see them at all. Even if they were the fathers from hell itself. So many children went to old school-type fathers who were 100% ill-equipped and/or uninterested in doing any parenting, as long as they could stick it to their ex-wives. And yes, I know there are mothers who get custody and do the same things, but at least custody agreements aren’t quite so cut and dried, and the best judges in family courts are hard to fool and really try to make the arrangement as equitable as the family dynamics dictate. Of course, not every judge in every family court is going to be good, and that’s unfortunate for both the children and the ex-partner who would actually be the better parent for the kids to live with.
As of today, courts award custody or primary role in shared custody to mothers on over 4 out of 5 cases. Women being awarded financial child support is twice as likely compared to fathers who win custody. On average compensation is 10,6% higher than for men, and the chance for one party evading child support dues is also 10% higher for women. This is an incredibly serious and misrepresented issue, both in the USA and in most of the world.
Load More Replies...Speaking from painful personal experience, the sad part is that sometimes neither parent was ever fit to raise the kids, but the govt doesn't step in so they can save tax payer dollars. Then the kids get stuck with a horrible parent instead of getting the chance to roll the dice with the foster system. I've known lots of adoptees and foster kids and heard their stories. Frankly, I was envious that they got abused less than me with my abusive alcoholic father and fanatical evangelical Christian mother
This is just crazy false in most U.S. states. 20 states have 50-50 custody no matter what when custody is contested. Of the rest of the states, men receive less than a third of the custody time granted. I read this data point wrong: it said men receive 54% as much custody time as women. This doesn't mean that men receive the majority of custody time, though; it means they receive only slightly more than half as much time as women get, which is pretty damned horrible when you consider that they're guaranteed 100% as much time as women in 20 states! https://utahdivorce.biz/wp-content/uploads/utahdivorce.biz-National-Child-Custody-Statistics-By-Gender.pdf
Uhh. This is really misleading. The fact that vast majority of custody cases are settled on outside the court does not mean that fathers do not care about their kid or do not want the custody as this seems to imply. What it means is that ex-spouses are able to come to an agreement in regards to custody without needing to "fight it out". In my country you would go to court to affirm custody and 91 % of such cases are of joint custody. Fathers do not "fight" because they do not have to; they get joint custody without a fight.
I agree with this. If my wife and I divorced I'd likely be fine with her taking majority custody. Or sole custody. Kids are a real hassle.
It depends where you live. In California it's 50/50 unless one of the parents is unfit. And YES, women can be perpetrators of domestic violence, contrary to women's popular opinion!
Almost no one actually thinks that. It's made up by "men's rights" (aka hating women) groups to make feminists seem insane with terrible opinions.
Load More Replies...
If there's a name for this phenomenon, let me know, because I see it a lot. Using a statistic backward to be misleading.
A relatively apolitical example: "90% of all women millionaires made their fortune in MLMs!"
Nope. It's that *of people who made a million in MLMs*, 90% of them were women.
I've seen it other places too. Another one floating around is that 75% of lesbian married couples divorce, when it's actually that *of same-sex divorces*, 75% are F/F, in part because more F/F couples marry to begin with.
Benjamin Disraeli's quote: "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." is pretty old. What he was saying, with vast knowledge of the subject, is that MANY entities TWIST statistics into LIES to try to push their own agenda. It's an old, old practice.
Nobody's sure who first made that observation about lies, but the saying is incorrectly attributed to Disraeli - as well as Mark Twain.
Load More Replies...Gay guy here. The lesbian one makes me laugh. Many, but not all of the ladies absolutely do love fast and hard. Move in together after a week or two of dating, get married after 2-3 months. Don't know a lot that break up, but they know what they want and act without hesitation, so the higher percentage of queer couples being F/F makes sense. Rock on my fellow fem and enby queers!
When my neighbour got engaged, her gay brother said, "bloody lesbians always rushing into it"
Load More Replies...Actually, 56% of same-sex marriages were Lesbian, so that doesn't explain why 75% of same-sex divorces are Lesbian. (This data comes from the U.K., but I believe it's what the OP is referring to.) (Incidentally, the same study found gays [men] are less likely to divorce than heterosexuals, and I've elsewhere seen that the vast majority of heterosexual divorces are initiated by women, so maybe women are more likely to divorce?)
A speaker came to our religious school and told the students that "70% of couples who live together before marriage get divorced!" Later, I explained to my students that he must of meant "If you're happy living together, don't screw it up by getting married." A valid statistical inference as any.
Jennifer provided an example to explain how people should interpret statistical data. She said: “So, for example, if I tell you that eating bacon every day increases your risk of pancreatic cancer by 20%, that’s quite a shocking figure. But what does that 20% increase even mean? It’s a relative risk, which tells me what the risk is in one group compared to another. But it doesn't tell me anything about what my risk actually is.”
“If I were to tell you that we have a 1 in 80 lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer, that means that out of 400 people who don't eat bacon, we would expect 5 of them to get pancreatic cancer anyway. A 20% increase in this means that if you took 400 people who ate bacon every day, we would expect 6 of them to get pancreatic cancer. So only an extra 1 person in every 400. Which doesn't sound anywhere near as shocking as a 20% increase,” she added.
I’m doing X fad diet (keto, vegan, carnivore, extended fasting, omad, etc) and lost Y lbs in only Z weeks! 🥰🥰🥰
Half of it was water/muscle/poop, soon enough you’re going straight back to your old habits.
speaking as a non-vegan, I don't class vegan as a fad diet. It's not about losing weight. It's about not murdering animals. Ethical choice. Nothing to do with weight/body image.
some people eat vegan as a fad diet, which is not the same as people that are vegan for ideological reasons.
Load More Replies...It's irresponsible to lump "vegan" in with those other ones. Some people might try it and not stick to it, but it is not a fad. For committed vegans, it's a lifestyle based on ethical beliefs about not harming or exploiting animals.
True , however SOME people( by no means all) become vegan just because it's trendy
Load More Replies...It always baffles me how many people will try a diet that has just been invented half a year ago. Which means there are is no data yet about whether it is a useful diet or not, because there are zero people who have started it a couple of years ago, and that is the data you need. Because pretty much every diet will make you lose weight at first, but with most diets pretty much everyone has gained that weight back (plus some extra) a few years later. So the fact that lots of people have lost some weight for a few months, says absolutely nothing about whether this diet is a good idea or not. It should be about how much weight you can lose and keep off in the long run, not about how much weight you can lose in the beginning.
Being vegan is not a diet,it's a lifestyle dedicated to not using animals for anything other then love.
Yes I agree vegan has a specific meaning. And it’s not just what one eats. Maybe the term “plant-based diet” is more for people who don’t do it for the animals.
Load More Replies...I'm not on a keto diet to lower my weight. It's to lower my a1c level.
Same here. If I wasn't sticking to the keto diet, my insulin use would go through the roof.
Load More Replies...Meh, I do Keto when I need to lose weight. I stick to below 20 grams of carbs and lose 12-15 lbs in the first two weeks, all definitely water weight. Then over the next couple months the weight slowly drops off with plateaus every few weeks. But when I stick to it, get good fats and exercise, I can consistently lose 10-15 lbs a month. It takes dedication though, cause just one cheat day can stop your progress cold for weeks, so you really, really have to stick to the 20g carb limit.
i practice omad, and it has been proven to help with mental clarity and weight loss since it is very difficult to eat a surplus of calories in only one meal. this is most likely the same with intermittent fasting. additionally, not many tests have been performed for these types of diets, so it may have different results based on the individual. sources- https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/one-meal-a-day-diet#Why-eat-only-once-a-day? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394735/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095528630400261X
> urine is sterile
Yeah, while its still in your bladder. Once it hits your urethra its not f*****g sterile anymore.
Don't tell them that! It's the eye drops one that makes me laugh the most...what's wrong with people?
Load More Replies...Any statistical analysis that includes "f*****g" as an adjective is highly suspect. Forever.
🤔 and if I remember correctly this has been disproven in 2014. Even in completly healthy individuals urin in the bladder is not 100% steril.
Load More Replies..."Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it’s sterile and I like the taste."
Also, whatever disease is in YOURS, you already have anyway. It won't infect you, obviously.
If you have a UTI you surely don't want to have the infection anywhere else than your Urinary Tract or? Same with E.Coli - very helpful in your colon, potentially lethal anywhere else
Load More Replies...
Pretty much all statistical facts.
as a stats guy te more you work with numbers the more you realise the only person who really has a proper understanding of what they're showing is the person who did the study themselves.
Solid information.. (And as the guy doing the studies himself - I can tell you we don't understand it all either.) :-) True statistic. This is NOT actually "bad"!! The smartest, MOST educated and careful scientists will ALL tell you how VERY much - they do NOT know. It's one of the best ways to tell them apart - the Knowitalls - are the stupidest and most ignorant.
Bro did you, after the comment above, just come out against sounding like a knowitall?
Load More Replies...Like this one? The Jobs report. They are so happy to tell us how many jobs have been created, but they never mention the bit where people have to work two or three of them to make ends meet. It should be a living wage jobs report. Don't count the ones that won't support a person.
Another fascinating example Jennifer shared illustrated how easily information could be manipulated to make a statistic seem more appealing. In fact, many brands and companies might use this tactic, which is why people should start paying more attention.
She stated, “One of my favorite stories is that Colgate came under fire for one of its advertising campaigns that stated that ‘80% of dentists recommend Colgate.’ It was reported for being misleading and suggesting that this meant dentists recommend Colgate over other brands. But that wasn’t how the data was collected, dentists were told to recommend several toothpaste brands, so it wasn’t that 80% recommended Colgate and 20% recommended other brands,” she added.
They always get mean mistaken for median.
Don't even get me started on standard deviation.
Load More Replies...In a perfect world, the mean (avg) and the median (mid-point) would be nearly the same. When they are not near the same, it is indicative large outliers, and household income and home prices good examples of this. For instance, in the US, the median household income is about $76k per year. However, the AVERAGE income is about $175k - that is the influence of the 1%. Income inequality is having a devastating impact on society.
More people die from drowning after eating ice cream.
Context is that most people eat ice cream near the sea or at pools on holiday.
I can’t remember it, but some other similar example came up in college psych classes.
Load More Replies...I've eaten ice cream countless times, and I've only drowned twice! I'm happy with the less than 1% odds.
I get the point, but I almost never eat ice cream near a pool or on a beach, because I only go to those places in the summer when it's hot outside, and the ice cream melts too fast.
“Tons of people heard Kitty Genovese being killed but nobody called 911”
Yeah, because 911 didn’t exist in 1964.
The whole Kitty Genovese story is actually really interesting to look into. Basically the majority of what it is known for is the result of wildly inaccurate reporting by the New York Times. The number of witnesses was greatly exaggerated, and there were calls to the police. No witnesses saw the full end to end attack (plus most had little visibility), and in the initial attack her lung was punctured, meaning she would not be able to scream or yell to any volume, so people had little idea something was still ongoing after the initial noise
Even so, the bystander effect is very much a thing. So the underlying problem the story is connected to, is an actual problem.
Load More Replies...Her brother did an interview with NPR at some point... apparently people did call the police but she lived in a poor neighborhood so they didn't come at all or didn't come in time
She was killed in Kew Gardens in Queens. It was most definitly NOT a poor neighborhood. It was middle class, predominantly garden apartments. I lived there for the first year of my life. It is still a middle class area of Queens.
Load More Replies..."The first call to 911 was placed in February of 1968." According to 911.gov
Straw man fallacy. Those who heard Kitty Genovese being raped and murdered also didn’t either dial the number for their local precinct, or dial 0 for the Operator to connect them to the police, both of which were options back in the day. Either they didn’t want to get involved (a very flawed mindset of the past, btw, though some people today take it way too far in the opposite direction), or they thought that surely someone else was already calling the cops so they didn’t have to. Hence the origin of the Bystander Effect.
Other commenters are saying there were, in fact, several calls to the police. The police failed to promptly respond.
Load More Replies...The police number was a different extremely memorable one at the time: 440-1234. Not hard to remember or call. The point is that emergency services were not called, either because of indifference, the belief that someone else would do it, or active disapproval of the victim and her alleged lifestyle. 911 was implemented in New York City just four years later.
Other commenters are saying that there were, in fact, calls to the police.
Load More Replies...An interesting phenomenon in the world of statistics is the Simpsons Paradox (not based on the show). It shows how oversimplification of data can cause people to come to dangerous conclusions and why a healthy bit of skepticism is important. A popular example of this is when UC Berkley feared they would face a lawsuit for gender bias because they admitted fewer female applicants in one year. However, a statistician found that upon dividing the school into departments, there was gender bias in favor of women for 4 out of the 6 departments and no significant gender bias in the remaining 2.
The statistic about you being attacked by a shark in the United States. A lot of times they'll just use the entire population of the country. I'm sorry but if you're in Kansas it's functionally zero percent vs an active surfer/swimmer in the ocean on the coast.
That one is definitely a IYKYK. And I know. Uh, Candygram.
Load More Replies...The more significant statistic is the likelihood of a shark being killed by a human. Worldwide, humans killed about 80 million sharks last year. Also worldwide, 14 humans were killed by sharks in 2023. Humans 80,000,000; sharks 14. Score is a bit lopsided, no?
Conversely, the number of shark attacks in the US last year: 36. The number of ocean drownings: 658. The number of swimmers in the ocean around the US: Tens of millions.
Again- parsing the statement- the author is probably a college sophomore (Latin for "smart a*s) who actually knows nothing about statistics or sharks.
I know that sharks are smooth as hell in every direction.
Load More Replies...
That one about we using only a fraction of our brain.
the number of idiots I deal with regularly makes me inclined to believe this one. And the 10% that is operational is the brainstem part.
I've met them. Whole new meaning to lizard brain.
Load More Replies...Stoplights only use 1/3 of their lights, imagine all that wasted potential!!
There are MANY scientists - who are also idiots. :-) The ones who first put out that "only a fraction" thingy are candidates. The really true scientific statement would be: "Scientists only understand 10% of what goes on in the brain- at the moment." It's human- there are people in all areas who assume "If I don't know this- then nobody does or can" - godelpus.
The scientists may have been wrong, but it's also likely that journalists oversimplified what was said to the point of changing the meaning. They still do this today. Any time I read a popular science article about something I actually know something about, I find errors.
Load More Replies...Well, it's kinda true. But more like how the cylinders in my car aren't firing simultaneously and constantly.
in truth we don't even know that; the emergence of FMRI is huge; but - the fact that some areas "light up" does not actually mean the unlit areas are - not doing anything. You know?
Load More Replies...The way people on BP and reddit jump on these articles tells me that 10% is a very generous statement.
"Chihuahuas attack more people than pitbulls do, but the media only reports it when it'sa pitbull."
I imagine iguanas bite more people than alligators do, but for some reason the media cares more when a gator does it. Maybe because of the amount of damage it can cause.
Dachshunds are actually the dogs most likely to bite. However, like chihuahuas, they usually aren't capable of doing much damage.
A Chihuahua could easily kill you, just like any other dog. A labrador (mine) bit me as a kid by accident but you're not going to hear anything about that on the news. It's about severity, combined with the rarity of the situation (severe injury by dog is not at all common), and a bias towards bully dogs.
I work with dogs professionally and most chihuahuas have such bad, blunt teeth that they can't even break the skin. The only way a chihuahua is causing your death is if they trip you.
Load More Replies...With 35 yrs of Emergency Room experience I can tell you the worst dog bite injury was from a chihuahua. Tore a 3 y/o girls face up so badly that she required 7 surgeries. She's grown now. You can still tell something's not quite right with her face.
Transparent nonsense - which does not mean a few readers won't now be more afraid of chihuahuas -
Ummm have you met a Chihuahua??? Those lil guys are terrifying
Load More Replies...My Chi was "aggressive" but it was all noise, she did bite once (in defence), but would generally hide behind me, peek through my legs, and make a lot of noise. My GSD would kill you on our land, but go home with anybody on neutral territory.
Apart from sample sizes and people cherry-picking stats, Jennifer also shared that “Another thing that people often get wrong is the difference between percentages and percentage points. If, say, inflation goes from 4% to 9%, this doesn't mean that is has increased by 5%, it has gone up 5 percentage points. It’s a really subtle difference but with completely different meanings. But I get that concepts like this can be really difficult for people to get their heads around.”
“We are bombarded with data and statistics now on a daily basis, so I think it’s really important for us all to have a certain level of critical thought to challenge what we see. If we’re expected to use statistics to make decisions about our day-to-day lives, it’s really important to understand what questions we need to ask to be able to fully understand the context of what we’re being presented with,” she added.
Just about any headline that states "if you eat X you are twice as likely to die from Y." The context is that Y is usually a rare condition such that the case rate goes from 3/100,000 to 6/100,000 people. Yeah, it doubled but so what? The odds are in your favor so if X is your fav food go ahead and enjoy it.
Worse culprit: "Yeah, so birth control pills cause an increase in the rate of breast cancer, but they also cause a decrease in the rate of other cancers" ... which other cancers are not nearly as common as breast cancer, so yes, they cause a huge increase in cancer overall.
Scientists prove that breathing fresh air, or doing or eating anything at all, will increase your chances of eventual death by 100%!
The people who throw out that black individuals are statistically more likely to commit crimes. That may be the case looking at pure numbers, but they also never recognize that the locations these happen in have extremely poor standards of living. Low income necessitates crime, and people know that, yet they gleefully push people into these situations so they can have more for their stats.
Plus, where do the Numbers come from? I'm guessing arrest reports and legal proceedings. Plenty of times a white (or wealthy) individual will be let off with a warning/something minor while a Black (or poor) individual is not.
That’s actually been researched and found to be true. White men commit the majority of crimes—-by a wide margin—-than any minority group, but black men, followed by Latino men, then other minorities constitute the majority of people actually thrown in jail/prison for their crimes. White men are the bigger criminals, but the other groups end up paying the price.
Load More Replies...no, low income does not "necessitate" crime. Encourages, promotes, yes. Necessitate? no.
No matter how many times people say it, poverty is not the mic drop justification people keep trying to make it. Yes, black people are statistically more prone to poverty compared to white people (18-21% for blacks and 10% for whites) but...African Americans make up 12% of the population, while white people account for nearly 70%...meaning there are about 7.7 million black people living in poverty, compared to 23.5 million white people....yet, African Americans account for 52-60% of murders in any given year, 80% of non fatal firearm violence (some 270,000+ incidents) and a disproportionate share of assault, robbery, theft, r@pe and arson at a frequency double to quadruple the rate their population....and most of the people they are victimizing are other black people. Those committing crimes make up a small sliver of the overall population...but it's not helpful to anyone to try and ignore, justify, excuse or explain away the problem.
We in Germany have a 12% minority that causes around 37.7% of violent crimes (Mass-/rape. stabbings, straight murder) without counting criminals with a migration backround and a german passport - Guess which group it is. Funny thing: We get told that we have to do more to make life easier for them here to stop that....
I’m curious if this is because it’s easier to be taken seriously when the r*pist isn’t a local. Bias against foreigners = easier to believe accusations.
Load More Replies...also depends on the type of crime. I'm willing to bet this is about contact crime or petty theft. Pretty sure that grand larceny is 99.9% white in usa.
Actually the threshold for larceny to become grand larceny is pretty low - under $2000 in almost every state. Maybe your thinking more of white collar crime? And always we need context. Are white people more likely to be white collar criminals, or do white people have more access to those jobs because of racism, or is something else going on?
Load More Replies...Cis white person criminal headlines: Person commits crime!; Minority criminal headlines: [Minority] person commits crime! You're never going to see "cis man assaults person," just "man assaults person," but I see things all the time like "trans woman assaults person" because people using news articles to justify hate drives traffic. It's the sad truth and it pisses me off.
No, poverty does not drive homicide. The homicide rate plunged astonishingly quickly as the U.S. entered the great depression, and surged in the 1960s and late 2010s, the latter being the only time in the last 50 years when income disparity declined.
You used to see a ton of this from climate deniers - "There has been no warming in the last X years". Where X is however many years it was since 1997, which was an unseasonably warm El Nino year. The trend has been warmer and warmer for decades, but for a long time after 1997 the trend sort of looked flat if you only went back to this one outlier. We might see more of this starting from 2024.
Snow happens so no global warming. Every winter the deniers trot that one out.
Snow isn't really happening where I live anymore, and it breaks my heart
Load More Replies...And plenty of vested interests spend tons of money blurring the distinction with profit-driven propaganda.
Load More Replies...climate change is a better phrase than "global warming" because it covers all of the different aspects of the changes that are happening. The fact that Texas has been hit with bad weather should get the attention of people who have an open mind. But they just knee-jerk keep their head in the sand. Do they care what their grandchildren will think of their denial and refusal to try to work to prevent things from getting worse?
When the polar ice caps melt, coastal areas like Miami are under water and the major land masses have shrunken in size due to a 30 ft increase in sea levels, the climate change deniers will still be denying it's a manmade phenomenon. I think the term is cognitive dissonance.
The trend lines are so obvious. After the summer of 23, even die-hard doubters got real. True deniers will never be persuaded.
Not a climate denier. I am not responsible for it and will not shoulder the burden for the corporations that caused it. The complicate government wants to tax me to pay for the corporations' "sins". No thank you.
the real gotcha is the word "present" when citing geologist records. it means 1950, not today.
A better question would be: why are there fairly long periods of no warming if the cause is CO2, which has been increasing at a steady rate? It not so much bad statistics as asking the wrong question.
Except there are no long or even medium periods without warming. Look at the trend lines, and we’re accelerating warming at exactly the rate scientists have predicted for the last 40 years.
Load More Replies...With so many examples of statistical manipulation or misunderstanding, it can be tough for people to understand what to actually believe. That’s why Jennifer shared a few questions that we could ask ourselves when faced with a new statistic:
- In what population/country/year was this statistic collected, and how generalizable is it to what I’m interested in?
- Who are the people surveyed to get this statistic, and do they have a vested interest in it?
- What is the uncertainty on any figure that you see?
- What do the numbers even mean?
The current inflation of the U.S, usually disregarding the fact that it's worldwide.
What a lot of people fail to take into consideration is inflation. They don’t realize that the $1/gallon they paid for gas in the early 1980s wasn’t actually cheaper. It just seems so, because of how little a dollar can buy anymore. According to the (US) Bureau of Labor's Inflation Calculator, that $1/gallon gasoline in 1980 is equivalent to $3.77/gallon today. Granted, there are some things that really were cheaper back in the day, such as the price of a started home, and there were some things more expensive back in the day, like making long distance phone calls, but most of the basics have simply just kept up with inflation rates. It’s the average PAYCHECK that has failed to keep up with inflation. The $15/hr minimum wage that one-percenters b***h about and loudly claim it will bankrupt the economy is equivalent to $3.98/hr in 1980. Hell, I turned 20 in 1980, and was making more than $3.98/hr just working at a car rental counter in the local airport—pretty much on par with a retail job, and I could afford to not live at home, as the rent on my first apartment was only $195/month, or $734.39 in 2024 dollars—-not on a tiny one-room studio the size of a closet, but on a relatively roomy one bedroom apartment with a pantry and a screened-in back porch that won”d probably cost well over $1000, and probably a lot more, today because it was located in an old, established, lovely, quiet, SAFE Victorian neighborhood (that’s what I meant about housing prices being way more expensive nowadays). We also didn’t have all the home electronics and cellphones to pay astronomical bills for. The only equivalent was cable TV, and even that was cheap—-and wasn’t full of junk channels no one ever watches.
Gas was cheaper in the 70s; I remember price wars, gas as low as .12/gallon. But it should be expensive; it is a limited commodity, it's causes so much pollution, and, Climate.
Load More Replies...The entire world uses U.S. dollars as the basic exchange rate. DUH.
On average, everyone on the planet has one testicle.
Yeah, because if none of us women were given our allotted testicle at birth, then that’s a class action lawsuit in the making. Maybe if we had been given the testicle we’re entitled to, we’d be taken seriously when we talk, be considered forceful and dynamic when we get testy (pun intended) instead of b****y, we’d also be paid better, get more promotions, and run more companies and countries, just like all the other testicle owners (I was going to say “testicle holders”, but thought “testicle owners” was a better word—-even though “testicle holders” is more apropos to part of the favorite pastime of most of the literal wankers currently in possession of at least one).
Load More Replies...*less then one (a - there are slightly more women, b - not every man has two)
Don't worry, my several million testicles balance it all out.
Load More Replies...I have 7 testicle. None of them are technically "mine" but I have them none the less.
That 15 minutes might save you 15% or more on car insurance.
Every company touts enormous savings over their competitors, so categorically that cannot be correct. Unless there is one fake insurance company out there with no policies because their rates are insane.
No, what's interesting is that it likely IS correct - because it always starts with the disclaimer, "People who switched to Company X saved..." What people fail to consider is that this makes obvious sense - the typical customer is only going to switch insurance carriers if they will save money. Of course people who switched saved money, because those who wouldn't have saved money didn't switch.
Load More Replies...unfortunately in SA we have massive monopoly capitalism especially health insurance so even if you get competing quotes, in general you find that the same holding company owns both "companies" that quoted you, so the quote difference tends to be small. Fortunately, we've started to see some apps that come out which are sometimes independent and wholly digital (no call centres), so you at least can do your comparison without engaging with lying sales reps.
It might be true that spending 15 minutes to switch to GEICO could save you 15% on your car insurance. But is that really such a great thing, or is it just a snappy catch-phrase to get peoples' attention? If your're spending $3000 a year on car insurance and you switch to GEICO, ostensibly you'll save a whopping $37.50 a month. Woo-hoo, go nuts, man!
Personally, in my 15 minutes with the gecko company, I actually found a 50% INCREASE in the cost.
Stats will only present the facts of the matter, but it is up to us to sift through the data and question the information before us. That’s the only way that we won’t get swept up in baseless assumptions. People are tired of others using stats mindlessly without considering the context, which is why this post got 1.6k upvotes and so many interesting comments. Which misunderstood statistic were you most shocked by in this list? Tell us in the comments, and share any examples that you’ve come across.
You’re part of only the less than 1% that serve in the military. Usually told in speeches at basic training and academy graduations.
That number is true if you look at currently serving vs. total population. But if you consider everyone alive who HAS served in that number, it’s around 7%. If you consider the number of kids who will eventually serve, it’s over 10%. Then if you factor in the number who would choose to but aren’t eligible, the number that would have but couldn’t in the past due to discrimination, it’s probably much higher than that.
But the 1% number gets spouted a lot so veterans get to feel extra special.
(US based statistics only).
I'll accept all of those numbers- yes, reality gets skewed. If I were doing a full analysis of the question I would want several more comparisons of how to look at it to get a good picture. Like what percent of young people in the appropriate age bracket is it?
You can feel special. It's just out of line when you expect others to treat you special because of your service. End of the day, all we did was a job.
Load More Replies...
Just remember
‘Liars can figure, figures can lie’
Think around the stats.
The gender pay gap doesn’t take into account hours worked, or different kinds of work. More women just work part time.
When you compare salaries between men and women without children, the difference drops to 3%. Not perfect, but nowhere near the amount people think it is.
Great example of how to tilt numbers to suit yourself. Why should women WITH children be excluded from your comparison? Are they not real? What OP is saying is "oh, the pay gap stuff is silly" Don't think so, myself.
Because you have to compare like to like. Women taking time out of the workforce to give birth and take maternity leave means they don't have the same experience and therefore miss out on chances of advancement compared to their peers. Every child puts them 3-6 months behind their peers in terms of hours worked at that position.
Load More Replies...Hourly factory work, in every factory I have worked, at least, there was no gender pay gap as long as folks were working the same job. So the gender pay gap is not about hourly work, but about pay inequity over careers. I don't believe this is readily understood.
Gender pay gap includes part time work BECAUSE it is usually women who work part time due to their caring for children. So they earn less because of care work while men usually keep their full time jobs even if they have kids. In the end women earn less.
This is bull. If your salary is based on hours worked, and you compare the hourly wage with a woman and man at the same level with same experience and qualifications, generally the woman is paid less. If you look at wages then yes, working fewer hours will account. But hourly rate is not dependant on how many hours you work! It’s the same regardless
There is no pay gap solely accounting for gender. If a business could legally pay a female less, why aren’t there masses of female only companies?
The biggest gender gap at work is that 10 men die for every woman that dies on the job.
On an individual level, like for like, at a given moment in time, women and men are far closer in pay. However, the key issues are more on the side of "Women aren't promoted as quickly", so like for like breaks down if you start from "Two people graduate from college with the same degree". The result there is more on par with 30%.
That women make 70% percent of what a man makes. People often miss the crucial context that the stat does not compare what jobs people have. When you compare men and women who are in the same job, the 'gender wage gap' practically disappears. (Which makes since cause it is illegal to pay someone less based on their gender).
There was study released in OZ recently, and they did make it clear "Gender pay gaps are not a comparison of like roles. Instead, they show the difference between the average or median pay of women and men across organisations, industries and the workforce as a whole."
Most people who quote the statistic though do not make this clear. From experience, those who do not make this clear don't actually know this.
Load More Replies...In my industry this has been well-studied, and women make substantially less that men in the same job with the same hours.
what your industry? Can you post the study? I could use it for something I'm working on
Load More Replies...Typically women do not proceed to the same levels of seniority as men. Women tend to do significantly more than 50% of the childcare in heterosexual relationships. They also tend to significantly more than 50% of cooking, cleaning etc. This often means their male partners are able to achieve promotions. Women don't get promoted to the same level as men. This has a major impact on their earnings.
True-ish. It's still missing context. Why aren't more women in the roles these men are in that are paying them more?
Mostly due to three conditions. Not judging, just statistics. First, women are less represented in high-risk/high-pay jobs; 92% of all workplace fatalities in the US are male, and most of those jobs require physical strength or long leaves, that women are less likely to accept as a condition. Second, women having maternity leaves and part-times hampers the career progression, delaying career progress on average by 1-3 years per child. Third, on average women work less hours then men (36 hrs/wk vs 41 hrs/wk), and their measured productivity per hour in the same role is 15% lower then men's (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/209926).
Load More Replies...how does this factor in jobs where the salary is negotiated? thats an area where discrimination is easily covered up, esp when ppl are discouraged from disclosing their salaries, which also means studies are not getting their hands on those salaries. sure its not going to be the 68% number or whatever but it could be significantly less
Do we pay workers in female-dominated professions less because those *jobs* are less valuable, or because we view *women* as less valuable?
It's the jobs. Read something awhile back where the authors were whinging about how male nurses made more than female nurses. After a while, they forced to admit they were bullshitting and the men in question had gone on to do additional education and were anaesthetic nurses, and things of that nature. When the website was called out on their lies and misinformation, they completely ignored it.
Load More Replies...This is my other problem with this nonsense. I've heard every number between 62% and 88%. Almost like women just make this s*** up.
Wellesley College, a women's college, published a study showing that it's untrue and if you compare job to job and hours to hours, there's a 1% difference. When they came out with said study, they did everything they could to avoid saying that though. And they also ignore that women in I think their 30s, make more than men do. It's almost like they're doing everything they can to spread b******t.
Load More Replies...It takes in consideration that woman aren't getting hired for the same jobs even with the same credentials. There's a bias in hiring and promoting that favors men. For women of color that percentage is significantly higher with Latinas making the least, 40 cents to the dollar.
Then we should be seeing a lot of lawsuits any time now! Yep, any time...
Load More Replies...I'm sorry, but I have seen female managers in the same company, and female managers in roles formerly held by men, being paid substantially less money. Look at Hollywood, where salaries are more public than most roles. The gender wage gap may be improving, but it absolutely still exists.
Statistics is a topic about which I am passionate. I am a research scientist, and statistics are a most critical tool in sifting the bits of truth out the chaos of data. Statistics are now being weaponized. More. Benjamin Disraeli, PM of Great Britain for Queen Victoria- said: "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." He was not saying knowledge is bad; but that numbers can be twisted until they lie; and people do that. Long true; but now so common that many of us will automatically ignore any numbers. That is incredibly dangerous. This post on BP is good. Point out the problems. Learn - how to sort out the lies and the liars. And know that your friends' opinions on which is which- may not be enough information.
The post misses out the base rate issue. If you don't know the base incident rate of a phenomenon in society, you can't tell if a percentage hike or a fractional difference in a statistic means anything at all. Moreover, if you don't control for it (ie factor it in), you end up with wildly wrong answers, that can be as much as 25% out or more. For example, in SA, there's a lot of hue and cry about "farmer murders". Purportedly part of the so-called "white genocide" that rightwingers fear. BUT if you look at the stats, the stats are only scary if you compare them to the wrong group (farmers natural death rate). If you compare them to national murder rates, the stats are way less scary. And if you compare them to murder rates in Mitchel's Plain in Cape Town, farmers look positively safe. Soooo what is the base rate for the population, and WHICH population are you comparing to? Whtie people? The whole country? White males? White males over 60? Afrikaners? Etc.
The one that is trotted out again and again is the statistic that men are 'X' number of times more likely to unalive themselves than women. This is used to justify anti-feminism and the victim mentality of some men. It completely ignores the fact that women are 4 times as likely to attempt to unalive themselves as men, but have a lower success rate. It is speculated that this is because men are far more likely to use violent methods, whilst women are more thoughtful of the impact that this has on the person who finds them (and have less access to and experience of guns).
Statistics is a topic about which I am passionate. I am a research scientist, and statistics are a most critical tool in sifting the bits of truth out the chaos of data. Statistics are now being weaponized. More. Benjamin Disraeli, PM of Great Britain for Queen Victoria- said: "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." He was not saying knowledge is bad; but that numbers can be twisted until they lie; and people do that. Long true; but now so common that many of us will automatically ignore any numbers. That is incredibly dangerous. This post on BP is good. Point out the problems. Learn - how to sort out the lies and the liars. And know that your friends' opinions on which is which- may not be enough information.
The post misses out the base rate issue. If you don't know the base incident rate of a phenomenon in society, you can't tell if a percentage hike or a fractional difference in a statistic means anything at all. Moreover, if you don't control for it (ie factor it in), you end up with wildly wrong answers, that can be as much as 25% out or more. For example, in SA, there's a lot of hue and cry about "farmer murders". Purportedly part of the so-called "white genocide" that rightwingers fear. BUT if you look at the stats, the stats are only scary if you compare them to the wrong group (farmers natural death rate). If you compare them to national murder rates, the stats are way less scary. And if you compare them to murder rates in Mitchel's Plain in Cape Town, farmers look positively safe. Soooo what is the base rate for the population, and WHICH population are you comparing to? Whtie people? The whole country? White males? White males over 60? Afrikaners? Etc.
The one that is trotted out again and again is the statistic that men are 'X' number of times more likely to unalive themselves than women. This is used to justify anti-feminism and the victim mentality of some men. It completely ignores the fact that women are 4 times as likely to attempt to unalive themselves as men, but have a lower success rate. It is speculated that this is because men are far more likely to use violent methods, whilst women are more thoughtful of the impact that this has on the person who finds them (and have less access to and experience of guns).
