Brother-in-law Rich often quotes that "statistically 64% of all facts are wrong". I stumbled across a series of articles (by Michael Blastland) that may at last prove him right. Unpromisingly, Mr Blastland writes about statistics and how they can be misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) or misrepresented...still not too exciting. But it is really entertainly written and fascinating. Take for example the misuse of the term 'average' we all know what average is (Mr average, average earnings, average house prices etc.)...don't we....:
"Average" is commonly used to mean something like "ordinary", "typical", "normal" or "what's expected". Above is good, below is bad.
Most people remember from school that there are different kinds of average. But what mostly endures, if news coverage is anything to go by, is the notion that they all have something to do with a vague place which is, roughly, somehow, you know, in "the middle".
So it's easy to be horribly flustered by what is a simple principle - that the average is not necessarily anywhere near the middle. Sometimes, it is miles away. Sometimes it is about as atypical as you can get, and true of no one at all.
If you are still struggling, try this:
What's the average number of feet?
No, not two. The answer is slightly less. Think about it.
This is because the average can be pulled to one side by the influence of a tiny minority of people, in this case, the small number who have fewer than two feet.
Almost everyone has more than the average number of feet.
There's loads more stuff about how surveys can be misreported by the press or misused in advertising. Well worth a read. Sorry this is a very dull blog.
PS........and following on from an earlier blog post about the happy world of Powys Mike writes about how surveys are a bit crap:
A trivial example is the "grump league" that hit the news last week. Which bit of Britain is happiest? (Powys, if you must know). Which most miserable? (Edinburgh, allegedly).
Except that this was in flat contradiction of findings by pollsters in 2006 that only three places were happier than Edinburgh.
Maybe a lot has happened in two years to turn Scotland's once gleeful capital into a pit of malcontents. Or maybe not.
Even the researchers said the numbers were not statistically significant. (Translation: the differences are so small, from such miniscule samples, that we can't be sure there's any value in them whatsoever). Told this, reporters carried on regardless. 'Hey, it's a laugh,' they say. 'Who cares?'
Happy with that in Edinburgh?
"Average" is commonly used to mean something like "ordinary", "typical", "normal" or "what's expected". Above is good, below is bad.
Most people remember from school that there are different kinds of average. But what mostly endures, if news coverage is anything to go by, is the notion that they all have something to do with a vague place which is, roughly, somehow, you know, in "the middle".
So it's easy to be horribly flustered by what is a simple principle - that the average is not necessarily anywhere near the middle. Sometimes, it is miles away. Sometimes it is about as atypical as you can get, and true of no one at all.
If you are still struggling, try this:
What's the average number of feet?
No, not two. The answer is slightly less. Think about it.
This is because the average can be pulled to one side by the influence of a tiny minority of people, in this case, the small number who have fewer than two feet.
Almost everyone has more than the average number of feet.
There's loads more stuff about how surveys can be misreported by the press or misused in advertising. Well worth a read. Sorry this is a very dull blog.
PS........and following on from an earlier blog post about the happy world of Powys Mike writes about how surveys are a bit crap:
A trivial example is the "grump league" that hit the news last week. Which bit of Britain is happiest? (Powys, if you must know). Which most miserable? (Edinburgh, allegedly).
Except that this was in flat contradiction of findings by pollsters in 2006 that only three places were happier than Edinburgh.
Maybe a lot has happened in two years to turn Scotland's once gleeful capital into a pit of malcontents. Or maybe not.
Even the researchers said the numbers were not statistically significant. (Translation: the differences are so small, from such miniscule samples, that we can't be sure there's any value in them whatsoever). Told this, reporters carried on regardless. 'Hey, it's a laugh,' they say. 'Who cares?'
Happy with that in Edinburgh?
