BS: Ridiculous statistics

Subject: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:20 PM

A commentator in the Manchester United v Chelsea Premier League match today actually said: "Manchester United haven't conceded a headed goal with Ferdinand and Vidic on the pitch since March last year".

I am not making this up. Who one earth collects and collates figures like that, & solemnly lists them for the commentators to quote in earnest tones at 'appropriate' moments? What is supposed to be the point?

Can anyone think of a more absurd 'statistic' which has actually been published or broadcast?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:32 PM

Sure......No problem............

You have posted 4027 times to Mudcat and I have made 27,226 to the 'Cat.

Also........

87% of all threads which are as fuckin' stupid as this one will go over 100 posts while 93% of the even more moronic threads will do better than that!

This accounts for my high number of postings. I've also been around a lot longer and I was posting to moronic threads long before you arrived!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:46 PM

Yeah? Well, in Yankee football, there are commentators like John Madden who say things like, re Troy Akeman, quarterback for Dallas, "Here's a guy that, when he puts his contacts in, can see better." And he didn't have a staff compiling statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:55 PM

What is Manchester United? or Chelsea Premier?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:58 PM

80% of statistical recipients suffer from a mild form of frontal lobotomies brought on by drug companies, political pundits, and religious leaders.

Statistics compiled by Brit and American dignitaries Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain.....

"Lies, damned lies and statistics".

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:10 PM

Q... not nice to mess with Man U.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:37 PM

Statistics, hell, you couldn't even play a baseball game without statistics.

Every decision a manager makes is based on statistics.

And every real fan can recite all the statistics of his favorite player(s).

The best announcer I've heard at weaving statistics into a game broadcast is Vin Scully. He is so artful at introducing minutia that you think he's reciting the Iliad. And he makes the interminable tedium between pitches actually seem exciting.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:44 PM

The best I ever saw was Dennis Miller but he only lasted one season on Monday Night Football because he knew far more about the game than the vets from a statistical and historical point of view and was actually funny and entertaining. Ya don't make the good old boys look bad eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:56 PM

There is no doubt at all that Catspaw takes 705·73% more satisfaction than any other living person in being googol+∞ x more irritating than 98.461% of the inhabitants of all known galaxies. The boredom quotient involved has been officially declared to be incalculable using the universe's most sophisticated computing equipment.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Michael
Date: 08 May 11 - 04:38 PM

In that case Michael, the boredom quotient will be 42.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 11 - 04:51 PM

42? Ominous.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:01 PM

Are you offering me dinner at The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe? Too kind. What is their dress code?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 08 May 11 - 07:11 PM

85% of yer keystrokes are a complete waste of time to read and the other 15% are worse than a waste of time. ;-D

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 11 - 07:28 PM

I heard an up & coming lawyer, during a formal debate in college, get by with intoning solemnly...but with intensity.... "remember, 7 out of 10 doctors leaves 3!!". As far as I could tell, no one but the judges was paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 11 - 07:47 PM

Back in the days when I was still a smoker I went to several stop-smoking clinics.


One doctor - a Seventh Day Adventist, he said - said about de-caffeinated coffee: "Notice they say '97% caffein free'. That still leaves 3% caffein."

I've always wondered about that statistic...

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:38 PM

87.79% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:52 PM

Ah ha! That's what I suspected. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:05 PM

!! 88.894% !!

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:34 PM

I live in Minnesota, where the news media are obsessed with weather. You hear things like "We have had more rain during the last 9 days than any 9-day period since 1972" or "The high temperature of the day has been lower for 3 days in a row than any 3-day period in August since 1948."

It goes to show that, if you define your categories narrowly enough, practically every event breaks a record of some kind.

The university I used to work for brags on its web site—and in lots of its recruitment materials—that it is "the top-ranked Minnesota university in its class in the 2011 rankings of 'America's Best Colleges' by U. S. News & World Report magazine." To know what this means, you have to know what "in its class" means. Its "class" is officially "Regional Universities (Midwest)." That means it doesn't get compared to Carleton, Gustavus Adolphus, Macalester, St. John's, or St. Olaf because those are liberal arts colleges, not universities. It doesn't get compared to the University of Minnesota, St. Mary's, or St. Thomas, because those are classified as national universities, not regional ones. (I'm not sure how USN&WR decides to classify an institution as regional or national; I suppose it has to do with where their students come from). And of course it's not comparing itself to any institution outside of Minnesota, although Wisconsin is only 25 miles away.

If you define your class of competitors narrowly enough, you can excel at anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:50 PM

"If you define your class of competitors narrowly enough, you can excel at anything." Jim Dixon

At last.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:01 AM

Yeah, it is all about the phrasing..........As Yogi said, "90% of hitting is mental; the other half is physical."

Or............

In 2008 in Ohio, 35% of traffic fatalities were alcohol related.   This means that 65% were related to sobriety. Obviously you are better off drunk!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:47 AM

My husband and I had just read that in a head-on collision the one going the faster gets off easier, so we decided that if you see that it is inevitable, Step on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:17 AM

"gets off easier"--do you mean according to law, or according to the laws of physics?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:19 AM

These are all excellent examples of statistics which might be perverted to imply the opposite of their users' intentions, indeed. But any more examples of the absurd correlations of apparently discrete recondite facts ~ like that in my OP: the lack of headed soccer goals conceded by a specific team over a specified period when two named particular players were on the field; or any answer to the enigma of who collects them, why, & how?

Still puzzled...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Musket
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:27 AM

I love football commentators giving out statistics. It feeds Colemanballs in Private Eye...

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:46 AM

Absolutely, Ian ~~ I have had many wins in that. "The missing Madrid player is becoming increasingly visible" was the last I sent [not a statistic, but I liked it]. Don't think it landed, tho.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: bubblyrat
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:18 AM

What I have never understood , apart from Japanese and Welsh ,is why football (and other ) commentators , after the game / match is over , go through it all again verbally, telling us all precisely what , having watched the whole proceedings, we already know !! Are there statistics about how many people find that extremely annoying ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:53 AM

Sports statistics, outside of key data like the actual score of the damned game, are basically a form of mental masturbation anyway. I'm sure the announcer's observation that "Manchester United haven't conceded a headed goal with Ferdinand and Vidic on the pitch since March last year" was the extra bit of info required to push some sports wanker over the brink and into a state of intense mental orgasm.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:17 AM

Absolutely, BWL. & can the foolish people not see that, with idiot remarks like "Bloggsville haven't beaten Poggsville away since 1976", as if that could have any bearing on the outcome of an ongoing game between the two, they are saying the equivalent of "The last 4 times I have tossed this penny it has come down tails", as if that might have some predictive relevance?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ed T
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:30 AM

""The farthest humans can see with the naked eye is 2.4 million light years away! (140,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.) That's the distance to the giant Andromeda Galaxy. You can see it easily as a dim, large gray "cloud" almost directly overhead in a clear night sky.""

But, many parents can't see clearly when their kids do wrong, even when it's right in front of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:42 AM

Jim Dixon, physics. I didn't make it clear.

Of course, you might both end up dead. But maybe the other guy is deader. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:55 AM

I just remembered an old 'statistic' I once read about.

It seem that at one time, there was for several years and almost perfect correlation between the sales of alcohol and the salaries of college professors.

I believe it was used in a statistics course to demonstrate the dangers of drawing too many inferences.....

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:34 AM

A correlation showing that the higher the salary, the lower the consumption? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:02 PM

First Michael, your question applies to most sports and other activities as well. It comes under the heading of trivia which is also the fodder of almost every sports commentator extant. While it is unimportant to many, some of us just enjoy the added, if also useless, knowledge.

Most of the song research done here would be considered by most of the world population as completely wasted bullshit. You know a lot of useless stuff about the Marx Brothers. Stats are just another form of trivia.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:40 PM

But I don't go on tv and tell the viewers about Groucho singing Hurrah For Captain Spalding when they are trying to concentrate on watching another film, Spaw. Trivia are fine ~ I love them ~~ in their place!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ed T
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:19 PM

""In New York City, approximately 1,600 people are bitten by other humans annually.""

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:39 PM

Most people think I'm usually right 97% of the time...the remaining 4% of the time I think they are!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,crazy little woman
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:47 PM

"My husband and I had just read that in a head-on collision the one going the faster gets off easier"


I hope that was supposed to be a joke. A head-on collision is a terrible thing. Do anything you can (brake, turn sideways, change lanes, go off the road) to avoid being in one.

And the faster you are going, the worse it will be, because the speed of your car translates to energy which damages the car and injures your body.

As for statistics, I've always wondered how anybody knows that no two snowflakes are alike.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:57 PM

Yes, CLW, it was a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:01 PM

..and, of course one of my favorites, "95% 0f all forest fires are caused by trees!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:45 PM

Ebbie: I didn't take the collision idea as a joke. It sounds like the kind of myth that sometimes gets circulated on the internet, or investigated by Mythbusters. I was preparing a lengthy explanation refuting your theory; now I'm glad I don't have to bother.

I don't know you well enough to know whether you would joke about such a thing, or whether you would be dumb enough to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:04 PM

I suppose the idea that no two snowflakes are alike could be tested statistically, but first you'd have to decide how different two snowflakes would have to be to be called "different." If two snowflakes were exactly alike except for one water molecule being in a slightly different position (which you couldn't see even with an electron microscope) would that be different enough?

If the average number of molecules in a snowflake is n, then the number of different configurations a snowflake could have would probably be on the order of 2ⁿ, which is probably an enormous number. It wouldn't surprise me if this number is greater than the number of snowflakes that could exist.

But I don't know whether anyone has actually done the math, or if they just made it up. I'd bet on making it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:08 PM

Michael.......I do know exactly what you mean and it is made worse by the huge amount of "novice" info that is passed out on every broadcast. The justification is always "the need for any new viewers to understand" but the result tends to piss off long term fans. When I watch a sport which is unfamiliar I would prefer to learn as I go by figuring it out for myself.   Maybe I'm weird.....but I already know that.........but I think you get into an activity deeper, if also slower, when you have to spend some time at it.

I drive Karen crazy by making comments about what is going on before the commentators do.   On some sports, I watch with the sound off because I can't stand the drivel.   Some announcers drive me nuts anyway which is why I can often be found watching the event on TV and listening on the radio.   This is especially true with auto racing.

Sadly Michael, you are stuck with it in most cases so I suggest you start talking to your TV. I do that and it has the added benefit of making your friends absolutely sure you have gone over the edge.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:35 PM

"I suggest you start talking to your TV."

You ougtha be here when sports are on... especially Yankee football. I jump up, rant and rave, LOUDLY, at the fact that John Madden (retired and still retarded) , Phil Simms, ESPECIALLY Phil, the short shit (you know who), and so on, haven't read a FUCKIN RULE BOOK IN FUCKIN YEARS FER FUCK SAKE!!! And HOW COULD THE REF MISS THAT? HE WAS STANDIN RIGHT FUCKIN THERE... LOOK... LOOK... SEE... IN SLOW MOTION... HE'S LOOKIN RIGHT AT THE FUCKER!!!!

It's the most exercise I get on Sunday afternoon and Monday night.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:00 PM

Oh, yes: I frequently talk back to the tv ~~ I hope John McEnroe's ears are still burning at the things I scream at him when we will talk right thru every point: great player, but suffers as commentator from an apparent unshakeable conviction that we have switched on solely for the purpose of listening to his witter...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ed T
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:21 PM

sexual thought

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Joe_F
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:18 PM

crazy little woman: No two of *anything* that size are exactly alike --
peas in a pod, 6-32 nuts out of the same box, raindrops, grains of sand. There are too many atoms in such a thing to expect an exact match, and -- even if you imagine by chance the same number of atoms -- too many ways to arrange them. If you want exact resemblance, you have to go down to the scale of molecules.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:59 PM

I DONT talk to my Television , as I realised what a COMPLETE waste of time (AND Money) having one is back in 1986 ! I now waste my time (And Money) on The Internet , with radio as Background noise !

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:33 AM

Same here, Leadfingers, except I eliminated both the TV AND the radio back around the late 80s. It's strictly the Internet for me now...and books and newspapers...but I understand that most of the newspapers are in danger of becoming extinct shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:44 AM

Ed T, You'll get a kick out of this Tale of Two Brains..Brilliant, and accurate, though funny!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:46 AM

"I don't know you well enough to know whether you would joke about such a thing, or whether you would be dumb enough to believe it." Jim Dixon

Thanks for being uncertain, Jim- I may be dumb- I often am - but not that dumb. Even my husband wasn't/isn't. For what it's worth, at the time of our scintillating conversation we were in our 20's.

But I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now...

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:51 AM

Oh, tell me about that, dear Ebbie. The young just won't realise how much younger than them we are: I am even younger than you ~~ I shall be 79 the day after tomorrow!

:-}

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:01 AM

MtheGM: "The young just won't realise how much younger than them we are:.."

Second time around, eh??

wink,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:55 AM

Happy upcoming Birthday, Michael!

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:21 PM

Ebbie: "Happy upcoming Birthday, Michael!"

Jeez, with all those candles, you think he might be contributing to 'global warming'???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:11 PM

Regarding snowflakes, it turns out someone has done the math. You can see it here, along with the underlying reasoning:

Is it really true that no two snowflakes are alike?

His conclusion is: And thus it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike.

It's a fascinating website. Here's the main page: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/. You can also get there by www.SnowCrystals.com.

When you get there, click on one of the photo galleries, then click on a snowflake image to enlarge it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:30 PM

Many years ago there was a BC cartoon, where Peter was asked, "Did you know no 2 snowflakes are identical?"
He goes off curiously picking snowflakes out of the air, taking a look, then tossing them over his shoulder.....then suddenly he stops with a startled look at the one in his hand, turns, and makes a frantic leap toward where he tossed the last one. Makes you think....


here is one on that general theme

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:52 PM

No two snowflakes are identical... tautologically false. Statiscally probable.

Depends on the sample size and the margin of error and how you define the parameters of the study and resultant probability.

Or, one could say, who gives a shit?

Fact is, I'll bet there were a million of the little bastards in my driveways this past winter that were IfuckingDENTICAL on accounta there were billions and billions of them. But, I will never know because they were chewed up and spat out by the snowblower before I could inspect them all... and I hope each and every one of the little fuckers died a severely painful demise.

NOW, I gotta mow the millions of blades of grass in the lawns and I really don't car if they even look the same shade of green. That's if the trillions of drops of rain being blown sideways by high winds will ever stop.

Here's a statistic for you, sample size of one, no standard deviation... Mother Nature is a bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:54 PM

Gnu ~ how "tautologically"?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 11:16 PM

"No two snowflakes are identical...???"

As soon as I'm done getting syrup from telephone poles, I'm going to check them all, and get back to you with my findings.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,crazy little woman
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:07 PM

My definition of alike (as pertains to snowflakes) is this:

Do they look the same when you hang them on the Christmas tree?

If you wish to be more technical, it's this:

If I put the two of them on a light table, does a piece stick out?

For me, statistics needn't come into it.
==================
Here's another bad statistic.

"Twenty percent of the people do all (or 80% of)the work."

How would anybody ever verify that? I suspect this of being made up by a self-justifying workaholic.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:58 PM

MtheGM, you think football is bad? Take a look at Wisden.

Q, Manchester United is an American owned English football team. Chelsea is a Russian owned English football team.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:24 PM

Cricket, I know Snail, has always been notoriously over-statisticised; but I don't know that I have ever come across one, even there, so pricelessly recondite & malapropos as the one in my OP!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,crazy little woman
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:12 AM

Talk about recondite, M, I have no idea what you just posted. But that's okay, I'm sure you're correct.


===========
Here's another dumb statistic

We absorb 90% (or 95% or whatever) of our sensory input with our eyes.

Now how can anybody know that?

There's the question of individual variation, of course. My husband will be bothered by smells that I can't even detect. I, on the other hand, will hear background music that other people never notice.

I bet that if somebody conducted a study, they would find that Mudcatters notice sounds much more than a representative sample of couch potatoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:25 AM

CLW ~ you will find my recondite statistic in my OP as I said: i.e. Original Posting, the 1st one on the thread which I started it off with.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,crazy little woman
Date: 12 May 11 - 10:26 AM

Thanks, M. I thought OP was Operating Platform, or something like that. Cricket is a phone company, I know.

Guess I was utilizing the wrong paradigm and failed to think outside the box. No, wait, that's how we talk in the Psychobabble thread, not the statistics thread. Scratch that!

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:00 PM

The snowflake article is probably correct, but one weasel word is "complex" and the other, of course, is "identical."

What percentage of flakes in an ordinary snowfall (whatever that means) is "complex"? And when people make the claim about infinitely distinct snowflakes, don't they usually mean "distinct to the (nearly) naked eye"?

In other words, if I checked ten thousand snowflakes of all kinds at random, would any be "identical"? (A relatively low power magnifier would help me find "perfect" matches, because it could obscure   minute differences that might otherwise jump out at me.)

So, from the point of view of the physics of complex snowflakes, the article is probably right. From the POV of everyday experience, though, we still don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:17 PM

malaprop? 'one earth'? tsk... that is merely a simple, but irrelevant typing error to me.

The part that leaped out at ME was "Manchester United haven't conceded ..." My system treats a team as a collective noun, requiring 'hasn't'... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:49 PM

I have often heard it said (I live in Minnesota, remember) that "you lose 90 percent of your heat through your head." People cite this to stress the importance to wearing a hat in cold weather.

Surely the relative amount of heat you lose through your head depends on (1) the temperature and (2) how well protected the rest of your body is, compared to your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 May 11 - 05:08 PM

Bill D ~ most authorities like Fowler accept that a collective noun can correctly take a singular or a plural verb:   'The team play well together' or 'The team plays well together' ~~ both acceptable locutions. So don't worry too much about Man U's singularity or plurality in this context; but worry more about the absurdity of the association made in the fatuous statistic.

Jim ~ I have always heard 30% as the figure re heat lost thru head. Whatever the actual quantity, tho, I do find a hat a comfort in cold weather.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 11 - 05:13 PM

"Gnu ~ how "tautologically"?"

Prove it. If ya can't, it ain't true. That's a tautology. Ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 May 11 - 11:37 PM

No, Gnu: it is an illogicality or whatever. A tautology, strictly speaking, is an unnecessary repetition in different words: sometimes used for emphasis as a deliberate stylistic trope, e.g. "I hate & despise that" or "Go away; be off with you; bugger off!"; but often also misused to clumsy effect ~~ "What the minister said was stupid. No sensible person could think it intelligent."

Those are tautologies.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:30 PM

As in

What a bastard. He couldn't even get his own father to acknowledge him.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:07 PM

A statistic is a statistic, what is ridiculus is either the interpretation of the statistic(s)or the reason for collecting the statistical information.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:09 PM

MtheGM is talking about a rhetorical tautology.

Gnu and Leeniea refer to the logical kind, which is different.

However, I don't think gnu's example is a logical tautology either. Ordinarily a tautology is a statement of fact(not, as in Gnu's example, a conditional statement), the meaning of whose terms alone make it logically irrefutable.

Something may be true whether anyone can prove it or not. Is "Forbidden Planet" the hottest movie rental somewhere in outer space? I don't think so, but I can't prove it or disprove it. It might be. Does Zeus run the cosmos? Unlikely but not disprovable.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:42 PM

M... If it cannot be proven, it is not a tautology. It may be true, but tautologically false.

Truth tables at ten paces at dawn. My second shall be my old philosophy professor. (Yes, even engineers study philosophy... helps a lot in court.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 14 May 11 - 11:31 AM

SPB, it isn't true that a statistic is a statistic. Some statistics are lies, pure and simple.

Some people make up false statistics. Some invent phoney organizations which funded the non-existent studies which 'found' the statistics.

I think people in general need to be more aware that something upsetting may be an outright lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 14 May 11 - 12:35 PM

I believe, Leeneia, that a statistic really is a statistic.

The question is, is it a *true* statistic?

And if it is true, what - if anything - can logically be deduced from it?

Rule of thumb: a true statistic, all by itself, cannot lead to a sound conclusion.

Example: "The US population is 300,000,000."

So what? That doesn't even prove the US is a large country, because the statistic alone doesn't give us anything to compare itself to.

Is 300,000,000 people a lot for one country? It depends.

It's patterns that count, not isolated statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 11 - 02:14 PM

They used the same statistic as in the opening post again today, during the Blackburm match! Must be running out of things to say.

Did you know that if you laid all the statisticians in the world end to end they still wouldn't reach an agreement?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 11 - 06:20 PM

One in every five fatal road traffic accidents in the UK involves a driver who has been drinking alcohol.

So if we ban all of those drinking drivers we effect a twenty percent reduction in road deaths.

Of course, if we ban all those non drinking drivers, the reduction will be eighty percent.

Our government chose the former.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 14 May 11 - 07:18 PM

You mean the theoretical *increase* would be *four hundred* per cent, because then *all* the fatal road traffic accidents would be caused by drivers who've been drinking.

In reality, the precise increase would presumably be somewhat less, because (again presumably) some nondrinking drivers would drive despite the law, and would undoubtedly cause a certain number of additional accidents, slightly reducing the proportion caused by the drunkards.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bert
Date: 14 May 11 - 09:00 PM

...I've always wondered how anybody knows that no two snowflakes are alike...

Of course it is not true. 'Cos countless millions of them are made of the same stuff under strict crystal generation under exactly the same conditions. Stands too reason that that there would be many duplicates.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 15 May 11 - 07:36 AM

In my view, a statistic is nothing more than a mathematical instrument. I had to sit through 4 years of statistics and probability theory. A sample is a sample, a mean is a mean, a standard deviation is a standard deviation, etc.

The 'use' of statistics however can be rediculus when either inappropriate statistical methods are used to reach conclusions, or where conclusions are based upon insufficient or inappropriate or biased data.

For example, I could ask two people I meet in the street there ages, and from this 'conclude' that the average age of Londoners is, say 50. This is clearly a riduculus conclusion, but the statistic that the average age of the sample is 50 is 100% correct.

Most of the rediculus conclusions arise not from the statitics, but from the methodologies by which the samples are drawn, e.g. the sample size is two small, or the sample is biased.

For e

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 15 May 11 - 07:37 AM

or even too small

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 08:56 AM

SPB is absolutely right.

The sample size matters enormously, as do its randomness and representativeness.

These are among the most basic statistical concepts, taught in any freshman course on practical reasoning, but most people don't fully grasp them.

(By that I mean "most people in the United States," based on the more or less random, conceivably sort-of representative, certainly too tiny sample of my own personal experience. In other words, based on *my experience alone*, the conclusion about "most people" is extremely dubious.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:23 AM

I have sometimes found, faced with a 'most people' arguer, that "What is your statistical basis for that assertion?" can be an effective conversation-stopper.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:26 AM

""You mean the theoretical *increase* would be *four hundred* per cent, because then *all* the fatal road traffic accidents would be caused by drivers who've been drinking.""

Sorry Lighter, but I mean nothing of the sort.

My conclusion is valid (though in a mad sort of way), since I stated that the absolute total of road deaths would decrease by eighty percent. Correct?

You drew the conclusion about the proportion of those deaths which would be due to drunks all on your own, and at one hundred percent (give or take a couple) you were correct in that.

This is the lunacy of statistics, where two different viewpoints give seemingly incompatible results simply because neither understands what the other said.

Politicians are very good at misusing statistics in this way, though their "misunderstanding" is often deliberate.

As somebody once said, "Tell me what you want to prove and........"

Don T.





""The sample size matters enormously, as do its randomness and representativeness.""

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:41 AM

Good work, MtheGM. Your research not only confirms mine, it goes much further.

Since you're in another country, you make my sample even more representative of the entire human race.

In fact, because there are two of us working independently, your findings *could* be said to *double* the likelihood that the conclusion about "most people" is entirely sound.

(Of course, twice almost zero is still insignificant, but "doubling the likelihood" is impressive.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 May 11 - 11:27 AM

I think 56% is ridiculous. I mean, yes, it IS 12% above its inverse. But it is just so, well, indecisive, not a real commitment. A few points the other way, and the tables turn. And when you throw in the ubiquitous "margin of error" it just does not do it.

Now take 76%. THAT is a statistic. It is more than 3/4 of the total, not to mention that it is 51% above its inverse.

I say to the gallows with 56%!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 11 - 01:05 PM

Another lulu from a footie commentator in Arsenal v Aston Villa* this afternoon: "Over 1·8 million people have entered this ground this season". In fact, the same however many thousand have entered multiple times, adding up to gates totalling 1·8 million ~~ hardly the same thing.

~Michael~

*& did anyone ever see such a disgusting example of a vindictively inept referee as that baby Oliver ~~ patent penalties not given; a perfectly good goal disallowed for an imagined non-foul. I am not one who generally blames a referee for his side losing; but this time, honestly, we were robbed. Wonder what bookie that stinking little man Oliver had crept to, to back Villa to win?!

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 16 May 11 - 09:05 AM

That's right, M. And not only that, I'm sure the stat doesn't include the people employed at the place, who would no doubt account for quite a few more entrances.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 11 - 06:45 AM

Most statistics on this thread, are not statistics, and still ridiculous!
wink,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 11 - 02:34 PM

I like this one:~

Posted By Yahoo Lifestyle, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:36 BST
Don Gorske eats on average of two Big Macs a day. The problem is he now sometimes can't taste them.
The Wisconsin resident, 57, will eat his 25,000th McDonald's burger on May 17, exactly 39 years after he first tasted a Big Mac in 1972.
Gorske, who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder, has kept the receipts for every Big Mac he's ever bought and owns 10,000 Big Mac cartons. He also keeps two Big Macs in his luggage just in case he can't find a McDonald's.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: gnu
Date: 17 May 11 - 04:58 PM

"He also keeps two Big Macs in his luggage just in case he can't find a McDonald's."

NOW I think he's an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 17 May 11 - 06:15 PM

Even if the math is right, we can't tell from the "average" how many he'll eat on any given day.

Maybe some days he eats none at all, and other days he eats three or four.

Of course, if "25,000" is just an estimate, the average becomes even less reliable. And how likely is it that he's really kept track of every Big Mac he's eaten since 1972?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 11 - 08:27 PM

"... has kept the receipts for every Big Mac he's ever bought..."

He saved the FIRST one? What did he save and do before Big Macs?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 11 - 12:15 AM

Wow! Isn't it interesting how some of our statistic-hawks have swooped on this one to eviscerate it {IYSWIM}?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 18 May 11 - 08:26 AM

Update:

I just saw the man on the news. The peculiarities of his eating disorder allow him to - brace yourself - maintain normal weight and cholesterol levels.

His Big Mac feat has been recognized by the Guinness Book.

So the burger count, receipts, etc., appear to be accurate.

The value of knowing the "average," however, is still open to serious question. If his 25,000 receipts show that, by habit, he really did eat, literally, two a day, then that documentation would substantiate the claim without recourse to "statistics."

And we still can't *predict* how many a day he'll eat begining tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:24 AM

I just remembered an old 'statistic' I once read about.

It seem that at one time, there was for several years and almost perfect correlation between the sales of alcohol and the salaries of college professors.

I believe it was used in a statistics course to demonstrate the dangers of drawing too many inferences.....

I don't think that was a fair 'demonstration'. It was just the professors trying to claim that it wasn't them doing all the drinking!
It doesn't disprove the inference.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:24 AM

In 90% of longer threads, Leadfingers gets the 100th post.
Not this one.

100!

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:27 AM

The value of knowing the "average," however, is still open to serious question. If his 25,000 receipts show that, by habit, he really did eat, literally, two a day, then that documentation would substantiate the claim without recourse to "statistics."

Also, proof that he bought that number of Big Macs is not proof that he consumed them.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 May 11 - 07:34 AM

>Also, proof that he bought that number of Big Macs is not proof that he consumed them.

Quite correct. My pasteboard McDonald's hat is off to you.

Part of my willingness to believe came from the fact the CNN story actually *showed* him eating what was alleged to be a Big Mac. If it was him. If he didn't just spit out the food off-camera. If it was food.

And do we know who's *really* behind the Guinness Book that "verifies" these claims? I mean, do we really?

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: GUEST,brakn
Date: 19 May 11 - 09:12 AM

Manchester City have never had an average home gate for a season higher than Manchester United - well not since WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Ridiculous statistics
From: Hrothgar
Date: 19 May 11 - 09:25 AM

I think that it is about time somebody told statisticians that their number is up.